upgrading memory -- performance difference?

[unkn2232324]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I got an old P3 1 GHz computer, with a mother board that has a 133 or
100 MHz FSB. I will either have:

1. 512 MB SDRAM @ 100 MHZ FSB
2. 256 MB SDRAM @ 133 MHZ FSB

I don't too much graphic/audio editing, so that's not a concern. I
also do not play games often. Most of the time I am either
compiling/writing programs, using the internet, or watching movies.
That being said, would there be any real performance difference
between those two?

512 MB would be good so I never use swap space, but at the same time,
I'm not sure how often I would actually go over 256 MB seeing how I
use my computer. I currently use Linux (Gnome and KDE) and Windows XP.

Any opinions for this old machine? Thanks.

 

[unkn2232324]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <slrnchq32b.he2.cung@remsun1.ews.uiuc.edu>, G wrote:
>I got an old P3 1 GHz computer, with a mother board that has a 133 or
>100 MHz FSB. I will either have:
>
> 1. 512 MB SDRAM @ 100 MHZ FSB
> 2. 256 MB SDRAM @ 133 MHZ FSB

Just to clear up any confusion, the motherboars I have has the option
of changing the FSB/CPU Frequency ratio. So, the FSB and CPU
frequencies do not have to be 1 to 1, but can by other values, such as
4 to 3 (e.g. I can have a 133 MHz FSB with a cpu external frequency of
100 MHz).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <slrnchq32b.he2.cung@remsun1.ews.uiuc.edu>, G says...
> I got an old P3 1 GHz computer, with a mother board that has a 133 or
> 100 MHz FSB. I will either have:
>
> 1. 512 MB SDRAM @ 100 MHZ FSB
> 2. 256 MB SDRAM @ 133 MHZ FSB
>
> I don't too much graphic/audio editing, so that's not a concern. I
> also do not play games often. Most of the time I am either
> compiling/writing programs, using the internet, or watching movies.
> That being said, would there be any real performance difference
> between those two?
>
> 512 MB would be good so I never use swap space, but at the same time,
> I'm not sure how often I would actually go over 256 MB seeing how I
> use my computer. I currently use Linux (Gnome and KDE) and Windows XP.
>
Hmm...

I found KDE on SuSE to be alot happier with more RAM. TBH for the price
difference you might as well go for 512MB.

--
Conor

Do gooders are your most dangerous enemies. Never turn your back on the
devious bastards.

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:45:32 +0000, G while doing time wrote:

> I got an old P3 1 GHz computer, with a mother board that has a 133 or
> 100 MHz FSB. I will either have:
>
> 1. 512 MB SDRAM @ 100 MHZ FSB
> 2. 256 MB SDRAM @ 133 MHZ FSB
>
> I don't too much graphic/audio editing, so that's not a concern. I
> also do not play games often. Most of the time I am either
> compiling/writing programs, using the internet, or watching movies.
> That being said, would there be any real performance difference
> between those two?
>
> 512 MB would be good so I never use swap space, but at the same time,
> I'm not sure how often I would actually go over 256 MB seeing how I
> use my computer. I currently use Linux (Gnome and KDE) and Windows XP.
>
> Any opinions for this old machine? Thanks.


Both systems will do better with more ram. The question is which memory
will run on your board? Some boards are very picky about the size and
type of SDRAM it will use. For example, my I810E (with PIII-933 133FSB)
will only accept maximum sized 256MB for a total of 512MB and those must
be 32x64 type architecture, so 512MB and high density 256MB chips will not
work regardless of the FSB. Also although the M/B FSB is 133 MHZ it will
run both chips at the slower of either memory chip whether 66/100/133.

Adding 128MB to my FC2 for a total of 384MB increased performance time
30-50%. Unfortunately that 128MB is faulty so I'm on borrowed time with
it in the machine.