• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SDR/DDR question

Strictly speaking, 256MB of SDR would probably perform better, but it would depend on what you are doing.

DDR has a larger overhead than SDR, so if your bottleneck is somewhere else, the extra latency penalty that you get for using DDR will produce a slight performance hit.

eg, compare a DDR GeForce 2 MX with an SDR GeForce 2 MX.

Secondly, (I assume you are talking about system RAM here), if whatever you are running is not going to fit inside 128MB of RAM, then you are going to get hard drive thrashing, which is going to be far slower than what would have fit inside all of 256MB of RAM.

If you are never going to need more than 128MB of RAM, ie everything fits in RAM, then the DDR will be faster.
 
Both.

If you use any application that needs more than 128MB (that is including the system and cache memory) then the 256MB would be faster.

AndyHui is right about the latency of DDR, but usually the double transfer rate makes up for the higher latency of DDR.

So if you are running W2K or NT and applications that use a lot of memory the 256MB would be the way to go and if you use W98/SE/ME, and mostly play games and use office applications the DDR would probably be better.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top