StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My machine is slightly older than most here seem to have and I am running DDR RAM. My processor is a Sempron 2.6 and running XP

I just had a memory module die and sent it in to Kingston to get a replacement RAM module. I was running two 256 Meg modules

RAM was so cheap that I bought a new 1 gig DDR. The new RAM is faster than the old RAM (PC 3200 vs PC 2700)

It runs fine but am curious if I am better off running the new 1 Gig by itself or accept the loss of speed but more memory and running 1.25 Gig

If it's syncronous ram you'll get best performance out of the machine by having two sticks of the same type, or just one stick. Having mixed sticks of ram tend to slow things down a bit, I've found. For the most part you won't notice the 256mb missing unless you do a lot of memory-intensive tasks.

I have been told that there are "clefts" as far as when more memory is effective....

What are those "Clefts"? I know that when I was only running 256 for a short time, it was running incredibly slow....

512 is average
1GB is acceptable
2GB is lightspeed for most applications.

You won't notice the difference between 1GB and 1.2/1.5 really, but you will between 1 and 2. Same with 512, 768 is meh, 1GB is noticeable.

EDIT: Also, depending on the controller, all of your memory will run at the clock of the slowest DIMM, so it's generally bad for performance to mix and match different speed ram sticks.

When I feel like being not lazy, I will pull the 256 out. In a few weeks, I plan to buy a second 1 Gig anyway

In my experience the timing on the RAM has a much lower impact on performance then the amount (IIRC single digit impact) - so more RAM is better. If you were wondering between 1.5Gb (1Gb+256+256) and 1Gb I'd go with 1.5Gb always - however at 1.25Gb mixed (ie. slow do to lowering speed to the lowest common one) vs 1Gb fast RAM I'd guess its a crap shoot which is better, and probably depends on your usage pattern (memory intensive vs real-time tasks). Personally, I probably wouldn't bother opening up the case for such a minute potential difference.

In general, the overriding question is whether or not the additional slower RAM will prevent the computer from having to hit the hard drive as often. If so, then the slower yet vaster RAM is usually preferable, because slow RAM is still way hell of faster than any hard drive. If not, then sacrificing RAM space for faster RAM clockspeed can grant performance benefits.


A good question for your situation, however, is whether or not your CPU will even take advantage of the additional memory bandwidth offered by running your RAM purely at PC3200. If it's a Socket A Sempron, I'm inclined to suspect that it probably wouldn't - in which case there would be no performance penalty for continuing to run your memory at PC2700.