[JorgeA]

Hello,

I'm considering adding more RAM to my Vista PC, but the information provided by the manufacturer and a major RAM vendor is in conflict.

The Hewlett-Packard specifications say that my PC can take DDR2 DIMM modules up to PC2-6400. This amounts to an 800MHz front-side bus speed. However, if you then expand the motherboard information, it says that it can handle up to 1333 MHz.

However, the Crucial page for my PC claims that it can take modules up to PC2-8500, which is equivalent to a FSB speed of 1066 MHz.

So my question is -- what is, in fact, the fastest RAM that I can USEFULLY install on this computer? Is it PC2-6400, PC2-8500, or something perhaps even faster?

There are plausible reasons to doubt the accuracy of either website. The HP information could well be outdated, but OTOH Crucial could well be trying to sell me more expensive RAM that I can't use to its fullest potential.

Who's right?

Thanks for any insight you might provide!

--JorgeA

[puntoMX]

With HP keep it with 800MHz, the 1333 mentioned should refer to the FSB. If you drop in a 1066 module you will NOT see any speed difference but when you use low timing modules you could win a bit there if you change the other modules it has as well.

I would keep th RAM as you have it now and plug in some extra 800MHz RAM non-fancy RAM.

[JorgeA]

Hey puntoMX,

Great to hear from you!

And thanks for the tip. Sounds like HP and not Crucial is correct. Maybe I'll swap out the four 1GB RAM modules it has in there now for 2GB ones. (The current modules are of the 800MHz variety.)

Can you fill me in on that "low timing modules" concept? I'm not sure what that means.

--JorgeA

[puntoMX]

Well, what would you do with the 1GB modules? And do you really need more RAM in there? What are you going to do with it?

[JorgeA]

puntoMX, on 16 November 2010 - 02:37 PM, said:

Well, what would you do with the 1GB modules? And do you really need more RAM in there? What are you going to do with it?

Hi puntoMX,

I guess that I would either throw out or store away the current 1GB RAM modules, as I would be putting in four new 2GB modules. Don't know what else one could do with the old ones.

The reason I'm thinking about installing faster RAM (if that's possible for my PC) is to see if it helps with the slow loading of Word files, as discussed in that long thread that has gone dormant for the time being. The only other possibility I can think of, to cut down on those 3-minute file loading times, is to get a faster CPU.

What do you think? Is there a way to get my PC to make use of faster RAM, or not really?

--JorgeA

[puntoMX]

Waste of money Jorge .

It won't load faster word files by adding "faster RAM", it will only shave off a few seconds tops. keep the money in your pocket, same with Norton products and other anti malware stuff they sell for 30 to 50 USD a year, just use the free stuff like Security Essentials and only that.

I tell you something, I'm using windows 7 in public places with admin access for the people that use them and they haven't killed an install in one year, Security Essentials is installed on them and before that I had AVG Free on them. Now, to load things faster enable ACHI, that could help with multiple files loading at the same time, you could also check if you could upgrade that CPU a bit and place a "Wolfdale" cored CPU on it. But, you know that the bottle neck isn't the CPU nor your HDD but pure software based.

Hard to say what is better besides keeping the money in your pocket and reinstall the darn system .

[JorgeA]

puntoMX,

Can you elaborate on what it means that you're using Windows 7 in public places with administrative access?

BTW, thanks for the insights. They help to guide my decision. But an OS reinstall I am trying to avoid like the plague...

I'll try to figure out how to determine if AHCI is enabled on my system. (Go into the BIOS?) I do know that my HDD supports NCQ.

--JorgeA

This post has been edited by JorgeA: 17 November 2010 - 06:35 PM

[puntoMX]

Second though on ACHI, leave it as it is or windows will not even start up ; You can do that after you kick your installed OS.

Well, the users on my public computers, kiosk like, have administrator access and control over that computer. So, even that I leave them the options to mess up the whole system, I never had to reinstall Windows 7 on them. The antimalware I used is Microsoft Security essentials and before that One care. That was what I meant to say .

[JorgeA]

puntoMX,

Oh, so you run like an Internet café, or something like that?

Thank you for the new thoughts on the AHCI. After you suggested it, I started looking into that and I got the definite impression that I could mess things up royally! But I will look some into the possibility of upgrading the CPU. I think dencorso somewhere had linked to a site, or presented a list, of CPUs that are compatible with my motherboard.

Have a great weekend.

--JorgeA

[CoffeeFiend]

JorgeA, on 19 November 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

But I will look some into the possibility of upgrading the CPU. I think dencorso somewhere had linked to a site, or presented a list, of CPUs that are compatible with my motherboard.

Your computer has a Intel G33 Express chipset. You could upgrade to just about any Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad (not that there's a Core 2 Quad worth buying) and Pentium Dual Cores (they're basically C2D's) and the new Celerons based on the C2D as well. Just about anything that uses Socket 775.

