| Author |
Message |
Wayne Lewis
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
While strolling through Sprawl*Mart, I saw HPs and Compaqs on sale -- both stating PC2700 and 533FSB. Now I thought PC2700 was for the 333FSB and the 533 needed PC4200. Not that I'd buy one of these myself, but does this sound like a scam -- or just a typo 333 (533) ??? Or will it really work?
|
Moderator (Es)
Username: Es
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
533FSB refers to 133 quad pumped for Intel P4 models. So in reality DDR 266 is perfect enough. DDR 333 spec memory will run at DDR 266 speed just fine. |
Wayne Lewis
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 8:59 pm: | |
So I take it that this quad-pumping is only Intel. I am am AMD person, and have not had this experience. |
Wayne Lewis
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
So If DDR 266 (PC2100), when quad-pumped, is acceptable for up to the 800FSB why use PC2700 or higher? Availability?
I am also guessing that the DDR2 is the dual-channel I've been hearing about.
Is there a good site to read about these newer memory standards? |
Moderator (Es)
Username: Es
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
Quad pumped architecture is part of the Intel Memory host controller. AMD is Double pump architecture, thats why 333 FSB exists, its really 166 FSB doubled. DDR2 is not dual channel, DDR2 is the next version of memory architecture much like how SDRAM DIMM's replaced SIMM's. |
Wayne Lewis
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:12 am: | |
So, then isn't DDR 266 PC2100 ? If so, then why not use it insted of the PC2700 ? |
Moderator (Es)
Username: Es
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
266DDR is 133 doubled obviously, what the PC2100 relates to is the theoretical maximum bandwidth of the memory. PC2700 has a higher theoretical bandwidth and will improve performance in programs such as games that require higher bandwidth. It's not just about cpu speed any more, it's more about how fast data can be transferred from point A to point B with minimum lag and maximum through put. |
Moderator (Es)
Username: Es
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Thats why CPU speeds for the most part haven't increased much in the last year or so but the front side bus or memory speeds have. |
Wayne Lewis
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
Are you then referring to devicies like AGP cards that share main memeroy for texturing being able to access the memory faster than the FSB speed i.e. asynchronous -- or asychronous bus speeds for ALL devices? What other components would access faster than the FSB speed? |
Moderator (Es)
Username: Es
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
The shared memory video is a good example. |
Wayne Lewis
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Thanks. So, I'm going to assume from your answer that the bus is asynchronous. |
Moderator (Es)
Username: Es
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
On many new chipsets the bus is async. |
