RAM PC2100 or PC2700?

Hewlett-packard / Hp d330 ut(dm528p)
January 18, 2011 at 12:49:00
Specs: Windows XP, 2.394 GHz / 1527 MB
My specs:

Manufacturer Hewlett-packard

Model Hp d330

Board ut(dm528p)


CPU 2.394 Ghz Intel P4

RAM 1300 MB

128 x 2 (DDR 333)

512 x 2( DDR 266)

Dual channel support : Yes

FSB speed : 533 Mhz

Number of RAM slots : 4


As is evident, my effective RAM status is ~ 1300 Megs DDR 266 (Dual channel)

My FSB supports up to DDR 333.

I already have a 1:1 Throughput:Bandwidth ratio.

DDR 333 is perhaps ideal given my FSB and that I have a P4. I would like to know what kind of an improvement in performance I can realistically expect by upgrading my RAM status from DDR 266 to DDR 333, everything else being the same. (1300 Megs + Dual Channel)

Unless the difference is sizable, I wouldn't like to upgrade.

Kindly advise.

See More: RAM PC2100 or PC2700?

Report •

January 18, 2011 at 12:55:31
Not worth the time to upgrade. For some reason I think that is a server, is that right?

Why did it take me over a year to phone in a problem to ATT?

Report •

January 18, 2011 at 13:01:09
I thought likewise. But I have read in several places that Pentiums work better with slightly faster RAM. How much better? Now that's something I don't really know.

Could you please elaborate a little more on why you think it's not worth the time to upgrade?

And no, it's not a server, it's my personal computer.

Report •

January 18, 2011 at 14:15:25
You are correct that with a P4 system, it's better to run the RAM frequency slightly faster than the CPU frequency. For your particualr setup, the optimal ratio is 4:5, so DDR333 is the correct RAM.

I agree with jefro though, it's not worth switching out the RAM. Your system is old/outdated & has a crappy CPU that only runs at 533MHz FSB. Intel has already gone from 800MHz FSB to 1066MHz FSB to 1333MHz FSB & the current line of CPUs don't even use the FSB anymore.

However, if you can pick up a couple of 1GB sticks of RAM cheap, & I mean really cheap (like $20), then it might be worthwhile. But I would keep the DDR266, chuck the two 128MB DDR333 sticks, & run a total of 3 GB at 266MHz DDR. Your system isn't worth much more than $50, so keep that in mind.

The following is just to show you that your system can handle up to 4GB RAM (1GB per slot). It is NOT a recommendation to buy:


Report •

Related Solutions

January 18, 2011 at 14:48:30
Actually I only have 1x256 M and 2x128 M. All DDR 333.

I need a bit more RAM and could either go for 2 x 1 GB or 2 x 512 M

The problem is that I am not getting DDR 333 in denominations of 512 M. I managed to get hold of a couple of DDR 400, 512 M sticks but my board recognizes them as DDR 266.

My board DOES recognize DDR 400, 1 GB sticks as DDR 333, but I can neither get those sticks cheap, nor do I need that much RAM.

I am happy with 1- 1.5 Gigs DDR 333, but I don't think I can have that given the above constraints.

And so faced with the prospect of using 1300 Megs DDR 266 Mhz I wanted to know
what kind of performance differential I could have expected if I had the same amount of DDR 333 RAM.

Report •

January 18, 2011 at 15:18:52
"Actually I only have 1x256 M and 2x128 M. All DDR 333"

What was the point of lying about your RAM amount?

Don't worry about it being DDR266, DDR333 or DDR400. Having more RAM at DDR266 will give much better performance than having less RAM that runs at DDR333 speed.

Report •

January 18, 2011 at 15:38:40
I own 1x256 + 2 x 128 (All DDR 333).

I am currently testing an additional 2x512 (DDR 266) in addition to the two 128 sticks to get the whole thing to work in dual channel. I intend to not use the solitary 256 stick.

I still have the option of getting 2 x 1 GB (DDR 333) in place of the 2 x 512 (DDR 266) at roughly twice the cost.

The point is I don't NEED 2 + gigs of RAM. I am happy with 1300 Megs and I almost never use the whole of it. And if I stay well within 1300 Megs (as seen in the windows task manager), I don't see how having copious amounts of RAM will help me.

Now, I have been unable to get hold of 512 M DDR 333 sticks (and I don't need 1 Gig DDR 333 sticks), so it seems best to go with 2 x 512 M DDR 266 sticks.

But I am curious as to the performance difference between using X amount of DDR 266 and X amount of DDR 333.

Report •

January 18, 2011 at 19:36:27
You'd have to run some sort of test. Not all systems will be improved to the same degree. More and faster ram is always the best choice but, the cost of doing any work on this is pointless. Newer systems are much better in almost every part. You'd just be wasting time and money to play with this.

Why did it take me over a year to phone in a problem to ATT?

Report •

January 19, 2011 at 11:57:55
"The point is I don't NEED 2 + gigs of RAM"

You don't THINK you need 2GB RAM but believe me, your system will run better with 2GB than with 1280MB. However, spending the big bucks to buy brand new RAM for your outdated system is foolish. DDR266 vs DDR333 is really a non-issue. Sure, DDR333 is preferable, but your system is old! The minor performance different doesn't amount to squat in the grand scheme of things.

Report •

January 19, 2011 at 14:53:49
Don't get how 2 GB RAM will get me better performance if I am only using 1 GB for my apps.

I am giving up the idea of buying 512's. The only brand readily available is some generic crap that goes by the name of Dynet. Heard of it? It's "supposed" to be a DDR 400 (physical label), and Sandra diagnosed it as a DDR 266! Probably some cheap heavily overclocked gunk. I even tried a Kingston DDR 400 and even that shows up as DDR 266 in my bios!

I am currently testing with two sticks, one Dynet and the other Kingston, and each time I boot, my BIOS checks the whole 1300 Megs! Sometimes I am unable to boot at all. I used Memtest and apparently my entire RAM is error free.

I don't know what the problem really is but it seem the problem is being caused by the Dynet chip because the system was running fine till I was only testing with Kingston (albeit it is only recognized as DDR 266 by my motherboard).

My only option then would be to go for Transcend 2 x 1 GB DDR 400. (Transcend 512 MB sticks are atrociously expensive, might as well spend a little more and get two 1 GB sticks). At least my BIOS recognizes that as DDR 333 which it should with given FSB. Plus I can be assured of a reasonably good quality chip.

PLUS I think my spartan warrior PC deserves some tasty RAM after years of tirelessly hauling bricks at 512 Megs! Hell yeah!!

Report •

January 19, 2011 at 23:18:45
"Don't get how 2 GB RAM will get me better performance if I am only using 1 GB for my apps"

The OS will distribute RAM between programs and background services depending on the total amount the system has, if you install 2 GB of RAM you'll notice your apps using more than 1 GB.

E8500 | 4GB | 320GB | 9800 GT 1GB @ 720/990 | HP w1907 @ 1440 x 900 60Hz| Win7 Ultimate x64

Report •

Ask Question