A Pentium E6700 or E6800 would give you a pretty nice boost (not quite double the speed) around the $85-$100 price range.The other dual cores at a lot pricier and not a whole lot faster (e.g. the E8500 at almost $200 that's clocked slower but has a bit more cache, and is almost no faster). And Core 2 Quads are WAY overpriced for what they are (at that point, you might as well get something else, like a Core i5 or a Phenom II X4)

[JorgeA]

CoffeeFiend,

Thanks for the information!

Based on what you said, I went on the Newegg website at: http://www.newegg.co...ssors-Desktops. (The forum menu to insert links isn't showing up on my screen. For that matter, neither is the emoticons list. And the drop-down menu for my profile has popped down and won't roll back up.)

If I understand correctly what you said, I should be looking at the CPUs described on that page as "Wolfdale" or "Yorkfield;" they're the ones that carry that 775 number. The Core i5's that are shown there seem to have a different number associated with them.

Supposing that I did want to get one of these babies, what would be involved in getting everything to work together, besides dropping it into the socket? Would Windows just recognize the new CPU? Any changes to the BIOS settings or values that I'd have to make? Never done anything like this before...

...but it's a tempting idea!!

--JorgeA

[CoffeeFiend]

Try this list (every socket 775 CPU, ordered by price)

JorgeA, on 19 November 2010 - 10:39 PM, said:

The Core i5's that are shown there seem to have a different number associated with them.

Those or the Phenom II X4's won't fit on your current motherboard. What I meant is, beyond something like a Pentium E6800 or so, you're just paying a lot more for not too much extra performance. At which point you might as well get something more "modern" (socket 775 was replaced 2 years ago, and will be once more sometime soon). That would require a new motherboard as well (and perhaps new RAM too, depending) so more $, but at least there are real performance gains to be had over the E6800, unlike the pricier socket 775 offerings (e.g. a $185 Phenom II X4 970 which is faster than the most high end Socket 775 offering: the $275 Core 2 Quad Q9550, or then again the $230 Phenom II X6 1090T which is almost 50% faster than the Q9550 for nearly $50 less)

Upgrading to a Pentium E6800 is pretty much just that. Drop the new CPU in, put the new heat sink on, and restart the computer. Everything should be automatically detected. That's about the highest thing you can still get for that computer without really wasting your money (a final upgrade, pretty much)

[JorgeA]

CoffeFiend,

This is extremely informative, thank you!

I see what you mean about the performance gain vs. the additional cost. But, let's say for the sake of argument that cost is a secondary consideration. How much more difficult or complex would it be to get one of those Core 2 Quads running on my PC? Is it still a pretty straighforward installation+recognition process, like you described (for example) with the Pentium E6800, or are there more steps involved?

Not that I'm a trust-fund baby with $$$ to burn -- far from it! I am curious, though. My PC sometimes (all right, most of the time) works on a distributed computing project, and it could make use of the extra cores. But, would a quad-core CPU "just work," or is there additional tweaking to be done beyond that for the E6800?

One more head-scratcher. Can you check out my PC's specifications, and tell me what the letters Y, W, K, C, and C mean, when you expand the "Processor upgrade information"? I thought that maybe Y stands for Yorkfield and W for Wolfdale, but that doesn't work for every listing on the Newegg page,and anyway it still leaves K and C to be explained. (And does the info mean to say that I could put in an E6700, but not an E6800?)

This is all new and exciting, but mysterious...

--JorgeA

This post has been edited by JorgeA: 20 November 2010 - 10:55 PM

[CoffeeFiend]

JorgeA, on 20 November 2010 - 10:48 PM, said:

I see what you mean about the performance gain vs. the additional cost

There's more to it than just that. The cheaper quad cores also have slower single-core performance than the Pentium E6800 and similar. That means most apps would actually run slower. The Q9550 is the only C2Q you can buy right now that actually has faster single threaded perf than the E6800 (which won't make your computer slower than running a $100 C2D most of the time) but it costs $275... Yet it performs on par with an AMD CPUs that cost $100 less: the Phenom II X4 970, and on other sockets Intel has ~50% faster offerings at the same price: the i7 870, so it's a total ripoff.

JorgeA, on 20 November 2010 - 10:48 PM, said:

How much more difficult or complex would it be to get one of those Core 2 Quads running on my PC?

The job is the exact same regardless.

JorgeA, on 20 November 2010 - 10:48 PM, said:

I am curious, though. My PC sometimes (all right, most of the time) works on a distributed computing project, and it could make use of the extra cores

That's one thing that'll make use of them. Keep in mind running something like that will raise your power bill by a fair amount so it better be for a good cause

JorgeA, on 20 November 2010 - 10:48 PM, said:

One more head-scratcher. Can you check out my PC's specifications, and tell me what the letters Y, W, K, C, and C mean

Y = Yorkfield
W = Wolfdale
K = Kentsfield
C =Conroe

Not that I would really bother with that list. HP probably hasn't updated this page in ages. Usually you can't rely on companies like Dell or HP to provide you with updated and meaningful upgrade information because they never update it. The Pentium E6x00 are all Wolfdale-3M based and should work.

