PC2100 vs PC2700 \ 3000

Texun

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2001
2,058
1
81
I have a couple of questions rattling around in my head:

If all else is equal, such as cpu, board, HD, etc....

1.) Is there any noticable speed difference in upgrading from PC2100 to PC2700? I understand the 2700 has more bandwidth, but does that advantage come in to play only when OC'ing or is it also there when installed in a non-OC'd 333 board?

2.) Is there any noticable speed difference in having 2x256 DIMMS versus 1x512?

The reason I ask is because I have an ASUS A7C266 with a 1.3TB, GF2 64m, and a single 512 of PC2100 with a 40g Maxtor 7200 HD and it feels faster than my Abit KX7-333, XP1700, GF4-4200 128m, WD\SE 80g and 2x256's of Crucial PC2100.

The PC with the slower cpu, older chipset, and older \ smaller video card feels d#$& fast. This was not what I expected!!!!! Can memory do this?

Sandra file system benchmarks show the WD eating the Maxtor alive (about 3150) but the other "smaller" PC has a much faster feel to it.

Hmmm.... DMA is enabled on the XP and it has a fresh install of W2k and XP. Both PC's are stock clocked. The hell of it is that I just slammed the TB together and did very little tweaking. I've spent a lot of hours (and $$$$) on my XP and can't get the same feel.

Many Thanks!
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,998
126
PC2100 vs PC2700 doesn't really make much difference for Palominos and TBreds but for P4s it does make a significant difference.

If I already had PC2100 I wouldn't bother upgrading but if you're starting from scratch PC2700 is the way to go. I wouldn't touch PC3000 because I hear it and associated motherboards are pretty flaky.
 

wizdum

Senior member
Jan 28, 2002
278
0
0
are the hard drives on the same ata speed? which gets higher benchmarks?
 

Texun

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2001
2,058
1
81
wizdum

The Maxtor is a ATA133, 7200RPM with 2m cache. The WD is ATA100, 7200RPM with 8m cache. According to Sandra the WD benchmarks faster.

Went with the WD because of the cache and because I've read several posts and a few reviews that stated ATA133 is more marketing hype than true performance.

Anyone have any thoughts on the ATA133 @ 2megs cache versus the ATA100 @ 8 megs?

WD doesn't offer an ATA133 as far as I can tell.

Thanks!