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]>