Compatible RAM+ Mobo

Buildin a low-end computer, i'd like to know if this RAM will be ok with ths mobo because im building another computer due to ram/mobo issues... just wanting to check up.

Mobo:
Model# A7N266VM
ASUS nForce 220-D Chipset Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descr iption=13-131-433&depa=1
RAM it takes: 2x DIMM support DDR266/200(Non-ECC) Max 1GB

RAM im lookin at:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descr iption=20-144-001&depa=1
Kingston 184 Pin 512MB DDR PC-2100
Manufacturer: Kingston
Speed: DDR266(PC2100)
Type: 184 Pin DDR SDRAM
Error Checking: Non-ECC
Registered/Unbuffered: Unbuffered
Organization: 64M x 64 -Bit

i had problems with the orginazation thing, i believe... I'm not too keen on how Ram and mobo's work with all that shit, if anyone could give me the OK, i would greatly appreciate it.

that will work just fine but I recently built a 333fsb athlon pc and went with pc3200 (400fsb ram), the reason I did it is cause next time I upgrade my processor to probably a 64 athlon I will already have dual channel 400mhz ram to go with it. Second, the lower the cas latentcy numbers the better, ie 2-3-3-5. The first number is most important to have a low setting for. Cas latentcy usually has more of an effect on system speed than overclocking and those are the numbers that seperate good ram from cheesy ram ;)

this isnt going to be a performance computer, im building it for my Operations Manager when i work, thanks ep!c.

I got a few Q''s about ram for MY computer.

Right now i have a 512 stick of Geil PC3200 DDR400, and im lookin to get another Geil for it to make a gig.

I'm lookin at the Cas latency for a few of their models, and the blue heatsync model i have is 2.5 6-3-3, http://images10.newegg.com/productimage/20-144-305-04.JPG here.

Newegg has this gold model called "Geil Golden Dragon" with a Cas latency of 2 6-3-3 1T. It has a smaller 1st #, and a 1T at the end, what the fuck does the 1T stand for? The ram is about 30-40$ more expensive, how much better of performance will i see versus getting another one of what i already have?

Cliff Notes:
I have a 512 stick of Geil Pc3200 DDR400 running what i think is 2.5 6-3-3

Sould i get another stick just like it or would it be worth it to bump up the 30-40$ to get the faster ram, what would i see difference wise if i were to choose the Gold over the Blue, is it worth the $?

Thanks

probably not worth the money unless you are building a rabid system like i have ;) In terms of performance it has quite a bit to do with the processor type and speed as well when choosing ram. Amd processors like low cas latentcy the most, while intel units don't mind so much going with a higher cas latentcy as long as the speed (ie 3200), is matched to the processors liking. The reason for this is the generaly higher clock speed of intel processors compared to amd processors. The first number does sumpin like (This is where I get a bit hazy cause its been a while since I bought ram now) precharge the processor in a certain number of processor cycles. The ram you want is a 2.5 precharge, because intel processors operate at a higher clock cycle than amd processors, it physically takes less time for the ram to precharge the processor with a 2.5 number for intel than a 2.5 number for amd... Does that confuse you enough? If it does than I will try and put it a different way.
3 gigahertz = 3,000,000,000 cycles per second and is the speed of a good intel processor.
2.2 gigahertz = 2,200,000,000 cycles per second and is the speed of a good amd processor.
B/c the intel deals with information physically faster than an equivilant amd processor it takes less physical time for an intel processor to go through 2.5 cycles (ie the precharge of the ram) than its amd counter part. In an amd processor like mine a latentcy difference in ram of 1 cycle could mean the difference between a PC that runs 5% -10% faster in the benchmarks (Not a big deal anyways). In an intel you might barely notice a difference in the benchmarks.
cliff notes:
amd processors like low latentcy ram
intel processors like fast clock speeds with ram (Meaning with 433mhz -500mhz overclocking ram -which typically have higher latency to achieve the higher clock - you can up the clock speed on the processor without having to worry as much about memory errors or latentcy).

Does that make sence now??? Its all about application. For may parents 3 gigahertz intel with onboard gfx they can run shit 400mhz dual channel ram and not worry. Whereas me with my 1.8ghz amd (Barton 2500+) I have to run low latentcy expensive overclocking ram to achieve optimal gaming performance.
BTW you probably aren't in need of purchasing another 512 stick in the first place for a workstation. 512 is plenty to run windows xp and 21312323 other background programs including a game.

i dare you to try to back up your post about CAS latency with some links, because almost all of it is wrong.

^-- :scared:

i dont consider my computer to be an average workstation, i run the hell out of it. I work with a lot of modeling programs and i run several games, opting for the highest settings my eyes can stand.

