Specificatios only show PC5300 DDR2-667Am I correct that I can use DDR2 (only) PC5300 or PC6400 sticks?
However PC6400 DDR2-800 should work but it may only operate at 677 MHzMemory module capacities: 512 MB, 1 GB, 2 GB
Memory type: 667 MHz SoDIMM DDR2
The notion that bigger is better has taken a beating lately in all aspects of society.
Once the pride of the so-called upper middle class in the United States, McMansions and SUVs have now become symbols of excess and waste--at least the reminders of an era past. Green movement proponents should certainly be happy that so many “earth abusers” are beginning to see the light, but what about performance-computing fanatics? With memory prices near record lows, is there any good reason not to fill every slot with low-cost 2 GB DIMMs?
Environmentalists could point out that IC and PCB production turns a large quantity of natural resources into post-production waste, while most of the end-product is not recyclable and the additional components add to the system’s energy consumption. Power users could easily counter energy concerns by pointing out that a better-performing computer allows them to get their work done in less time.
But neither argument is sufficient to answer the question we’ve asked so many times before: How much RAM do you really need?
Our 2004 article pointed out weaknesses in the once-popular single-gigabyte configurations. But 512 MB and smaller modules are now a distant memory. It wasnt long after that 2 GB became the performance standard, and by 2007, 4 GB kits could be found in all but the lowest-cost systems. Is it time to take the next step, to 8 GB or more? More importantly, were 4 GB modules ever really needed for games and everyday applications? And with the 32-bit addressing limit of 4 GB making only 3 GB available to many users, should everyone switch to a 64-bit operating system simply to support higher capacities?
Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the “sweet spot” for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.
We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.
If 3 GB worked so well, why do we continue to recommend 4 GB to 6 GB triple-channel kits for performance systems? Perhaps we’re just a little too forward-looking, but we can certainly imagine scenarios a typical “power user” could encounter where 3 GB might not be enough, even if today’s tests didn’t reveal any of them. For those folks, stepping up to a 64-bit operating system at the same time is undoubtedly the best course of action.
We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
|SOLVED Windows 7 not using all RAM. (3.86GB Usable)||2|
|Install Windows 7 Professional as 32 bit on 64 bit machine using 64 bit installation CD||4|
|Problem using Windows 7 Home Premium in multi boot PC||0|
|Windows Explorer fails to show subfolders but they show up using Search||6|
|Should I buy Windows 7 with a CD or download the file using a valid license number?||2|
|I am using Windows 7 and I get a 169.254.x.x ip address||1|
|How to create a bootable USB Windows OS using Mac OS X||0|
|Can I do an upgrade with using the full Windows 7 Ultimate retail package?||15|