SDRAM or DDR?

[Stojakapimp]

I have a KT233A mobo with 256 SDRAM (pc100 maybe...i'm not exactly sure) and i'm looking to invest in more ram. So my question is if I should just buy another stick of 256 SDRAM to give myself 512 SDRAM or just go with 256 DDR? I have a Duron 900 if it helps. I just want to figure out what would give me the best performance

 

[flawedexistence]

Are you sure that your motherboard supports DDR SDRAM?

 

[Buz2b]

Are you sure that your motherboard supports DDR SDRAM?

For that matter, are you sure it supports SDRAM? What MB is it, in case someone wants to help you?

Check this thread/discussion for more opinions on DDR vd SDRAM.

 

[Stojakapimp]

oh, sorry guys...it's a Jetway 867AS mobo with a VIA KT266A chipset. Shows just how well I know mobo's. But yes, i'm positive it can use DDR ram...it has two slots for it.

 

[mechBgon]

First of all, notice that your board uses the older KT266 chipset, not KT266A, and KT266A was the first VIA DDR chipset for AMD that really seemed to make DDR perform like it was expected to perform. In reviews, KT266 seemed to give benchmark performance not much higher than its PC133 predecessor, KT133A, so it's not likely that DDR will make it seem much faster, either in real life or in benchmarking. So if you choose to buy DDR, it should probably be mainly because you want to re-use it in your next motherboard, in which case getting DDR333 or faster would be prudent (maximum forward compatibility).

Having a lot of RAM pays off if you are re-using lots of programs during your session. For example, at work I use Outlook, Excel, Word, Access and Internet Explorer during the day. The first time I open these programs, they open off the hard drive. After that, Windows2000 will re-launch them straight from RAM in the blink of an eye, if I have enough RAM. This is why, even if I never use more than 192Mb at once, it pays to have 512Mb or more for my usage patterns. The operating system caches it in RAM and seems to keep it there until it needs the RAM for something else.

I have a different board which supports both DDR and PC133 (an ECS K7S5A) and at the time it came out, it was the fastest DDR-supporting AMD board around, faster than KT266. Even so, its performance was only 0% to 10% faster when equipped with DDR as compared to PC133, when I did some memory-intensive benchmarking in a 3D modelling/animation program. My advice would be the following:

• If your usage would benefit from more RAM because your computer is running out of RAM and has to resort to the hard drive, get another 256Mb of PC133. Also get the extra 256Mb of PC133 if you use an NT-based operating system such as Win2000 and want your apps to relaunch from RAM like I was describing.
• If you want more speed, and your programs fit into 256Mb of RAM just fine, spend the money on a faster CPU instead of switching to the same amount of DDR. edit: let me add that if you buy a CPU that uses the 266MHz FSB, better make sure your existing RAM is indeed PC133 so it can do the dance.

Just my 2c worth... hope it helps with some ideas.

 

[Stojakapimp]

Thanks for the advice...but now i've got another question.
I think the RAM I have in my comp now is PC100, so is it possible to mix PC100 with PC133? Or should I just buy another PC100 stick?

 

[mechBgon]

You could mix the two. PC133 will run at PC100 speeds just fine. If you did get a CPU that uses the 266MHz bus, such as an Athlon-C or an AthlonXP, then you would definitely want the memory at 133MHz. Some PC100 memory overclocks to PC133 speeds no sweat, some doesn't. The Durons all use 200MHz DDR bus speeds, which are usually used with the memory at 100MHz. The Thunderbird Athlons came in both 200MHz and 266MHz flavors. All AthlonXP's use 266MHz.