AMD 2800+ barton stock clock speeds of 2.1ghz
512ghz PC3200 DDR400
ATI 9700 Pro, i overclocked for test, but i never run it O/C's because i didnt see a large enough difference for the stress is caused
.

Anyways, iNVAR, what's wrong with his statements... i know nothing about latency of Ram and such, never was one of my Forte's.

and I quote:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/howto/20030701/memory_tuning-02.html
"The advantages of stepping up your memory clock in an AMD Athlon XP system, on the other hand, are few and far between. In fact, setting the memory bus to 400 MHz and the front side bus to 333 MHz can even slow down performance. Instead, you'll get better results from optimizing the timing parameters for the faster memory in BIOS."

http://www4.tomshardware.com/howto/20030701/memory_tuning-03.html
"The timing settings have just as big an impact on RAM performance as the bus frequency. After all, the data bus can only capitalize on the vast bandwidth if data is read out of the RAM chips and made available at a fast enough clip. And when the data is accessed from different memory zones, there are a whole slew of processes that stop up the flow of data. The memory timings define the speed with which all the individual steps involved in accessing RAM are done. It's more than worth your while to go to the trouble of optimizing these settings: your performance could increase by up to ten percent. What's more, optimizing your timing parameters can be more advantageous than increasing your bus clock. High-quality DDR333 RAM with quick timings will outperform a DDR400 module with timing settings that have been deliberately rolled back to increase the clock speed."
^^^^ Is refering to benchmarks btw not real world performance. But there is a difference. I couldn't find the exact article on tomswardware.com about my exact motherboard (A7N8XE deluxe), and processor tested (AMD 2500+ I have seen it before), and two ram combos were tested one was a 400mhz kingston module and the other was a lower latency corsair 333mhz module the difference amount to about 10% in the benchmark results. Try starting up sisandrasoft 2003 it has benchmark records of almost every configuration available. Which is exactly what I said above.

http://www4.tomshardware.com/howto/20030701/index.html
^^^ Is the full write up on ram timings, you should have a read INVAR so next time you will know what you are talking about. YOu were right that I shouldn't have said precharge but that is more like a grammer police issue ;)
I also repeatedly spelled latency wrong above.

Times have changed since AMD switched to the 64 bit platform though with the onboard memory controller (Remember how that was a figment of my imagination too INVAR?? You said that like 3 threads ago....)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040119/index-12.html

That article tested the amd 64 processors against intels offerings.
And I quote:
"We were duly impressed by the Athlon 64 FX-51's scores, which maintained its ranking no matter what kind of memory it was given. This steadfastness is largely due to the integrated memory controller."
This keeps in line with amd's philosophy from day one: Build a more efficient processor. By integrating the memory controller amd didn't just score better benchmarks but they increased the real world efficiency of their processors. Which is why they did it in the first place.

As for my conclusion posted above
And I quote again:
"The moral of the story is clear: while we still recommend buying brand-name products to ensure compatibility (especially for dual-channel systems), but you don't necessarily need the fastest timings. In today's market, you only need fast modules if your computer will be computing a lot or encoding video. For any other application, slower RAM will definitely cut the mustard."
^^^ This backs up my statement that unless you are trying to build a monster PC like mine thats overclocked to fuck you don't need ultra performance timings or overclocking ram.

As for the math:

(1 second /3.0x 109cycles) x (2.5cycles) = 8.3x 10-10 seconds is the actual amount of time it takes for the intel 3.0ghz

(1 second /2.2 x 109cycles) x (2.5cycles) = 1.136 x10-9 seconds is the actual amount of time it takes for the amd 3200+

See how the AMD number is bigger??? that means it takes longer.



Does that meet your approval Mr. Technicality????

To answer your question readytorumble match your stick of ram b/c if you put faster ram in the board it will only run as fast as the other stick of ram anyways. So don't worry about it. I personally wouldn't buy new ram at all b/c of all the hardware changes going on this year (DDR2, DDR3, etc), wait til next year and just buy a whole new PC after things have settled down.

ep!c makes my pants fit funnay :shock: :heart:

and I quote:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/howto/20030701/memory_tuning-02.html
"The advantages of stepping up your memory clock in an AMD Athlon XP system, on the other hand, are few and far between. In fact, setting the memory bus to 400 MHz and the front side bus to 333 MHz can even slow down performance. Instead, you'll get better results from optimizing the timing parameters for the faster memory in BIOS."I never disputed contradicted this. In fact, you never even said this.

