Memory stick speed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kenny S
  • Start date Start date
K

Kenny S

I have 2 sticks of memory that are 333mhz and 256 mb each.
One slot is free, what memory is best to get? A faster memory (say 400mhz)
or one that is 333 Mhz?
I want to add 1 stick of 512 MB to get a total of 1 gig.


---
 
-----Original Message-----
I have 2 sticks of memory that are 333mhz and 256 mb each.
One slot is free, what memory is best to get? A faster memory (say 400mhz)
or one that is 333 Mhz?
I want to add 1 stick of 512 MB to get a total of 1 gig.
Click to expand...
speeds, they will both run at the slower speed, but in
the long run it mayu be better to pay the extra couple of
pounds to get the 400mhz if you are looking to upgrade
again in the future.

hope this helps
 
Since it is impossible to run different modules at different speeds, I
would suggest getting another 333 MHz stick. If you are running the
current 2 in Dual Channel mode, adding another stick of memory will
actually decrease system performance. I would suggest just staying with
what you have as there really aren't many programs that use the full 512
MB of memory in the first place. Unless you do video editing or image
editing or other things that load a lot of information into the memory,
you just don't need it.

Nathan McNulty
 
Always, Always, Always match what you now have - EXACTLY!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
 
In
Kenny S said:
I have 2 sticks of memory that are 333mhz and 256 mb each.
One slot is free, what memory is best to get? A faster memory (say
400mhz) or one that is 333 Mhz?
I want to add 1 stick of 512 MB to get a total of 1 gig.
Click to expand...


You want to get memory that matched as closely as possible to
what you already have.

Also note that 400MHz memory is not faster than 333MHz memory.
Thise numbers are not speeds, but speed *ratings*. The actual
speed is set by the motherboard and all the memory will run at
the same speed.

400MHz is memory that has been tested and certified to run at
400MHz, and 333MHz only certified to run at that speed.
 
Ken Blake said:
In


You want to get memory that matched as closely as possible to
what you already have.

Also note that 400MHz memory is not faster than 333MHz memory.
Thise numbers are not speeds, but speed *ratings*. The actual
speed is set by the motherboard and all the memory will run at
the same speed.

400MHz is memory that has been tested and certified to run at
400MHz, and 333MHz only certified to run at that speed.
Click to expand...

LMAO!

Your reasoning power and logic are rich!
 
The laughs on you buddy.

400 mhz RAM "WILL" run at 333 mhz if the motherboard is set as such. If the
M/B has a max speed of 333 mhz, the RAM will never run higher.

Now, regarding overclocking.....?

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)



Ken Blake said:
In


You want to get memory that matched as closely as possible to
what you already have.

Also note that 400MHz memory is not faster than 333MHz memory.
Thise numbers are not speeds, but speed *ratings*. The actual
speed is set by the motherboard and all the memory will run at
the same speed.

400MHz is memory that has been tested and certified to run at
400MHz, and 333MHz only certified to run at that speed.
Click to expand...

LMAO!

Your reasoning power and logic are rich!
 
....do you mean that messy area where, for example, it would really have been
best to have spent an extra £10 or so, and bought that faster processor in
the first place ? :-)

regards, Richard
 
Actually, overclocking is a wonderful thing. Why spend more money one
something you can easily get for free and often end up with an even
better product. Right now I am running my computer at 3.9 GHz with a 1.2
GHz FSB on an Intel P4 2.6C. Even if I had spend the extra money (which
would have been quite a bit of money), I could not have gotten the same
performance. An Intel 3.4 GHz Extreme Edition could not compete because
the FSB is going to be a lot lower and eventually if you want to
overclock that processor, heat will be an issue. Now for people who have
LN Cooling, that is a whole nother story :)

Nathan McNulty
 
It always tickles me, when somone thinks they've achieved something
wonderful by running their hardware in excess of reccommended tolerances.
The manufacturers don't make reccommendations for fun, a lot of work goes
into them.

