Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (
More info?)
Your memory is currently running asynchronously to your FSB (hence why your
FSB/DRAM ratio is 3:4, 100 / 3 * 4 = 133). FSB is 100MHz (clock), while the
memory is 133MHz (clock), or PC2100 (133MHz clock x 2 (DDR) x 8 (bytes wide)
= 2100). So the fact you have another PC2700 module installed is causing
*that* module to be underclocked to match the PC2100, which is to be
expected.
You frankly have quite a mixed environment there. Your CPU is an older P4
w/ 100MHz (clock), while the most current generation of P4's are 200MHz
(clock). In between these two, we had a generation of P4's 133MHz (clock).
So you're back two generations. At the time of your P4's heyday, PC1600
would have been an ideal match, i.e., synchronous (100MHz clock x 2 (DDR) x
8 (bytes wide) = 1600). But the PC2100 does work, if asynchronously.
So everything is as expected, your system is configured properly, its
normative given the components you have and their limitations. If you
suspect that your PC2100 memory *might* be able to run a little faster,
something closer to PC2700, you could try overclocking it by specifying a
FSB/DRAM ratio of 3:5 (100 / 3 * 5 = 166). But that assumes several
factors. a) the PC2100 module can run @ PC2700 speed, b) that you have
some room for slight voltage changes should it proof necessary to help
stabilize the memory c) that's there even a 3:5 FSB/DRAM ratio available
(maybe not)!, d) your motherboard support 166MHz memory speed (possibly
could, but perhaps only w/ a faster CPU, e.g., 133MHz clock, w/ a 4:5
FSB/DRAM ratio, and e) you're willing to OC the memory w/ the risk of
damaging it if you don't know what you're doing!
IOW, everything is fine on your setup, but if you're looking to explore the
possibility of getting up to PC2700 memory speeds, you might have to OC, or
else swap another PC2700 for the current PC2100. Btw, even then, w/ that
100MHz P4 (this is really holding you back), you still need to verify that
your mobo supports the necessary FSB/DRAM ratio (3:5). The only other
option would be to OC the FSB too, in hopes of running the CPU @ 133MHz
(clock), two sticks of PC2700 @ 166MHz, using a FSB/DRAM ratio of 4:5 (133 /
4 * 5 = 166).
Totally confused at this point?
If you take nothing else away from this,
know all is OK on your config.
HTH
Jim
"Waheeba" <Waheeba@aol.com> wrote in message
news:OyM6mD$JEHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ok. I have a Pentium 4, 1.8ghz and this is the info the CPU-z program gave
> me.
>
> FSB = 100.9mhz
> Bus Speed = 403.6mhz
>
> Then under a section called Timing, it says:
> FSB: DRAM is 3:4
> Frequency is 134.5
>
> What do you think about this? Any suggestions?
>
>
>
> "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message
> news:QOyhc.26366$Yf6.14892@fed1read07...
> > Ideally, it's more important and advantageous that the CPU FSB and
memory
> > run at the same speed. IOW, the FSB and memory "clocks" are
synchronous.
> > Since you didn't mention anything about your processor, it's hard to be
> > precise here, I can only speak in general terms.
> >
> > Suppose you have an Athlon XP 2600 "Barton" 333MHz (DDR), that's 166MHz
> > "clock". If you installed only PC2100, which is 133MHz "clock", then
> > (assuming no overclocking) you'd be running the CPU FSB @ 166MHz, but
the
> > memory at 133MHz, i.e., "asynchronously". As a general rule, computers
> run
> > more efficiently when the FSB and memory clocks are "in sync". The
> Barton
> > would be better matched to the PC2700 (166MHz "clock"). On the other
> hand,
> > suppose you had an Intel P4 533MHz (133MHz "clock") CPU. In this case,
> the
> > PC2100 (133MHz "clock") would be a better match, since it runs
> synchronously
> > w/ the CPU FSB.
> >
> > That's why you really can't discuss memory selection outside the context
> of
> > the CPU (or more precisely, the FSB). There's a relationship between
the
> > CPU FSB and memory that's relevant too, not just the pure speed
potential
> of
> > the memory. Trying to discuss the best configuration of your PC w/o
> regard
> > to both, it like trying to get a quality picture w/ your camera and
> > discussing only the lens aperture or shutter speed. It takes BOTH to
get
> > the right exposure, not just one or the other.
> >
> > Some people do claim better performance when the FSB and memory are
> > asynchronous, but lots of empirical testings has shown that in most
cases,
> > unless the differences are substantial, the benefits are so slight as to
> be
> > hardly worth the effort. Here's an example of a recent examination of
> > running two identical configurations, one 250/250 (sync), vs. 250/200
> > (async):
> >
> >
>
http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/memory/corsair/xms3200LLPRO/index.htm
> >
> > The benefits of 250/250 (PC4000) vs. 250/200 (PC3200) are so slight, who
> > could be bothered. Of course, the fact that latencies are a real
problem
> at
> > these speeds contributes significantly to the lack of performance gains,
> > most PC2700 and PC2100 could probably run w/ closer timings, and so
there
> > might be a slightly better case for the PC2700 in an asynchronous
> > configuration.
> >
> > Of course, some people over-buy memory (PC2700 when PC2100 will do) if
> they
> > intend to overclock the CPU FSB. This way, as they increase the CPU
FSB,
> > the memory remains underclocked and doesn't become a bottleneck to
> > successful OC'ing of the FSB. Whether this is a concern or interest to
> you
> > is beyond this discussion, I just want to complete the picture, since
> there
> > are people who *do* buy faster memory for such reasons.
> >
> > As an aside, anytime you *mix* memory speeds (PC2700 and PC2100), it's
> > doubtful your motherboard will support the faster of the two by default
> (By
> > SPD). If it will support the faster speed of the two, and that's iffy,
it
> > would only happen if you *manually* set the Memory Freq (and timings) in
> the
> > BIOS. Most any motherboard is going to default to the most conservative
> > configuration.
> >
> > But for most mere mortals, you match the CPU FSB and memory speed for
> > typical, normal, everyday operations.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > "Waheeba" <Waheeba@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:OSe%23HF8JEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Thank you Jim and Quang.
> > >
> > > Would I really notice the difference between 2700 and 2100 anyway?
Would
> I
> > > notice the difference in gaming or music editing?
> > >
> > > "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message
> > > news:xCxhc.25914$Yf6.9141@fed1read07...
> > > > Memory can only run at ONE speed and set of timings, therefore, the
> > lesser
> > > > of the two is always used to configure it. In this case, PC2100
> (266MHz
> > > > DDR) runs slower than PC2700 (333MHz DDR). CPU-Z (I'm not familiar
> with
> > > it)
> > > > is most likely measuring *actual* runtime configuration, NOT the
> > > > specification (i.e., potential) of each module.
> > > >
> > > > HTH
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Waheeba" <Waheeba@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:uSHTko7JEHA.3980@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > > I have one ram module that is PC2100 and the other is PC2700. They
> > both
> > > > show
> > > > > in system properties and in the free program called CPUz. I am
> > wondering
> > > > > though, is the 2700 module reading at the slower 2100 level?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram