Amount of RAM for a K6-2

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

skubik

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2001
22
0
18,510
Hi all,

My system currently has a measly K6-2 333 CPU at it's core, with 64MB PC-100 SDRAM. I've been thinking of buying more RAM soon because it's so cheap right now. However, I could go all out and buy something like 512MB of RAM, but I wonder whether it's worth it. I was talking with a tech guy I work with and he said that even though the K6-2 can address up to 4GB of memory, at some point it just stops being efficient to do so. I'm just wondering what that point might be, or does it really matter?

I'm running Win2K on my system, and use it for all sorts of things. Everything from using Office to running MySQL and hosting PHP websites off of using IIS.

Any ideas? Would it be worth dumping an addition 512MB of RAM into my system, or should I get less because it'll go to waste anyway?

BTW, sorry if my post doesn't really fit with this board. :^)

- skubik
 
In windows 2000, anything over 384 is too much unless your running a server. The performac gain above 384 is unnoticable, and thats on my 1.4 athlon system.

When I go into a computer store I lose all means of reason for some reason.
 
personnelly i have a k6-2 533 aand it chockes at 512 also you would have to buy pc133 i would stay with pc100 and only buy 256mb, pny brand
 
How does your 533 choke at 512MB?

I've been reading on some other boards, that you apparently CAN mix PC100 and PC133 (since those are just manufacturers maximum speed 'guarantees'... read that over at anandtech.com), but one guy I talked to said that he didn't notice ANY performance gains until he removed his PC100 module and ONLY had the PC133... and he was using the same mobo I am.

One thing that I'm a little confused with though, is that some RAM is mlabelled 'PC133 CAS2 SDRAM', whereas others are not. Generally the modules with the CAS2, is more expensive. Anyone know what this is, and whether it's worth it, especially on my system?

- skubik
 
PC133 is backwards-compatible, and thus can run at PC100 speeds. Both can run at PC66 speeds, BTW. PC133 is generally cheaper, so get that. The reason that guy didn't see any performance gains until he took out the PC100 is because his system was trying to run at a 133 Front Side Bus, but the PC100 was limiting it to a 100FSB.

CAS means Column Access Stroke (I think), and refers the the latency, or how long the CPU has to wait between requesting information from the memory, and receiving it. Lower is better. CAS2 memory is guaranteed to run at CAS2 (and will auto-detect to set at that), CAS3 will sometimes work at CAS2, but not always.

You can change this in the BIOS.

My advice: by 256meg of PC133 from <A HREF="http://www.crucial.com" target="_new">Crucial</A>.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
 
So I assume that the bus speed can be set somehow, correct? So I won't have the same problem that that other guy had running PC133 and PC100 on the same system.

As for the CAS. I've been looking at several local vendors for RAM, and I've noticed that some of the RAM does *not* have CAS at all, whereas some do... and are usually about $10 more expensive than those that don't. I'm pretty sure my existing RAM does not have CAS of any kind, so would adding RAM with CAS2, for example, cause problems? What kind of performance issues are there around CAS vs. Non-CAS? Is it a huge noticable difference?

- skubik
 
Who is the memory vendor for the PC100 stick. Crucial/Micron can, most of the time, tell you if you don't know. You will need the DIMM out when you call. (800)336-8896. you can read off the memory chip numbers and they can look it up. Could take some time. Good Luck!

<b>Nice day for a mow. - My Blue Heaven</b> :lol:
 
All memory, well SDRAM, has a CAS. <b>C</b>olumn <b>A</b>ccess <b>S</b>trobe. The lower the number the lower the latency. AKA it is faster.

<b>Nice day for a mow. - My Blue Heaven</b> :lol:
 
I read the posts in this thread and wanted to offer a bit of advice.
It occurs to me that if you are using a 333MHz CPU, the FSB of that CPU is supposed to be 133MHz (133*2.5), which means that because you are currently running PC100 SDRAM the CPU has been clocked DOWN to 100MHz on the FSB. If you install the proper 133MHz RAM you will seen an improvement in system performance.

Earlier Bum JCRules had a good point that I believe you missed. He mentioned that you should buy 1 piece of 256Mb PC133. I fully agree.
Do not try to "add" to your current memory, just get a single 256Mb module to REPLACE your current chip.
I have been informed that WindowsXP is the only WIN OS that can utilize more then 256Mb of RAM, so go with that much for now.

Go AMD or go home.
 
No, my FSB is definitely limited to 100. Unless updating my BIOS changed that, but I doubt it. When I bought my system, PC133 was a 'coming attraction' to the world of computers. The only thing that you ARE correct on, is that I am running a 333mHz K6-2. On my board (Asus P5A), using this CPU with my mobo doesn't fully use all the potential of the FSB. I think it's actually running at 85mHz or something... so upgrading the CPU would probably be a good thing. Problem is, all the places I've looked to get a faster K6-2 chip, also carry Duron chips for the same price, so why bother? If I could find somewhere that sells new K6-2s or K6-3s CHEAP, then I'll go that route... for now. Can't afford a new mobo right now.

I don't quite understand why I should REPLACE my existing memory as opposed to adding onto it. Obviously there may be differences with the speed, or more specifically, the CAS. But beyond that, I don't get what the big problem is.

As for Windows XP...don't plan on using it. I'm running Win2k Pro right now, and will begin moving completely to Linux by the new year.

- skubik.
 
I believe the K6-2 ran at 5x66.6 for the 333mhz in the P5A
You can buy a stick of 512mb. The memory will step down to 66 np. But u may have to split it up into 2x256 for proper operation

Blame the newbies not the technology
 
You're right. I looked at the technical docs for my P5A board, and it won't accept anything above a 256MB DIMM... so I'll have to split it up. But again, even then it'll still run at something less than the full 100mHz FSB.

- skubik.
 
Don't run more than 128MB of RAM on your K6-2. I have a K6-2 450MHz that disables the L2 cache at anything over 128MB.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
How do you know? There is no way to tell. It's just my old K6-2 450MHz IBM Aptiva says that the cache is automatically disabled with more than 128MB RAM.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
The secondary bios report screen tells you if it is enabled. But since your are using an Aptiva there is no secondary report screen. I guess you will have to use a prog like CpuID

Blame the newbies not the technology
 
it would work best a t128 MB or 256 MB, if you put more, you wont be using your heavy apps on this one anyway.

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
 
What's considered a 'heavy app' though? I do a LOT of multimedia development and web application authoring (ASP, PHP), and use programs like Dreamweaver Ultradev, Photoshop 6.0, then obviously there are the local servers (IIS or Apache, and MySQL) that run behind the scenes. Meanwhile I often keep Outlook Express open for E-Mail. I usually have a few windows of IE open (right now I have 3... and I'm not even developing anything), ICQ, usually have either the CD Player or Winamp going, plus I have Firewalls and Pop-up killers running in the background.

I imagine 256 would be enough for all that, but if I can spare a few bucks for some extra space, why not do it? Or does it really not matter?

-skubik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom