which is better, 512MB at 333+mhz, or 768MB at 292mhz w/ s..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have 3 slots total for DDR ram on an Nforce2 motherboard, running a
mobile Athlon XP (not multiplier locked), with Win XP. I have 3 256MB
modules, two are PC2700, one is PC2100. The PC2100 module maxes out
at 292mhz (real bus speed of 146). Will I get better performance if I
run with 512MB, using only the PC2700s, at 333mhz or however fast the
memory can run at (it probably should hit 350mhz with any luck),
adjusting the multiplier to keep CPU speed at the level it seems
stable at, about 2400mhz, or if I use all three modules to get 768MB-
with the bus speed lower, 292mhz, but the multiplier higher to keep
the CPU at 2400? I do open a lot of IE windows sometimes, and use
office programs, so I think I hit the swap file sometimes with 512MB.

Again, 2 choices: 1. CPU ~2400mhz 768MB Ram @ 292mhz
2. CPU ~2400mhz 512MB Ram @ 333-360mhz
What kind of applications would run better with choice 2, and by how
much, 10%? Less?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Dave Arbok" <rocker1@shegolfs.com> wrote in message
news:f74816b5.0408022057.a2f2df7@posting.google.com...
> I have 3 slots total for DDR ram on an Nforce2 motherboard, running a
> mobile Athlon XP (not multiplier locked), with Win XP. I have 3 256MB
> modules, two are PC2700, one is PC2100. The PC2100 module maxes out
> at 292mhz (real bus speed of 146). Will I get better performance if I
> run with 512MB, using only the PC2700s, at 333mhz or however fast the
> memory can run at (it probably should hit 350mhz with any luck),
> adjusting the multiplier to keep CPU speed at the level it seems
> stable at, about 2400mhz, or if I use all three modules to get 768MB-
> with the bus speed lower, 292mhz, but the multiplier higher to keep
> the CPU at 2400? I do open a lot of IE windows sometimes, and use
> office programs, so I think I hit the swap file sometimes with 512MB.
>
> Again, 2 choices: 1. CPU ~2400mhz 768MB Ram @ 292mhz
> 2. CPU ~2400mhz 512MB Ram @ 333-360mhz
> What kind of applications would run better with choice 2, and by how
> much, 10%? Less?

I don't think it's going to make much of a difference either way. But I'd
suggest you go with 512MB @333. There are two reasons. First, your system
will be running slightly faster, and won't likely suffer from a shortage of
RAM at 512MB. Second, multiple sticks of RAM can cause instability
problems, even if you don't overclock. In other words, 2 sticks @ 333 would
be better than 3 sticks @333 (for example). But 3 sticks with one
overclocked is really NOT a good idea. -Dave

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

your buying applications that will fit your machine and not building a
machine for the apps you'll be using.....this is backwards. More ram
at a lower speed would be better for some reasons, unless your going
to sit in front of a benchmark, then use the faster. 10% faster doing
WHAT?




"Dave Arbok" <rocker1@shegolfs.com> wrote in message
news:f74816b5.0408022057.a2f2df7@posting.google.com...
> I have 3 slots total for DDR ram on an Nforce2 motherboard, running
a
> mobile Athlon XP (not multiplier locked), with Win XP. I have 3
256MB
> modules, two are PC2700, one is PC2100. The PC2100 module maxes out
> at 292mhz (real bus speed of 146). Will I get better performance if
I
> run with 512MB, using only the PC2700s, at 333mhz or however fast
the
> memory can run at (it probably should hit 350mhz with any luck),
> adjusting the multiplier to keep CPU speed at the level it seems
> stable at, about 2400mhz, or if I use all three modules to get
768MB-
> with the bus speed lower, 292mhz, but the multiplier higher to keep
> the CPU at 2400? I do open a lot of IE windows sometimes, and use
> office programs, so I think I hit the swap file sometimes with
512MB.
>
> Again, 2 choices: 1. CPU ~2400mhz 768MB Ram @ 292mhz
> 2. CPU ~2400mhz 512MB Ram @ 333-360mhz
> What kind of applications would run better with choice 2, and by how
> much, 10%? Less?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> "Dave Arbok" <rocker1@shegolfs.com> wrote in message
> > I have 3 slots total for DDR ram on an Nforce2 motherboard, running
> > mobile Athlon XP (not multiplier locked), with Win XP. I have 3 256MB
> > modules, two are PC2700, one is PC2100. The PC2100 module maxes out
> > at 292mhz (real bus speed of 146). ...
> > the CPU at 2400? I do open a lot of IE windows sometimes, and use
> > office programs, so I think I hit the swap file with 512MB.
> >
> > Again, 2 choices: 1. CPU ~2400mhz 768MB Ram @ 292mhz
> > 2. CPU ~2400mhz 512MB Ram @ 333-360mhz
> > What kind of applications would run better with choice 2, and by how
> > much, 10%? Less?

>"JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message >news:<10gvbcq97s6v5cd@corp.supernews.com>...
> your buying applications that will fit your machine and not building a
> machine for the apps you'll be using.....this is backwards. More ram
> at a lower speed would be better for some reasons, unless your going
> to sit in front of a benchmark, then use the faster. 10% faster doing
> WHAT?

