Using a ECS K7S5A MB...what performance difference in DDR vs SDRAM?

[jtw99]

Since I can use either type of memory on this MB (but not both at the same time), I'm trying to figure which way to set it up. Would 768 megs of SDRAM give slower or faster performance than 256 megs of DDR ?

 

[MisterNi]

I went from 512mb of ddr memory to 256mb of sdram using windows xp. Web browsing and writing essays, I don't notice a difference. But loading games takes a bit longer. If you actually need that much memory (768mb) then I say go for it since ddr memory doesn't seem to give more than a 10-15% performance increase.

 

[Ionizer86]

I'd go for 256mb DDR, since I hardly ever go over 256mb usage in WinXP. I'd also say that the 256mb DDR is faster, unless you use Photoshop or some other memory intensive progs. If you use lots of memory, than the 768mb SDR would be better. You can use Task Manager to assess how much ram your progs are using.

 

[jtw99]

Is it the general opinion that DDR only performs 10-15% better than an equal amount of SDRAM?

 

[Ionizer86]

Similar setups: KT133 VS AMD760 is about 10%. Quite a lot of that is due to bus increase also, so KT133A is not too much slower than an AMD760 setup. In addition, KT266 is only about 5% faster than KT133. It is just a hair faster than KT133A.

Fast forward to today, and we have KT266A. These may be a good 20% faster than KT133. Since your board is Sis735, it's probably just a tad faster than AMD760, so yes, it's around 10% faster than a KT133 setup.

 

[bowie71]

It depends on what application you use most for your system. For memory hungry application like SPSS or SAS that I always use in my system 512 SDRAM PC133 is still better than 256 DDR PC2100, though I hands down 512 SDRAM PC133. The reason is in overall DDR PC2100 performs almost 100% or 2x faster than SDRAM PC133. Try to see the difference using Sisift Sandra Memory Bandwidth Benchmark, you'll be surprise with the difference.