http://www4.tomshardware.com/howto/20030701/memory_tuning-03.html
"The timing settings have just as big an impact on RAM performance as the bus frequency. After all, the data bus can only capitalize on the vast bandwidth if data is read out of the RAM chips and made available at a fast enough clip. And when the data is accessed from different memory zones, there are a whole slew of processes that stop up the flow of data. The memory timings define the speed with which all the individual steps involved in accessing RAM are done. It's more than worth your while to go to the trouble of optimizing these settings: your performance could increase by up to ten percent. What's more, optimizing your timing parameters can be more advantageous than increasing your bus clock. High-quality DDR333 RAM with quick timings will outperform a DDR400 module with timing settings that have been deliberately rolled back to increase the clock speed."
^^^^ Is refering to benchmarks btw not real world performance. But there is a difference. I couldn't find the exact article on tomswardware.com about my exact motherboard (A7N8XE deluxe), and processor tested (AMD 2500+ I have seen it before), and two ram combos were tested one was a 400mhz kingston module and the other was a lower latency corsair 333mhz module the difference amount to about 10% in the benchmark results. Try starting up sisandrasoft 2003 it has benchmark records of almost every configuration available. Which is exactly what I said above.And yet again, I never disputed this since you never even said this in the first place.

http://www4.tomshardware.com/howto/20030701/index.html
^^^ Is the full write up on ram timings, you should have a read INVAR so next time you will know what you are talking about. YOu were right that I shouldn't have said precharge but that is more like a grammer police issue ;)
I also repeatedly spelled latency wrong above.A grammar police issue? Precharge and CAS latency, tRCD, etc. are all different things. For you to call it one thing and it actually being something else is completely wrong.

Times have changed since AMD switched to the 64 bit platform though with the onboard memory controller (Remember how that was a figment of my imagination too INVAR?? You said that like 3 threads ago....)I admit when I'm wrong. You're flat out wrong in this case.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040119/index-12.html

That article tested the amd 64 processors against intels offerings.
And I quote:
"We were duly impressed by the Athlon 64 FX-51's scores, which maintained its ranking no matter what kind of memory it was given. This steadfastness is largely due to the integrated memory controller."
This keeps in line with amd's philosophy from day one: Build a more efficient processor. By integrating the memory controller amd didn't just score better benchmarks but they increased the real world efficiency of their processors. Which is why they did it in the first place. The reason the Intel processor requires fast/quality memory is because the procesor is VERY memory starved. You may remember this back when Rambus was around, or maybe not. This has ALWAYS been the case. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's clocked higher. :rolleyes:


As for my conclusion posted above
And I quote again:
"The moral of the story is clear: while we still recommend buying brand-name products to ensure compatibility (especially for dual-channel systems), but you don't necessarily need the fastest timings. In today's market, you only need fast modules if your computer will be computing a lot or encoding video. For any other application, slower RAM will definitely cut the mustard."
^^^ This backs up my statement that unless you are trying to build a monster PC like mine thats overclocked to fuck you don't need ultra performance timings or overclocking ram.Finally, something to do with your original post. Yes, if you plan on OCing your processor a lot by upping the FSB and memory speed, then the latency does not matter as much. Notice how I said "almost all of it is wrong."

As for the math:

(1 second /3.0x 109cycles) x (2.5cycles) = 8.3x 10-10 seconds is the actual amount of time it takes for the intel 3.0ghz

(1 second /2.2 x 109cycles) x (2.5cycles) = 1.136 x10-9 seconds is the actual amount of time it takes for the amd 3200+ That's all fine and dandy except for the fact that your ram runs at the same clock speed on both systems if you're not OCing. You can take a 3.0GHz system and a 2.2GHz system, both utilizing PC3200 memory (400MHz) and the delay would be the same. The math you've done here is showing that a 3.0GHz processor takes less time to run 2 processor clock cycles than a 2.2GHz system. *clap* The 2.5cycles doesn't even fit in your particular equation because it's wrong.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself this. If the CAS latency's actual time delay referred to the CPU clock, then how could PC3200 possibly work in say... a 1.7GHz processor, and yet also work on a 3.0GHz processor, YET the delay would be almost 2X as less on a 3.0GHz processor?

See how the AMD number is bigger??? that means it takes longer.See above.

Does that meet your approval Mr. Technicality????No.

I htink you are an asshole, arrogant, ignorant, wrong, and full of shit nuff said.

I'll gladly admit I'm an asshole (sometimes) and arrogant. But if you're going to accuse me of being ignorant, wrong, and full of shit, you better address what I said. Otherwise, they're baseless accusations.

I'll gladly admit I'm an asshole (sometimes) and arrogant. But if you're going to accuse me of being ignorant, wrong, and full of shit, you better address what I said. Otherwise, they're baseless accusations.
Much like yours up there right asshole?? Fuck you stop wasting my time, all you did was agree with me and then told me that I used bad fuckin grammer get a life loser.

You're really not getting anywhere with that, posting like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum. If I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong, but so far you're doing a horrible job of proving it.