regards, Richard
 
I wonder about a FSB at 1.2 GHz, what does that do to timing
between various parts, how big is the hard drive buffer,
etc? How hot does it get? How much is the video oc'd (and
what kind is it)?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


| It always tickles me, when somone thinks they've achieved
something
| wonderful by running their hardware in excess of
reccommended tolerances.
| The manufacturers don't make reccommendations for fun, a
lot of work goes
| into them.
|
| regards, Richard
|
|
| | > Actually, overclocking is a wonderful thing. Why spend
more money one
| > something you can easily get for free and often end up
with an even
| > better product. Right now I am running my computer at
3.9 GHz with a 1.2
| > GHz FSB on an Intel P4 2.6C. Even if I had spend the
extra money (which
| > would have been quite a bit of money), I could not have
gotten the same
| > performance. An Intel 3.4 GHz Extreme Edition could not
compete because
| > the FSB is going to be a lot lower and eventually if you
want to
| > overclock that processor, heat will be an issue. Now for
people who have
| > LN Cooling, that is a whole nother story :)
| >
| > Nathan McNulty
| >
| > RJK wrote:
| >
| > > ...do you mean that messy area where, for example, it
would really have
| been
| > > best to have spent an extra £10 or so, and bought that
faster processor
| in
| > > the first place ? :-)
| > >
| > > regards, Richard
| > >
| > >
| > > "Richard Urban" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
| > > | > >
| > >>The laughs on you buddy.
| > >>
| > >>400 mhz RAM "WILL" run at 333 mhz if the motherboard
is set as such. If
| > >
| > > the
| > >
| > >>M/B has a max speed of 333 mhz, the RAM will never run
higher.
| > >>
| > >>Now, regarding overclocking.....?
| > >>
| > >>--
| > >>Regards:
| > >>
| > >>Richard Urban
| > >>
| > >>aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
| > >>
| > >>
| > >>| > >>
| > >>"Ken Blake, MVP" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
| > >>| > >>
| > >>>In | > >>>Kenny S <[email protected]> typed:
| > >>>
| > >>>
| > >>>>I have 2 sticks of memory that are 333mhz and 256 mb
each.
| > >>>>One slot is free, what memory is best to get? A
faster memory
| > >>>
| > >>>(say
| > >>>
| > >>>>400mhz) or one that is 333 Mhz?
| > >>>>I want to add 1 stick of 512 MB to get a total of 1
gig.
| > >>>
| > >>>
| > >>>You want to get memory that matched as closely as
possible to
| > >>>what you already have.
| > >>>
| > >>>Also note that 400MHz memory is not faster than
333MHz memory.
| > >>>Thise numbers are not speeds, but speed *ratings*.
The actual
| > >>>speed is set by the motherboard and all the memory
will run at
| > >>>the same speed.
| > >>>
| > >>>400MHz is memory that has been tested and certified
to run at
| > >>>400MHz, and 333MHz only certified to run at that
speed.
| > >>
| > >>LMAO!
| > >>
| > >>Your reasoning power and logic are rich!
| > >>
| > >>
| > >
| > >
| > >
|
|
 
Well, see I am on a P4P800 with a FSB of 300 x 4. There is a PCI/AGP
lock for that board which allows me to tune up the FSB/CPU speed without
affecting other components. As for the video card, it is a Radeon 9800
Pro that I flashed up to a Radeon 9800XT and overclocked from there.
The entire system is on air cooling and stays just under 60C on full
load (has a Zalman 7000Cu, Arctic Cooling VGA Silencer, 2 Panaflow 80mm
fans, and a modded Enermax PSU with dual Panaflow fans). My Northbridge
Chip is the hottest component in my computer right now even though I
have put a new chipset cooler on it. The HD is a Seagate SATA 160 GB HD
with a 8 MB buffer. The memory is PC 4000 running a bit slower than its
specs but at tighter timings as it could not handle the 50 MHz jump, so
I had to use a lower divider. Anyways, here is a great article that has
helped me with this project :)

http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/How-To/Overclocking-Your-P4-800FSB/

I have always bought the less expensive and then overclocked to a safe
level. I attempted to get over 4 GHz with my CPU, but the board was
unstable and crashed when trying to load Windows. I gave up on trying
to break 4 GHz and stuck it back down and ran system stress tests for a
couple of days to make sure it was rock solid. Haven't had a problem since.

