Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

The PC2700 & PC3200 dilemma - confusing info


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 zzzz

zzzz

  • Members
  • 581 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:08:52 AM

Posted 26 April 2014 - 11:52 AM

I paste 2 quotes:-

 

"PC2700 is another way of writing pc333 or ddr333 while pc 3200 is ddr 400. This means that the memory comes with a different number of speed. PC2700 has 200MHz DDR, 3.2 GB/s and Pc 3200 has 167MHz DDR, 2.7 GB/s."

 

 "PC2700 DDR 333 MHz vs PC3200 DDR 400 Mhz"

 

The 1st has the 2700 speed at 200MHz, 3.2 GB/s  and the 3200 at 167MHz, 2.7 GB/s

The 2nd has the 2700 speed at 333MHz and the 3200 at 400MHz

 

These MHZ must be relating to different things but what?

 

Also it appears, to me, that the 2700 is 'faster' than the 3200 3.2 GB/s v 2.7 GB/s

 

Can this be correct? And if used mixed the speed will be at the lower rate, whichever that is?

 

Thanks for advice on this matter.



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 JohnC_21

JohnC_21

  • Members
  • 21,628 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:52 AM

Posted 26 April 2014 - 12:43 PM

See this link for a good explanation. 167MHz and 200MHz refers to the clock cycle. PC2700 has a clock cycle of 167MHz and PC3200 has a clock cycle of 200MHz. Because it is DDR the RAM performs 2 transfers per cycle giving it an effective rate of double. 333MHz for PC2700 and 400MHz for PC3200. I believe you or the article you read transposed the numbers between PC2700 and PC3200.



#3 zzzz

zzzz
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 581 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:08:52 AM

Posted 26 April 2014 - 05:34 PM

Thank you for that John. That link is a good explanation - I'm still trying to absorb it to relate it to my PC system. 

 

The mix up I copied and pasted from the article which I thought very odd but wished to check.

 

I asked this question as I wish to update my PC2700 512MB + 256MB with an extra 1 GB to make 1.5 GB (only 2 slots) as the 1 GB modules of PC2700 and PC3200 are the same price. It seems the computer gains nothing with a PC3200.

 

My PC is a 2003 Time 2.16 GHz desktop which works well, on XP, but I want to use Win 7 and hope 1.5 GB RAM will suffice. I don't really want the expense of 2X1 GB modules if I can get away with it. I do simple computing, nothing fancy.

 

I have bought a 2GB RAM for my Win 7 netbook which has improved the performance particularly, it seems, the wifi signal - is that possible? On 1 GB the wifi icon showed the shortest of 5 lines but now it's the full 5. Coincidence?



#4 diggi

diggi

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:52 AM

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:35 PM

For PC I'd suggest 4gb minimum for win 7 32 bit



#5 JohnC_21

JohnC_21

  • Members
  • 21,628 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:52 AM

Posted 26 April 2014 - 09:49 PM

If you have PC2700 you should keep it PC2700 for the 1GB module as it will revert to the RAM with the slowest speed. A 2003 computer may have a rough time running Windows 7. You can check here to see what would need to be updated.There are many factors that can affect Wifi signal strength but RAM isn't one of them.

 

1.5GB on Windows 7 would be at the ragged edge. If you already have a Windows 7 computer, I would recommend you install a linux distro. 1.5GB on a linux distro would be plenty, especially something like Linux Mint Xfce. I just installed Ubuntu on an old 2002 Athlon XP computer with 1GB or Ram and it runs fine. Not a speed demon but it does what I need it to do.



#6 zzzz

zzzz
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 581 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:08:52 AM

Posted 27 April 2014 - 10:38 AM

I did run a Win 7 adviser on the old PC which just said 2 GB would be better and some updates for some software.

 

The June issue of Computer Shopper did some WIN  7 updates on 4 computers from old to newish laptops - the old 2002 PC had 768MB RAM, without a mention of Windows Update Adviser and that 1 GB is considered the minimum!, 1 core + Intel Pentium 4 2.53GHz. Result - a minor impact on its XP performance in benchmarks. Scores for image and video editing (which I don't do) were the same as under XP but dropped 1 point in the multitasking test. Slow to load up new tabs in Chrome when web browsing but rendered pages quickly.Etc., etc. Not bad eh?

 

As I have a netbook and a newish PC running Win 7 OK, from XP,  I'll keep the old PC on XP for now altho the proposed update was to sell it on or giving it to  grandchildren though they probably will want something more sophisticated, the devils.

 

I have made 2 ISO image files, of Knoppix and Mint neither of which go further than the splash screen - given up.

 

Thanks for all the advice - most appreciated.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users