Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:44:06 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter
I also was surprised at your previous message and I don't think your
response here addresses that item. Your response here is a reminder that
RAM is much faster virtual memory.
Your previous message indicated, without reference to how it is being
used, that two sticks of the same RAM (not necessarily "matched" RAM)
will run at a slower speed than one stick. I was always under the
impression that RAM will run at least at its designated speed whether
there is one stick or multiple sticks. Although the normal user would
probably never notice any speed differential, your information is
technically interesting. I would be interested in a "why" type
explanation or a reference.
Thanks
Tom Mayer
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/27/2006 4:28:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Very interesting. My MB, a MSI RS482M4 (MS-7191) with 4 memory banks, can
> according to the manual run @ 400MHz with all 4 memory blocks polulated, but
> will in real life only do it with two blocks, which brings me to a question:
> what is preferable - 1GB @ 400 or 2 GB @ 333 ?
>
>
>
> Hi,
> That would depend on what you are running. If everything you run
> simultaneously requires less than 1GB of RAM, then the 1GB @ 400 would be faster (by a
> little bit). However, if your memory usage goes over the 1GB limit, then it
> would have to start swapping to virtual memory, i.e. the hard drive. That
> slows things down tremendously (compared to RAM, a hard drive moves data at a
> snails pace). In this case, the 2GB @ 333 would be significantly faster.
>
> HTH,
> Peter Hogan
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> PCBUILD's List Owners:
> Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
> Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
PCBUILD's List Owners:
Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|