Overclcoking is actually very safe as long as you know what you are
doing and test it out thoroughly. I admit overclocking will shorten the
lifespan of your hardware which instead of lasting a good 15-20 years,
it may only last half that. But who isn't going to upgrade after 5-10
years anyways? :)

Nathan McNulty
 
Thanks.


| Well, see I am on a P4P800 with a FSB of 300 x 4. There
is a PCI/AGP
| lock for that board which allows me to tune up the FSB/CPU
speed without
| affecting other components. As for the video card, it is a
Radeon 9800
| Pro that I flashed up to a Radeon 9800XT and overclocked
from there.
| The entire system is on air cooling and stays just under
60C on full
| load (has a Zalman 7000Cu, Arctic Cooling VGA Silencer, 2
Panaflow 80mm
| fans, and a modded Enermax PSU with dual Panaflow fans).
My Northbridge
| Chip is the hottest component in my computer right now
even though I
| have put a new chipset cooler on it. The HD is a Seagate
SATA 160 GB HD
| with a 8 MB buffer. The memory is PC 4000 running a bit
slower than its
| specs but at tighter timings as it could not handle the 50
MHz jump, so
| I had to use a lower divider. Anyways, here is a great
article that has
| helped me with this project :)
|
|
http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/How-To/Overclocking-Your-P4-800FSB/
|
| I have always bought the less expensive and then
overclocked to a safe
| level. I attempted to get over 4 GHz with my CPU, but the
board was
| unstable and crashed when trying to load Windows. I gave
up on trying
| to break 4 GHz and stuck it back down and ran system
stress tests for a
| couple of days to make sure it was rock solid. Haven't
had a problem since.
|
| Overclcoking is actually very safe as long as you know
what you are
| doing and test it out thoroughly. I admit overclocking
will shorten the
| lifespan of your hardware which instead of lasting a good
15-20 years,
| it may only last half that. But who isn't going to
upgrade after 5-10
| years anyways? :)
|
| Nathan McNulty
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > I wonder about a FSB at 1.2 GHz, what does that do to
timing
| > between various parts, how big is the hard drive buffer,
| > etc? How hot does it get? How much is the video oc'd
(and
| > what kind is it)?
| >
| >
 
Thats a very erroneous statement 'Overclocking is very safe' Overclocking is
EXTREMELY hazardous.
 
Not when it is done properly. Most hardware is rated much higher than
its defualt settings. I have built 4 Intel P4 2.6C systems and all of
them were max rated for 3.6 GHz and I could push them well past that
without losing stability. Maybe if you have really cheap hardware, or
OEM hardware, overclcoking is hazardous, but even then it is the user
who makes it that way. If you know what you are doing and monitoring
everything, it is safe ;)

Nathan McNulty
 
LOL, how is the laugh on me you brain turd?

Kenny stated without any other meaning, "Also note that 400MHz memory is not faster than 333MHz memory."

Now, explain how in the fü¢k 400mhz is not faster than 333mhz? Regardless of the MOBO making the speeds the same, 400 is faster than 333, or there are a lot of memory manufacturers lying their âsses off about their advertised speeds. My previous PC had 166mhz memory, and the MOBO allowed for that, though those speeds are never really actualised. My new PC is 400, and can get that, because the MOBO allows it. Even then, in Real Clock time, 400, typically runs at 200, and it runs 400 Effective, and everything is typically relative to that.
 
In
Tedd said:
LOL, how is the laugh on me you brain turd?

Kenny stated without any other meaning, "Also note that 400MHz memory
is not faster than 333MHz memory."

Now, explain how in the fü¢k 400mhz is not faster than 333mhz?
Click to expand...


400MHz is indeed faster than 333MHz. But 400MHz memory is not
faster than 333MHz memory. That's because those numbers are not
the speeds of the memory. They are maximums-- the speeds at which
the memory has been tested to work satisfactorily. Memory doesn't
itself have any speed, and runs at whatever speed the motherboard
runs.

Regardless of the MOBO making the speeds the same, 400 is faster than
333, or there are a lot of memory manufacturers lying their âsses off
about their advertised speeds.
Click to expand...


Nobody is lying. They are telling you the *ratings*, not the
speeds.The number is the maximum speed the RAM is expected to
work at.

The maximum age you might live to is somewhere around 120. That
doesn't mean that you are therefore 120 years old.
 
Ken, you just can't tell some thick heads!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
 
There are "odd" situations where ddr3200/200mhz performs less well than
ddr333/166mhz on some boards - from what I can gather/e.g. some nvidia
motherboard chipset peculiarities. ....where's Ken on this thread ?

regards, Richard
 
Back
Top