What does "use the faster" mean? Use the less ram? Why?
I see that I was unclear in my first message. I am not planning on
buying new applications, and I am not building a new machine. I'm
just trying to decide if I will see any real benefit from removing my
slower module. Right now, I have 768MB RAM, running at 292mhz, cpu
speed 2400, the system is rock stable. One chip is a PC2100, if I
took it out, I could raise the bus speed to at least 333, probably a
bit faster, I would keep the CPU the same.
I think the 768MB will help with some types of applications, and I
think the memory bus speed / bandwidth might help with different
applications. I am wondering which types of applications would like
the extra 333 bandwidth more than they would like the extra 256MB, and
how much of a difference it would make for those applications. 333 is
12% faster memory than 292, and it might hit 350mhz, which is 16.5%
faster, but I would be giving up 256MB to get it, I just want to know
if its worth it.
Applications that don't use a lot of ram might like the bandwidth
more, but on the other hand, if they don't use a lot of ram, maybe the
ram bandwidth won't help them. Some of the apps I am curious about
are Office applications, and The Gimp, but also games like Doom3, Far
Cry. Which, if any, would benefit enough to make it worth pulling out
my extra 256MB to run at the faster memory bus speed?
Thanks.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

speed is good quantity is better............better to have too much
"""slower""" ram than not enough ''''faster ram'''''' any time the
system needs to access the swap the speed is no longer the question.
512 will take you to...e.g. a 70 layer flash production with adobe PS
7 in the background with a 30 meg file open and do some work,,, pooof
the 512 is gone....the system will kick back 32 megs or so..but PS
will use the scratch disks. at this point speed is moot. If you are
really into memory speed and management look at a Mac.


"Dave Arbok" <rocker1@shegolfs.com> wrote in message
news:f74816b5.0408032059.69d4c25b@posting.google.com...
> > "Dave Arbok" <rocker1@shegolfs.com> wrote in message
> > > I have 3 slots total for DDR ram on an Nforce2 motherboard,
running
> > > mobile Athlon XP (not multiplier locked), with Win XP. I have 3
256MB
> > > modules, two are PC2700, one is PC2100. The PC2100 module maxes
out
> > > at 292mhz (real bus speed of 146). ...
> > > the CPU at 2400? I do open a lot of IE windows sometimes, and
use
> > > office programs, so I think I hit the swap file with 512MB.
> > >
> > > Again, 2 choices: 1. CPU ~2400mhz 768MB Ram @ 292mhz
> > > 2. CPU ~2400mhz 512MB Ram @ 333-360mhz
> > > What kind of applications would run better with choice 2, and by
how
> > > much, 10%? Less?
>
> >"JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<10gvbcq97s6v5cd@corp.supernews.com>...
> > your buying applications that will fit your machine and not
building a
> > machine for the apps you'll be using.....this is backwards. More
ram
> > at a lower speed would be better for some reasons, unless your
going
> > to sit in front of a benchmark, then use the faster. 10% faster
doing
> > WHAT?
>
> What does "use the faster" mean? Use the less ram? Why?
> I see that I was unclear in my first message. I am not planning on
> buying new applications, and I am not building a new machine. I'm
> just trying to decide if I will see any real benefit from removing
my
> slower module. Right now, I have 768MB RAM, running at 292mhz, cpu
> speed 2400, the system is rock stable. One chip is a PC2100, if I
> took it out, I could raise the bus speed to at least 333, probably a
> bit faster, I would keep the CPU the same.
> I think the 768MB will help with some types of applications, and I
> think the memory bus speed / bandwidth might help with different
> applications. I am wondering which types of applications would like
> the extra 333 bandwidth more than they would like the extra 256MB,
and
> how much of a difference it would make for those applications. 333
is
> 12% faster memory than 292, and it might hit 350mhz, which is 16.5%
> faster, but I would be giving up 256MB to get it, I just want to
know
> if its worth it.
> Applications that don't use a lot of ram might like the bandwidth
> more, but on the other hand, if they don't use a lot of ram, maybe
the
> ram bandwidth won't help them. Some of the apps I am curious about
> are Office applications, and The Gimp, but also games like Doom3,
Far
> Cry. Which, if any, would benefit enough to make it worth pulling
out
> my extra 256MB to run at the faster memory bus speed?
> Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 2 Aug 2004 21:57:18 -0700, rocker1@shegolfs.com (Dave Arbok) wrote:

>I have 3 slots total for DDR ram on an Nforce2 motherboard, running a
>mobile Athlon XP (not multiplier locked), with Win XP. I have 3 256MB
>modules, two are PC2700, one is PC2100. The PC2100 module maxes out
>at 292mhz (real bus speed of 146). Will I get better performance if I
>run with 512MB, using only the PC2700s, at 333mhz or however fast the
>memory can run at (it probably should hit 350mhz with any luck),
>adjusting the multiplier to keep CPU speed at the level it seems
>stable at, about 2400mhz, or if I use all three modules to get 768MB-
>with the bus speed lower, 292mhz, but the multiplier higher to keep
>the CPU at 2400? I do open a lot of IE windows sometimes, and use
>office programs, so I think I hit the swap file sometimes with 512MB.
>
>Again, 2 choices: 1. CPU ~2400mhz 768MB Ram @ 292mhz
> 2. CPU ~2400mhz 512MB Ram @ 333-360mhz
>What kind of applications would run better with choice 2, and by how
>much, 10%? Less?

If you are accurate about the RAM speeds, I would rather have 512 of
faster RAM than 768 and have the one chip slow the rest down. Unless
you plan on actually utilizing more than 512, like running TONS of
apps simultaneously or extremely data-intensive software (in which
case your hard disk speed would even be more important), you will
probably benefit from the speed more than the actual amount of RAM.

I would not say this if it were 256 vs 512, but after 512 you're
pretty good.


---Atreju---