I just bought a new Dell Inspiron 530 Desktop and i’m looking to upgrade the memory. Dell wanted $100 to add another GB, I can get 2GB (2x 1GB modules) for ~$30-40 after a rebate. Here are the specs:
Core 2 Duo E6550, 2.33GHz @1333MHz FSB
2 x 512MB DDR2-667 memory modules
Intel motherboard, supports DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 memory
Windows XP Home (unfortunately upgrading to Vista in the near future)
I’ve done a bit of research and many people advise to get 667MHz memory as it is more in sync with the FSB (667 x 2 = 1333MHz) and 800 would be overkill and not hugely beneficial as I can’t/wont be overclocking with the neutered DELL BIOS, while others say you should go with DDR2-800 for the speed increase over the 667MHz.
Question is: is there a real-world speed advantage going from 667MHz to 800MHz memory? I won’t be doing any overclocking of course, but I’ll be doing a fair amount of gaming (have an ATI HD3850 on the way) and lots of photoshopping. Any thoughts?
AFAIK, You can UNDERclock the 800 presumably to 667. Best of both worlds?
Unless the 800 is way more expensive, might as well go for it.
all depends on what the speeds the motherboard can handle. if the motherboard can only handle 667, then thats all your gonna get out of it. To be honest, I wouldnt stress over it, just get the 667
I read in an article that it would be better to match the speed of the memory with the FSB. For instance, in my case the FSB is 1333MHz so i’d want to get 667MHz memory, as the bus is quad-pumped, and the memory runs at (333MHz double data rate’d to 667MHz speed x 2 = 1333MHz). In effect, the memory bus is sync’d and there is no wasted bandwidth. According to the article 800MHz memory wouldn’t do much for me.
Another issue i’ve run across is the fact that most of the 800MHz memory requires a higher operating voltage run at stock speeds - 1.9-2.1V as opposed to the standard 1.8V. The motherboard in the Dell will only provide 1.8V, so that kinda limits what I can run on the board in a stable fashion. memory modules vary in operating conditions and all, and some may run at 1.8V and some may not, but it’s kind of a crap shoot if it’ll run in my Dell.
you could always up the voltage to the memory, but AFAIK, most motherboards will make the appropriate adjustments for you. What model mobo do you have? Or more importantly, what chipset is it running? If it supports asynchronous mode, then you can use 800mhz all day long
Honestly, I highly doubt you’ll see a difference anyway. I’d just go with what’s cheaper unless you plan on over clocking it/changing the memory timing (which you already stated that you didn’t). I’m running 800mhz memory in my P35 1333hmz board just fine… I believe running 2.0v (EDIT: my motherboard made all the appropriate adjustments for me, so I haven’t tweaked anything yet)
I don’t fully understand the concept of synchronous vs asynchronous memory, but afaik, you’re fine.
if you’re looking for a memory upgrade, I’d recommend these
I’m running 4GB of the stuff and it works great… quick enough for me and attractive looking heat spreaders. EDIT: and 4GB for under $100.00 is nice
:picard:
Way to come and ask questions, then deny help “because you read an article”
You obviously have you mind made up, but let me clear some things up…
The board supports 800mhz, it will clock the voltage up accordingly, maybe not if you get the $250 a-stick-super-ultra-low-latency-runs-at-2.4v, but they sell the memory on their own damn site, pre-configured.
Secondly DDR2-667 runs at 166mhz, With the Double Data Rating and the improves signaling you get to 667. This kills the latency of the memory, in fact by half, DDR3 reduces the latency again by half.
Is the 800 vs the 667 going to change the performance of the whole system?
More than likely you wouldn’t notice, but since its only $30 on a $500 system, why not get it…Or maybe pump that bitch to 4Gb of 667. Especially since photoshop eats memory faster then kobayashi eats hot dogs.