256meg at 900mhz or 128 meg at 933?

[Mr. Potatoehead]

If I put more than 1 stick in at 933, I get the bsod.
So I'm thinking it's better to have more memory than an extra 33mhz.
abit bx6.2 mb with diffent mushkin pc133 memory.
Am I right?

Thanks

[Jon]

I personally would take the extra memory.

[Door Knob]

I think you would notice a difference between 256 megs of ram and 128. Yet I don't think the extra 33mhz will make a noticeble difference, or at least not that of the extra ram. But I have seen articles that show the increase performance from 128 to 256 to be minimal as well. I guess it just depends on what you will be using your comp for. If you are using a bunch of programs at once for video stuff or if you are going for game frame rate.

[LimeyGreg]

Rule of thumb is, that unless your performance increases by more than 10% you won't notice it, except by measurement of course.

That is interesting. I have a 128 stick of Corsair PC-133 presently and I just ordered another stick of ram, I wanted to go to 256. I ordered a 256 stick of PC-160 (CAS 2 @ 150 CAS 3 @ 166) as I was sure two sticks of 128 would not perform as well as a single 256 stick. This seems to support my thinking.

[marty]

Yes I too have this "problem". I run my machine at 933/133. But when trying to go higher I can't get to a stable 980 unless I use one stick of no name memory. The memory that I paid more for is a 256 stick of Micron that is supposed to be rated better because it is CAS 2 at 133 etc. But it won't boot at 980 without special arctic cooling.

Both sticks in the machine at 933 are nice and stable but I am disappointed that they will only run at CAS3 when used this way.

[wild_andy_c]

Run a couple of benchmarks and find out for real. It may be quite interesting.

Content creation benchmarks are good. For instance the time taken to manipulate a large image in Adobe Photoshop, or to render a wave file in Sound Forge