233MMX, 64MBs 66MHz ram, Asus TX97. Will a bump to 160MBs improve performance considerably?

[GreenLantern]

Like I said,
and I know "will more ram help" questions are rampant, but I cannot find any threads that address a system as old as this one.
Running Win98, and would like to try W2K.
Office2000 apps run okay, and photoshop runs... barely. Halflife and DukeNukem are the only games that have run decently on it.
I loaded up W2K once and tried to run Photoshop and got denied right away: "Not enough memory to load this app".
Anyone tried to breath life into such a machine?

 

[GreenLantern]

Right now PC133 ram is cheaper than 66MHz ram.
Can I put a stick of PC133 into my TX97? I know it cannot run at 133MHz, but will it work at all?

 

[sMashPiranha]

Your running 2k on that machine!? I would have to recommend a whole new computer, but yes more RAM always helps. You should be able to run any speed of RAM in your machine as long as it is equal to or above 66mhz.

 

[sandorski]

May not help. It depends on how much ram your mobo and not the OS can cache. Look in your manual for the amount of cacheable ram your mobo can handle. It is probably 128mbs, but might be as low as 64mb. Also, be aware that your mobo probably has a limit on which ram it can effectively use. PC133 might work, but if it doesn't meet certain criteria, you may find that the mobo doesn't report/use the full amount of ram you install, if it works at all.

Perhaps someone with more experience(especially recent experience)will see this thread and respond.

 

[ukDave]

your whole (old + crappy )system will cause adding more ram to have little effect. It will help a bit but you just need a new pc. Sorry.

 

[michec]

The TX chipset can only cache the first 64MB of RAM, although it will support up to 256MB. If you use a CPU that has on-die cache (i.e. K6-2+, K6-3+, or K6-3), you will be able to cache the entire 256MB.

I don't know if the TX97 supports the K6-2/3+ processors. There are only a few motherboards that do. With your 233MMX CPU, though, the most you can cache is 64MB. If you have more than 64MB, then the extra memory will slow down your system.

I think what I read about memory is this: you can cache the first 64MB of memory. Memory use is done from the back to the front. If you have 64MB of memory, the first place memory will be used will be around the 64th MB. Therefore, if you have more than 64MB such as 96MB, the first place memory is being used will be around the 96th MB. However, only the first 64MB is cached, so you get slower performance because the memory from 65-96 is used up first. When you start using over 32MB of memory, that is when you get into the first 64MB that is cached. If you put in 160MB of memory, you will have to use up 96MB of memory before you get into the part of the memory that is cached.

Also, older motherboards may have stricter memory requirements. PC133 modules should work, in general, but the motherboard may complain if you have double-sided modules mixed with single-sided modules.

 

[compudog]

Just a note. If you carefully examine the DIMM slot of your TX board, somewhere in the middle of the plastic will be printed 3.3V. (It may or may not be there.) Whatever memory you decide to add MUST be 3.3 Volt. I dug out some old TX boards to see the DIMM slots and they all have this 3.3V printed on them. Michec is also correct in the memory caching. While adding RAM can't hurt, it may not help you at all.

 

[HotWire]

With the price of a 700-800 MhZ duron (OEM) around $30-$40 I can't see holding on to a 233 today, try and retail it through your local paper for $150-$200 and build yourself a system with a little more to offer.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Adding more than 64MB ram in a 430TX board WILL slow it down. The same is true with adding more than 128MB in an Ali5 board. Unless your system is thrashing just add enough to get you to 64MB. Standard PC133 will work.


Note: I have taken an Ali5 setup w/ 128MB ram, added 256MB, and noticed a massive drop in speed. Current setups generally don't have this problem due to the L2 cache being done differently.

 

[GreenLantern]

Wow.
I was really expecting some "more RAM is better, everyone knows that" answers but instead I'm very impressed.

Thanks guys, I had read that in a hardware book that mentioned the 430TX chipset not being able to cache more than 64mbs. I was hoping someone would confirm it.

You guys responded faster (and better - still no response) than Intel OR Asus OR Crucial. (Intel does not make it easy to email them).

Thanks a bunch for the explanation Michec, I understood the cache limit but why it would slow it down confused me. You would think it would look to the cache (1stMB) first.

And thanks for not flaming this system. Obviously it needs to be succeeded, but funds have gone in other directions (car and stud loans) lately and with the RAM prices these days, I thought a little boost would be good for the interm. Now I can save that cash. I'm waiting for ddr mobos to mature. The Asus A7N266 (nForce) comes out in Q3; I think my wait won't be long.

Kudos to sandorski, compudog, Demon-Xanth, and especially Michec.

Great forums are only so with great members,

GL