Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

tough memory decisions...

Last response: in Memory
Share
September 6, 2001 7:05:05 AM

I'm not thinking of buying memory now, but it is very interesting whats out there:

I am to tired to find links.

kingston pc2100 is better than crucial but it is like $50 for 256 meg

crucial pc2100 is $38 for 256 meg

corsair and other pc2400 chips are like overclocked pc2100 chips or something, for $70 256mb

now there is pc2700=DDR333Mhz comin out or already being made?

Rambus is better but intel crap is too expensive.

I think people should buy the crucial why its cheap, overclock it, and wait till pci-x and serial ata before upgradin. I'm goin to bed. I shouldn't even post this. Tell me why you think bout hte above.

More about : tough memory decisions

Anonymous
a b } Memory
September 6, 2001 12:45:03 PM

Like the song kingston town

If it ain't broke don't fix it

<A HREF="mailto: techie2000@supanet.com "> techie2000@supanet.com </A>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 6, 2001 4:43:20 PM

Ok, here goes:

1. Kingmax is NOT better than Crucial (at least not by most people). If you have a preference for Kingmax, go for it. Still good RAM.

2. PC2400 is kinda the same as PC150. It'll only go up to 150MHz if you overclock your FSB. If you're going to do that, go for it. I've heard the OCZ stuff is good, and Mushkin is always a favorite.

PC2700 is being produced by Nanya, a company related to Via. No chipsets support it, as of yet.

RDRAM is not necessarily better than SDRAM (including DDR).



My advice is to get Crucial 2100, or Mushkin if you plan to overclock.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
September 6, 2001 9:45:55 PM

I haven't tested either, but that link I gave says it is way better than crucial.
September 6, 2001 9:49:41 PM

I mean better because it beats crucial in every benchmark.
September 6, 2001 10:40:42 PM

Those are some strange looking chips...
I can tell you right off that Crucial has awesome customer support. Don't know if that makes a difference. Ok, let me look at this link.

Wow, impressive. Good benchmarks, and they got it to a 162 FSB. Assumedly at CAS3, but even so...
There's something not right with their benchmarks. It shows OCZ giving a benchmark at 160MHz, but then say the max they could get it to was 154MHz. Maybe they didn't make sure it was stable before running benchmarks? Didn't see anything else.

Anyhow, that Kingmax looks like really good stuff. Don't forget to take a look at Mushkin, if you haven't yet.


Are you planning on overclocking?



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
September 6, 2001 10:56:16 PM

Nope it was at CAS2:
"Kingmax's behalf is that while the memory is rated only CL2.5 the memory ran CL2 up to 160Mhz FSB and CL2.5 at 162Mhz."

yeah I'm planning on overclocking. Maybe kingmax isn't compatible with everything. crucial is like $37 kingmax is $50 pc2400 is $65... as I said. Tough memory decisions.
September 6, 2001 11:00:23 PM

I see your point about the ocz ram. That is wacked. It pobably wasn't running stable at 160Mhz, but the max the could get it to stably was 154Mhz.
September 7, 2001 4:22:41 PM

Right, because they said they tested stability with 3DMark 2001. That's what I figured, too.

And 160MHz at CAS2...nice



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
!