SDRAM versus DDR

If you're doing nothing but starting your system and idling after, 256 megs
would be more than enough

"Dave" wrote in message
...
I have got 768 MB of SDRAM (133 MHz) on my system.

If I go to a DDR mobo then how much 3200 DDR-400 would I need to
get to roughly match the performance of the SDRAM?

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:24 -0400, "Mike" wrote:

If you're doing nothing but starting your system and idling after, 256 megs
would be more than enough


If that's all you're doing, wouldn't a stick, a feather, and a pile of
pebbles be more than enough?

Pebbles were a dead end format after PC100 ram. I've seen some systems
with sticks that wouldn't post. Haven't tried feathers; don't have the bucks.
Maybe the next upgrade....

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:31:34 GMT, kony wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:24 -0400, "Mike" wrote:

If you're doing nothing but starting your system and idling after, 256 megs
would be more than enough


If that's all you're doing, wouldn't a stick, a feather, and a pile of
pebbles be more than enough?

~~~~~~
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
]

~~~~~~
Remove "spamless" to email me.

256 megs, the minimum for running XP. The new board will so completely
blow away the old board that it will win with both hands tied behind
it's back.

[But, as a practical matter, you should probably get 512 megs of memory.
Even with SDRAM, it's unlikely that the last 256 megs did much for you
anyway.]

Dave wrote:
I have got 768 MB of SDRAM (133 MHz) on my system.

If I go to a DDR mobo then how much 3200 DDR-400 would I need to
get to roughly match the performance of the SDRAM?

not a fair comparison.

DDR and SDRAM may run at the same speeds, but DDR has double the bandwidth.

So, for the same theoretical throughput.. you could get the same MB/s moved
with 1/2 the amount of DDR.

But thats just dumb...

NuTs

"Dave" wrote in message
...
I have got 768 MB of SDRAM (133 MHz) on my system.

If I go to a DDR mobo then how much 3200 DDR-400 would I need to
get to roughly match the performance of the SDRAM?

dual channel is marketing hype...

Not enought real benefit. To my mind, it would have to be at least 20%
performance increace for me to justify the need to buy 2 sticks. I havent
read anything that suggest that anything more that just over 10% can be had.

NuTs

"Dumdedo" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:10:20 GMT, Barry Watzman
wrote:

256 megs, the minimum for running XP. The new board will so completely
blow away the old board that it will win with both hands tied behind
it's back.

[But, as a practical matter, you should probably get 512 megs of memory.
Even with SDRAM, it's unlikely that the last 256 megs did much for you
anyway.]

Dave wrote:
I have got 768 MB of SDRAM (133 MHz) on my system.

If I go to a DDR mobo then how much 3200 DDR-400 would I need to
get to roughly match the performance of the SDRAM?


But you need 2 DDR Rams to get Dual Channel Memory, I would not get a
MoBo
that did not support Dual Channel DDR 400 Memory

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:34:47 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:

Dumdedo wrote:

I have got 768 MB of SDRAM (133 MHz) on my system.

If I go to a DDR mobo then how much 3200 DDR-400 would I
need to get to roughly match the performance of the SDRAM?


But you need 2 DDR Rams to get Dual Channel Memory, I would
not get a MoBo that did not support Dual Channel DDR 400
Memory


I read somewhere that the performance improvement (for non gamers)
of dual DDR was very small indeed. Is that misleading?

It's not much even for gamers. Typically less than 10%. unless it's also
serving as the frame buffer for integrated video.

Rob Stow has a great answer here. I'd listen to him.
Knowing what XP likes to have, memory-wise, and seeing applications only
becoming more memory-intensive, if I were you I would get two sticks of 512
meg each. If you can't afford that much right now, get one at a time. A gig
of RAM is a great all-purpose amount. However, like was mentioned, if you do
something like video editing, you almost can't have enough RAM.

On 4/8/2004 2:44 AM Dumdedo brightened our day with:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 23:27:19 -0500, "NuT CrAcKeR"

No its not, the Memory bench mark I get is some 80% faster..

Sorry, that's just wrong.


--
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

Steve [Inglo]

NuT CrAcKeR wrote:
dual channel is marketing hype...

Not enought real benefit. To my mind, it would have to be at least 20%
performance increace for me to justify the need to buy 2 sticks. I havent
read anything that suggest that anything more that just over 10% can be had.

You can view that differently: if you get a P4 3.4Ghz this will be 6%
faster at maximum than a P4 3.2Ghz, yet people buy that even if it costs
150USD or so more (not me, of course ;-)). Dual channel memory which
likely offers a higher performance increase overall is thus a bargain,
as 2 256MB modules hardly cost more than 1 512MB module (not to mention
if you want 1GB, you'd need 2 modules anyway unless you want to buy the
really expensive 1GB modules).
I'd agree though dual channel memory is a waste on Athlon XP systems,
the performance increase is pretty much non-existant (except synthetic
measurements below 2% or so), unless you use the integrated graphics on
a board.

Roland