How to determine-66MHz or 100Mhz???

  • Thread starter Thread starter BABU
  • Start date Start date
B

BABU

I'm having a 3yrs old PC with 64mb of system RAM(SD).Now I
want to increase the RAM,so I bought another 128mb of RAM
(SD) which I want to add to the previous one so that my
total system memory becomes 64+128=192mb. But I'm afraid
if the frequencies(66MHz or 100MHz) of both the RAMs dont
match, what will be the result??? In such a case, how does
one understand that the RAMs frequencies are not
mathcing??? How to detect the frequencies of the
individual RAMs??? Please suggest..
Thanks in advance..
 
In
BABU said:
I'm having a 3yrs old PC with 64mb of system RAM(SD).Now I
want to increase the RAM,so I bought another 128mb of RAM
(SD) which I want to add to the previous one so that my
total system memory becomes 64+128=192mb. But I'm afraid
if the frequencies(66MHz or 100MHz) of both the RAMs dont
match, what will be the result??? In such a case, how does
one understand that the RAMs frequencies are not
mathcing??? How to detect the frequencies of the
individual RAMs???
Click to expand...


Despite what many people think, these numbers are not actually
the speed of the RAM, but their speed *rating*. It's the fastest
speed the RAM has been tested and certified to work at. The
actual running speed is set by the motherboard, not by the RAM.

So as a general rule, it doesn't hurt to add faster RAM to a
computer with slower RAM. The newer RAM will continue to run at
the motherboard speed (the speed of the slower RAM) and will be
running well within its limits.

However adding slower RAM will likely cause a problem, since the
newer RAM will be forced to run at the higher speed, and may fail
at that speed.

Over and above all this is the fact that Windows XP is very picky
about RAM, and often fails if the RAM is not matched exactly.

One final point, 64MB, as I'm sure you realize if you've been
using it, is grossly inadequate to run Windows XP, despite its
being the official minimum. Going to 192MB will definitely help,
but my normal recommendation is that everyone should have at
least 256MB (perhaps more, depending on what apps you run). Since
your RAM seems to be mismatched and problems are likely, it might
be worth your while to buy another 128MB stick exactly like the
other one (same brand, specs, etc.) and replace the 64MB stick
with it.
 
You should have whatever is the minimum that XP will operate in PLUS at
least 8mb for each major application installed..
 
Also, please keep your questions to one post. See my response to your
other post as you may want to see the answer to #2 as well as this question.
 
In
Mike H said:
You should have whatever is the minimum that XP will operate in
PLUS
at least 8mb for each major application installed..
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's not at all correct.

Rules of thumb like that are almost invariably wrong. What you
say implies that if you had Windows XP and the only installed app
was Microsoft Word 2003, 72MB would be enough. That is
emphatically *not* true. Install ten such apps, bringing you to
144MB, and it's still very far from true.

What apps you have installed hardly matters at all. What's
significant is what apps you run, and how large are the files you
open with them.

How much RAM you need to run an application depends on what the
application is. They are far from being all the same.

And finally 8MB for any major app is *far* too little.
 
Greetings --

It is absolutely essential that any new RAM module(s) be fully
compatible with both the motherboard and/or any other RAM module(s)
already in the system. Additionally, there are sometimes jumper
switches on older motherboards that need to be reset for new RAM
configurations. Consult your motherboard's manual or the
manufacturer's web site for specific instructions and compatibility
requirements.

If you cannot lay your hands upon the computer's manual and the
manufacturer doesn't provide a support web site, you can use these
utilities to help determine the correct type of RAM needed:

SiSoft's Sandra
http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.php?dir=&location=sware_dl&lang=en

Belarc Advisor
http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

Unlimited Possibilities' AIDA32
http://forum.aumha.org/overflow/aida32.zip

Also, Crucial Memory's web site (www.crucial.com) has a database
to help to find the right RAM for your specific make and model
computer and/or motherboard.


Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
 
It would have been helpful to know the chipset used and the CPU used
(and it's speed, both total speed, and "front side bus").

Actually, it's possible that the speed is any of 66, 100 or 133 MHz, but
I think that 133 MHz is not terribly likely.

For the most part, any memory type will work at a lower speed, so, for
example, much 100 MHz memory will work at both 66 and 100 MHz.

There's another issue, however, which is memory internal organization.
Basically, the bottom line here is that some newer memory won't work
with some older chipsets. The issue is not speed, per se, but rather
the way the memory is organized internally vs. what the chipset expect.
However, newer memory also tends to be faster memory, so you get a
result that not all memory is backwards compatible, although the issue
isn't purely speed.

In most cases, if the memory module will fit into the memory socket
(same number of notches and in the same location), and it's the same
general type of memory (e.g. SDRAM), it's safe to try it, even if it
ends up not working. If you try it, the 1st test is whether it is seen
correctly (e.g. the system reports, in your case, 192 meg of memory).

The next test is to run a good memory diagnostic [Memtest86] through at
least a few complete passes and get zero errors.

If all of that works, you can safely assume that everything is fine. If
you don't get that far, then you have a bad memory module (if you have
never run a memory diagnostic, don't totally rule out the possibility
that you 64 megs of "old" memory isn't perfect).

Anything less than perfect memory with zero errors is completely and
totally unacceptable.
 
Re. installed apps, one assumes that if somebody installs apps, they also
use them..

If one had 64mb installed and needed to add extra memory, the smallest
capacity memory module of the type most frequently to be found is 64mb, so
one would end up with 128mb, and not 70mb as you suggested.. above the
stated minimum on the XP box, eh.. add to that the fact that IE in its
original form needed 32mb for its own use, and later versions required 64mb,
the memory requirement rises quite dramatically.. you have to ask yourself
why it is that pc suppliers still set the base RAM levels so low.. but then
they always did only supply enough memory to allow Windows operation at
initial start up on their low to medium offerings..

Maybe MS might consider changing the running specs on the side of the box
too.. 256mb should be considered the minimum RAM requirement.. I should have
qualified what I said, but forgot that the minimum suggested on the box is a
joke..

I don't think that XP is much use running in less than 512mb, but I did read
the info in my original post somewhere recently.. I just don't remember
where.. I also question whether 8mb is enough to run a major application,
bearing in mind what MS Word 2003 can do compared to MS Word 2.. if I find
the page again, I will suggest that it is updated.. I thought about it at
the time, but was sidetracked..


Stay safe.. Mike H
 
yeah , but how or by what symptoms can one understand
that the 2 RAMS are not matching in frequency terms???
 
Back
Top