RAM Upgrade

[mank!]

OK, looking at upgrading my current 512mb of RAM to 1GB. My motherboard is a Epox 4BDA2 and according to Crucial this is what is compatible. I'm just wondering which people think would be the best?

thanks!

 

[leggy]

What speed is the module you already have?

If it's DDR 2100 I would just go for this http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/MPa...9A16C9A5CA7304&WSMD=EP-4BDA2+&WSPN=CT6464Z265

Cheap and cheerful.

 

[mank!]

I'm not sure. I bought all the stuff and put it together and I can't remember anything about the PC. I'll go look.

edit: Yeah, it's 2100. Will the 2100 be considerably slower than 3200?

 

[Mr.Monkey]

If you use two different types, they will typically run at the slower of the two speeds with Epox boards.
Hence save money by buying a matching set, or spend more and buy 1Gig of the fastest your MB supports!

 

[mank!]

If you use two different types, they will typically run at the slower of the two speeds with Epox boards.
Hence save money by buying a matching set, or spend more and buy 1Gig of the fastest your MB supports!

I've got two sticks of 256, so I would have to buy two sticks of 512 anyway.

 

[Clown]

You only have two ram slots? Wouldn't it work if he used two 512 sticks and a 256 one, but all the same speed?

 

[mank!]

fuck me your new avatar is scary

Aye, only the two RAM slots.

 

[Cdr]

Crucial suggest a load, I've got no idea what means what. That's why I'm asking here. Thanks for your contructive help though.

Did you expect anything less from RV?

 

[mank!]

Not particularly, no. Even a thread with a simple question like this can induce insults.

 

[Mr.Monkey]

You only have two ram slots? Wouldn't it work if he used two 512 sticks and a 256 one, but all the same speed?

If he had 3 slots, then you can use any combination of sizes, as long as you do not exceed the max ram supported by the MB.

My MB has three slots (hence I'm clearly not a fag) and has a max of 3gig ram.
But why I'd need that much is well beyond me.

Mank: If you are replacing your ram anyway, and have the money to burn then buy the fastest your MB supports. If you are scrimping, then buy one 512 stick of the same speed.
As to if you will be able to tell the difference in game? Prolly not, but it will improve the score in 3dmark 2003 etc.

 

[mank!]

Mank: If you are replacing your ram anyway, and have the money to burn then buy the fastest your MB supports. If you are scrimping, then buy one 512 stick of the same speed.
As to if you will be able to tell the difference in game? Prolly not, but it will improve the score in 3dmark 2003 etc.

So essentially I need to decide whether I want to save a bit of money and go for the 2100 instead of the 3200? I suppose I better wait and see if I got this job I'm applying for first.

 

[Mr.Monkey]

Exactly.
If you wanted to see what sort of benchmark differences you would get, 3dmark 2003 does offer a comparison search engine. So run the benchmark, and then compare it to someone elses system that is the same as yours, with the exception of the faster memory.

People may argue over the validity of the benchmarks, but the comparison system is the dogs bollocks.

 

[Scooba da Bass]

That doesn't give you any useful comparison though. It's like me deciding to measure the speed of a PC in mantlelogs and telling other people that their PC is 3 mantlelogs slower than mine, sure, you know yours is slower but how does that translate to anything you'll be able to notice?

 

[RedVenom]

Two shuttles actually, each with two slots.

 

[Mr.Monkey]

That doesn't give you any useful comparison though. It's like me deciding to measure the speed of a PC in mantlelogs and telling other people that their PC is 3 mantlelogs slower than mine, sure, you know yours is slower but how does that translate to anything you'll be able to notice?

Weeeeeeeel, seeing as the amount of mantlelogs is infact an index, it is far more useful than you suggest. It's a hell of alot better than nothing.

I'm not having a go at you, but I'm not sure if you've used 3dmarks software before. It wouldn't appear so.

As long as any unit of measurement gives the same result when applied to two similar systems, and has an index value (ie a zero, or a base standard), then it is useful in measurement.

3D Mark2003 is a benchmark for games. Typical scores on a good system is around 4-5k. Now an increase of 20 points wont tell you how many extra fps you will get in your fav game, it does tell you that it has a minimal effect on several different engines (ie less than 1%). An increase of 4000 points however, indicates the release of a bottleneck. You can go further in depth and see the FPS for each engine run in 3dmark2003, so if you happen to play a game on one of them, then there you go, a very real and very useful comparison.

3Dmark is much more than a simple score. It gives you a detailed breakdown of all the actual results of each test (in FPS and pixles per sec etc), then compiles that into one score (ofcourse it loses some value in so doing, due to the weighting of scores). The comparison I mentioned does actually provide this information.
But it would be very useful in manks situation.

 

[Xavier]

Exactly.
If you wanted to see what sort of benchmark differences you would get, 3dmark 2003 does offer a comparison search engine. So run the benchmark, and then compare it to someone elses system that is the same as yours, with the exception of the faster memory.

People may argue over the validity of the benchmarks, but the comparison system is the dogs bollocks.

3DMark '03 has a recommended spec of 512Mb RAM, so how would more memory make it go faster? Last time i looked the resultsbrowser didn't include scores for machines with 20 copies of MSWord running in the background. Besides which it's pretty clear from the resultsbrowser that it's about 80% GPU dependant, which makes for a pretty poor system memory benchmark.

RAM > 512Mb is generally going to let you run more simultaneously, only apps like Photoshop with hooge images which go beyond half a gig are going to appreciate any immediate difference.

That is, unless, by going from 512Mb->1Gb you're also going from a single to dual channel memory configuration. Which he isn't.

Xav

 

[Scooba da Bass]

He's talking about changing speeds, not just the size.

R->C->P

 

[Xavier]

That ePox board is Intel 845-based, a 100Mhz FSB and 400Mhz quad-pumped CPU bus. Fit as much DDR400 as you like but it only runs up to PC2100, fitting quicker ram will do zip, all the upgrade will provide is greater system memory.



Higher stock memory clocks will need a new motherboard AND CPU.

Xav

 

[mank!]

None of this makes any sense to me, but thanks for arguing amongst yourselves anyway.

 

[Scooba da Bass]

Apparently your PC doesn't support faster memory so get the 2100 thing.

 

[mank!]

Lovely! Ta.

 

[Mr.Monkey]

3DMark '03 has a recommended spec of 512Mb RAM, so how would more memory make it go faster? Last time i looked the resultsbrowser didn't include scores for machines with 20 copies of MSWord running in the background. Besides which it's pretty clear from the resultsbrowser that it's about 80% GPU dependant, which makes for a pretty poor system memory benchmark.

RAM > 512Mb is generally going to let you run more simultaneously, only apps like Photoshop with hooge images which go beyond half a gig are going to appreciate any immediate difference.

That is, unless, by going from 512Mb->1Gb you're also going from a single to dual channel memory configuration. Which he isn't.

Xav

Ermm, I quite simply won't answer something like that. I could explain it to you, but I'm pretty sure you are just looking for a flame war. Not really suitable for the tec forum.

So anyhoo, go look at the comparison chart mank. If your MB doesn't support it, then don't buy it!

 

[Xavier]

Ok, Mank has his answer, and Mr Monkey seems to have missed the point entirely. Thread Closed.