RAM dilema: Quality versus Quantity?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have a stick of 512MB 333 MHz RAM, and another stick of 400 MHz RAM.

For an Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754) system, am I better off installing
both sticks, or just the 400 MHz RAM? 1 GB of RAM running at 333 MHz,
or 512 MB of RAM at 400 MHz? I'll be using this computer mostly for
gaming, by the way.

Does a computer running 333 MHz RAM suffer too great a disadvantage
when compared to one with a 400 MHz RAM?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Opticreep wrote:

> I have a stick of 512MB 333 MHz RAM, and another stick of 400 MHz RAM.
>
> For an Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754) system, am I better off installing
> both sticks, or just the 400 MHz RAM? 1 GB of RAM running at 333 MHz,
> or 512 MB of RAM at 400 MHz? I'll be using this computer mostly for
> gaming, by the way.
>
> Does a computer running 333 MHz RAM suffer too great a disadvantage
> when compared to one with a 400 MHz RAM?


To be realistic, do your benchmarking with the 400mhz 512 only, then with
the 333 mhz 512 only. That's the most apples-to-apples comparison you can
do. I'm guessing you won't see much difference.

Not every system capable of running 400 mhz memory will actually see any
benefit from it. Y'd think an A64 3000 would, but there are a lot of other
factors that affect memory performance.

And even if you get higher framerates at some points with just the faster
memory, I'd be willing to bet you'll suffer in other areas vs. having 1G
mixed or not.

The best advice is: Play the games. If your experience isn't satisfying,
then do something. Otherwise don't worry about it.



--
"By this logic, teaching anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities is
going to turn white people black." --OrangeSFO on rec.gambling.poker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e1f277e.0410011134.583a2182@posting.google.com...

" For an Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754) system, am I better off installing
both sticks, or just the 400 MHz RAM? "


Sell the 333FSB stick on eBay, and buy another that matches the 400FSB one.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 1 Oct 2004 12:34:33 -0700, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep) wrote:

>Does a computer running 333 MHz RAM suffer too great a disadvantage
>when compared to one with a 400 MHz RAM?

As RAM is about 10,000 times faster than HD, if your PC needs more
than 512MB then you are far better off with the larger amount of
slower RAM.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message news:<cjkjbo02uuc@news3.newsguy.com>...
>
>
> And even if you get higher framerates at some points with just the faster
> memory, I'd be willing to bet you'll suffer in other areas vs. having 1G
> mixed or not.
>
> The best advice is: Play the games. If your experience isn't satisfying,
> then do something. Otherwise don't worry about it.


That's it then, I'm sticking in both RAM sticks into the PC (bad pun,
I know).

From all the responses I got, I get the impression that a RAM clocked
at 400 MHz gives minimal performance boost compared to 333 MHz. It's
probably not even noticeable without the use of benchmarks. Whereas a
1-GB memory system gives great performance boost over one with only
512 MB RAM. Especially when I have antivirus, Peer-to-peer sharing,
and various other applications running in the background.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 1 Oct 2004 12:34:33 -0700, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep) wrote:

>I have a stick of 512MB 333 MHz RAM, and another stick of 400 MHz RAM.
>
>For an Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754) system, am I better off installing
>both sticks, or just the 400 MHz RAM? 1 GB of RAM running at 333 MHz,
>or 512 MB of RAM at 400 MHz? I'll be using this computer mostly for
>gaming, by the way.
>
>Does a computer running 333 MHz RAM suffer too great a disadvantage
>when compared to one with a 400 MHz RAM?

Just FYI:-
Hopefully you are using XP or Win2000, otherwise the question is
academic. Max usable RAM for the other Windows OS is 512Meg.
They have to be patched not to crash with any bigger physical RAM
installed.

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I'd say go for the 1 gig setup.

Have tested my system at 333 mhz and 400 mhz speeds with 3dmark2003 and
there isn't much difference. Think the extra 512 megs will benefit more than
the couple of extra mhz.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Jumpkick" <nospam@me.com> schreef in bericht
news:415dbc0d$0$61752$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl...
> I'd say go for the 1 gig setup.
>
> Have tested my system at 333 mhz and 400 mhz speeds with 3dmark2003 and
> there isn't much difference. Think the extra 512 megs will benefit more
than
> the couple of extra mhz.


Do like me and just benchmark

put the 512mb 400 mhz stick in and becnh

put the 333mhz stick along besides it and bench again

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <415dbc4f$0$61770$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Jumpkick <nospam@me.com> wrote:
> put the 512mb 400 mhz stick in and becnh
> put the 333mhz stick along besides it and bench again

It may not tell you much. You'll only see a real performance
difference in the benchmark -- and a big difference -- when the
benchmark allocates enough RAM to exceed 512MB.

The answer to the original poster's question is deceptively simple:
you need more than 512MB if you run applications that will use it.

Will your applications use it? That I cannot say.

Rick R.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote
> On 1 Oct 2004 12:34:33 -0700, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep) wrote:

>>I have a stick of 512MB 333 MHz RAM, and another stick of 400 MHz RAM.
>>For an Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754) system, am I better off installing
>>both sticks, or just the 400 MHz RAM? 1 GB of RAM running at 333 MHz,
>>or 512 MB of RAM at 400 MHz? I'll be using this computer mostly for
>>gaming, by the way.
>>
>>Does a computer running 333 MHz RAM suffer too great a disadvantage
>>when compared to one with a 400 MHz RAM?
>
> Just FYI:-
> Hopefully you are using XP or Win2000, otherwise the question is
> academic. Max usable RAM for the other Windows OS is 512Meg.
> They have to be patched not to crash with any bigger physical RAM
> installed.

Sometimes it's a guessing game, nice catch IMO.

In that case, maybe it isn't worth having the extra RAM. In any case, if
the memory is installed, you can cope by either setting the maximum catch
size or by limiting Windows 9x usable memory, both are done in MSCONFIG.

Take care.






>
> John Lewis
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Cuzman wrote:

> "Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9e1f277e.0410011134.583a2182@posting.google.com...
>
> " For an Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754) system, am I better off installing
> both sticks, or just the 400 MHz RAM? "
>
>
> Sell the 333FSB stick on eBay, and buy another that matches the 400FSB one.
>
>
>

Did you read the question?