667Mhz vs 800Mhz RAM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alex
  • Start date Start date
A

Alex

Hello ...

I'm getting a PC quote for a workstation, and my options are 2 Gigs of
800Mhz ram or 3 Gigs of 667Mhz ram. I assume the 3 gigs is a better
route, but just curious if there will be that much improvement going
with 800Mhz over 667Mhz.

This system will be used for graphic and software development, using
Visual Studio, Photoshop, and also Flash, plus occasionally video
editing.

Just curious -- Thanks,

Alex
 
Alex said:
Hello ...

I'm getting a PC quote for a workstation, and my options are 2 Gigs of
800Mhz ram or 3 Gigs of 667Mhz ram. I assume the 3 gigs is a better
route, but just curious if there will be that much improvement going
with 800Mhz over 667Mhz.
Click to expand...
I believe that might depend on the bus speed of the motherboard and CPU. If
the CPU has a 667 MHz clock, the faster RAM probably would make no
difference at all.
 
You will probebly allso need to consider weather you are having it in dual
channel
or not.
I'm not certain as to the real-world differences ...a lot depends on what
CPU .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse
 
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "WhzzKdd"
I believe that might depend on the bus speed of the motherboard and CPU. If
the CPU has a 667 MHz clock, the faster RAM probably would make no
difference at all.
Click to expand...
OTOH, if the CPU runs that fast (otherwise why offer the difference?)
then I'd suspect the machine would run faster on-average with the faster
yet smaller memory; as most such machines only rarely run up against
memory limitations; while actual speed-of-running is there *all* the
time.
 
You will probebly allso need to consider weather you are having it in dual
channel
Click to expand...

I doubt whether the weather will have anything to do with it at all.
Anyone know any meteorological newsgroups?
 
Frank McCoy said:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "WhzzKdd"

OTOH, if the CPU runs that fast (otherwise why offer the difference?)
then I'd suspect the machine would run faster on-average with the faster
yet smaller memory; as most such machines only rarely run up against
memory limitations; while actual speed-of-running is there *all* the
time.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. On XP, I can hardly tell the difference between the two
machines I use most - my PC at home and at work. Same processor, but one has
1Gig, the other has 1.5Gig.
 
Two gigs of 800 MHz will allow you to use the dual channel memory feature to
double your memory bandwidth. You cannot use dual channel mode with 3 GB of
RAM.
 
Two gigs of 800 MHz will allow you to use the dual channel memory
feature to double your memory bandwidth. You cannot use dual channel
mode with 3 GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

Unless it's a 64 bit CPU and has 2 dual bands. Then you could have 2 1 gig
dimms and 2 512 meg dimms. Neener.

Jerry
 
Two gigs of 800 MHz will allow you to use the dual channel memory feature to
double your memory bandwidth. You cannot use dual channel mode with 3 GB of
RAM.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not familiar with the dual channel memory feature... what is
this?

Sam
 
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Alex said:
Hmm, I'm not familiar with the dual channel memory feature... what is
this?
Click to expand...
It uses two sticks of memory as one; accessing both at the same time for
faster (double) throughput. They have to be matched; and the
motherboard designed for that purpose.
 
Frank McCoy said:
It uses two sticks of memory as one; accessing both at the same time for
faster (double) throughput. They have to be matched; and the
motherboard designed for that purpose.
Click to expand...
Keeping that in mind, I doubt very seriously if you would see any difference
between 2 gigs and 3 gigs at all, even with the memory hungry programs you
are using. I would go the faster rather than the bulk route myself.

Ed
 
Back
Top