Does RAM have anything to do with the proccessor or MB?

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Fri May 30, 2003 10:41 pm

klinky wrote:Which ever one is cheaper .

I second that motion.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 2:58 am

dwchang wrote:
Akashio wrote:Which brand is better? Corsair, Kingston, or Atlas?
My experience suggests Corsair. They also have nice policies if you have bad bits.

Plus their RAM looks cool too

I have Kingston RAM, only 256mb unfortunatley, so editing is a bit slow, but I would rather have 2x512mb Corsair because..... It would be better.

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:12 am

SS5_Majin_Bebi wrote:
dwchang wrote:
Akashio wrote:Which brand is better? Corsair, Kingston, or Atlas?
My experience suggests Corsair. They also have nice policies if you have bad bits.
Plus their RAM looks cool too

I have Kingston RAM, only 256mb unfortunatley, so editing is a bit slow, but I would rather have 2x512mb Corsair because..... It would be better.

I have three 512meg RAM stick's in mine, but I can afford them too!

the draw-back to having a lot of memory is minimal - for the Processor rarely uses more than 256meg for any one program ^^

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:01 am

=o

Incorrect sir. First it's mainly up to the OS to allot memory out to the programs running. Second, what happens when you have 1 program that needs that 256MB, oh but you have 17 IE windows open Photoshop & Premiere.

Try switching between those.

I have 1280MB of PC133 SDRAM, I noticed a definite improvement over 256MB when working with multimedia projects. I can switch between Premiere & Photoshop with almost zero lag time. This is even when I have multi-megapixels worth of images open in Photoshop with Premiere having a sizable project.

There are definite benefits for having more than 256MB. As long as you can afford it, you might as well max out your motherboard or get as much as you can.

~klinky

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 2:02 pm

more memory ^_^ absolutely . . . hey, we finally agree on something ^_^
but not for the same reasons
my prosessor's clock speed is 1466mhz so I match my memory to the clock speed ( 512meg X 3 )

this was how we were told to build computers - back in the Unisys/IBM Card day's of the 1960's ^^

FurryCurry · Post by **FurryCurry** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 2:30 pm

post-it,
your last assertion was so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

Processor clockspeed & the number of Mb in a system have nothing whatsoever to do with each other in a modern x86 system.

The only relevant numbers are the processors' frontside bus speed vs. the speed and data rate of the RAM. (DRAM latencies are a minor factor, and not the focus of this discussion.)

You hopefully want to use RAM that at least matches the data rate of your processor's frontside bus, as dwchang said.

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 3:11 pm

ok . . maybe you are right and I don't know what I'm doing ^^
after all is said and done, nothing I have ever built from scratch has crashed or locked-up sence 1983
<img src="http://www.lastpole.com/furry/raimuiro_shake.gif"><img src="http://www.lastpole.com/furry/raimuiro_shake.gif"><img src="http://www.lastpole.com/furry/raimuiro_shake.gif"><img src="http://www.lastpole.com/furry/raimuiro_shake.gif"><img src="http://www.lastpole.com/furry/raimuiro_shake.gif">
End Of Line.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:48 pm

post-it wrote:my prosessor's clock speed is 1466mhz so I match my memory to the clock speed ( 512meg X 3 )

512x3 ≠ 1466!

512x3 = 1536!

Silly little man.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:52 pm

the Black Monarch wrote:
post-it wrote:my prosessor's clock speed is 1466mhz so I match my memory to the clock speed ( 512meg X 3 )
512x3 ≠ 1466!

512x3 = 1536!

Silly little man.

He has more RAM than processor power...hehehe...He LOOOOOVES the ram...

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 4:32 am

Well, that's not really comparable, since CPU clock speed is measured in cycles per second while RAM is measured in a number of binary digits. You can't really compare the two. However, you could say he has more GigaHertz in the CPU than GigaBytes in the RAM... it's still meters and liters, but at least you now have a quality to attach to your quantity.

CPU speed is starting to become meaningless anyway. A 2.0 Ghz Centrino performs like a 3.0 Ghz P4.

------

All this stuff about matching RAM to CPU clock speed can be done, but it's not a matter of how much RAM you have. It's amatter of how fast your RAM is. RAM has a clock speed just like the CPU does. But you can't match the RAM speed to the CPU speed. You have to match the RAM speed to the CPU's Front Side Bus speed, which is multiplied by another number to produce the actual clock speed. For example, the Pentium 4 initially came with a FSB speed of 400 Mhz. This means you want your RAM speed to be a number that 400 is evenly divisible by, such as 100, 133, or 200 Mhz. Anyone with a 400 Mhz FSB and 233 Mhz RAM, such as myself, is commonly described by the highly technical term "FUKT" However, if I got a P4 with a 533 Mhz FSB, then... oh wait, I'd still be fukt. So if I downgraded by RAM from 233 Mhz to 200 Mhz, would that make my computer slower because of slower RAM, or faster because of improved synergy between the RAM and the CPU? Aw fuck it, I'm not buying more RAM.