Anyway. I wouldn't personally get a low-end quad core, nor spend $275 on one. At that point you may as well do a "real" upgrade (probably wouldn't cost more either): one where you're not stuck with socket 775 (and where you can get nice fast CPUs for a fair price), where you can buy cheaper and faster DDR3, where you could have something better than a plain old VGA (analog) output, ideally some USB 3 ports and so on. And if possible, getting rid of that 250W PSU in the process... I couldn't see myself spending $100 on that kind of computer (I'm stuck on a Core 2 Duo E7500 myself, with no sane upgrade option short of replacing motherboard/CPU/RAM)

[JorgeA]

CoffeeFiend,

Yeah, anything over $200 might be just too many bucks for the bang. I'll have to think about that.

OTOH, I'm sure that I don't want to replace the motherboard. That does sound like a major physical project for this all-thumbs guy, and reinstalling the OS and all my programs would be such a PITA that I might be better off saving my pennies to get a whole new PC and start fresh.

That's a good point, though, about the 250W PSU. Some of these higher-end CPUs are 95W. Other than getting one of those Radio Shack devices that measures your power draw, is there any way (like, from inside Windows) to find out how much power the machine is using, so that one could gauge whether a new PSU would be in order with a new CPU?

I really appreciate your filling me on all these issues as I explore getting deeper into my computer -- literally!

--JorgeA

[CoffeeFiend]

JorgeA, on 21 November 2010 - 07:50 PM, said:

Yeah, anything over $200 might be just too many bucks for the bang. I'll have to think about that.

Yeah, $275 + taxes + shipping, plus the extra 4GB of DDR2 RAM you wanted to add, plus perhaps a new PSU... You've just spent at least $400 on a system that still has very low end video (and only with a VGA out, no DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort), still doesn't have USB3, etc. For that much money, plus whatever you'd get for selling your old box, you could buy something new and pretty much all-around better.

JorgeA, on 21 November 2010 - 07:50 PM, said:

Other than getting one of those Radio Shack devices that measures your power draw, is there any way (like, from inside Windows) to find out how much power the machine is using, so that one could gauge whether a new PSU would be in order with a new CPU?

Nope. Windows cannot tell. But it's not too hard to guesstimate

[JorgeA]

CoffeeFiend, on 21 November 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

JorgeA, on 21 November 2010 - 07:50 PM, said:

Other than getting one of those Radio Shack devices that measures your power draw, is there any way (like, from inside Windows) to find out how much power the machine is using, so that one could gauge whether a new PSU would be in order with a new CPU?

Nope. Windows cannot tell. But it's not too hard to guesstimate

CoffeeFiend,

Umm... how would one do that? You can safely assume that I'm completely ignorant when it comes to electrical issues. (In addition to anything else I might be ignorant about!)

As for the full set of improvements, I think I'll stick to one upgrade, tops -- either new RAM or a new CPU, otherwise it starts getting pretty expensive as you pointed out. If I do anything at all. that is.

--JorgeA

[CoffeeFiend]

JorgeA, on 21 November 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

Umm... how would one do that?

By knowing what CPU the computer has, what video card, how many drives and so on.

JorgeA, on 21 November 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

As for the full set of improvements, I think I'll stick to one upgrade, tops -- either new RAM or a new CPU, otherwise it starts getting pretty expensive as you pointed out. If I do anything at all. that is

If you multitask a lot, more memory would help (especially since your 2GB is "shared" i.e. used for video so you have even less available), even if it's just a cheap yet decent kit like this one @ $35. A E6800 would make the computer significantly faster too. Such a kit of RAM and a E6800 would be around $150 taxes in and would provide quite a boost. If anything, beyond that I'd look into getting a basic video card (that doesn't use system memory, has better performance, does H.264 decoding in hardware, have a better set out outputs, etc) -- you can get something alright for quite cheap like a Radeon 4650 at $50, which would bring all 3 upgrades (CPU/RAM/Video) at ~$200. That's what I'd call "bang for your buck".

E2200 + less than 2GB (shared) + Intel video -vs- E6800 + 4GB + Radeon 4650, there's simply no contest. That would give you far better overall performance than that $275 CPU alone (reinstalling your OS clean would likely help quite a bit too)

[JorgeA]

CoffeeFiend,

We're getting closer to a decision!

Now, the PC does currently have 4GB of RAM (4 x 1GB modules) installed. According to the System Information Viewer, they're DDR2 PC2-6400 at 800 MHz. Does this info affect the RAM recommendation?

The video card upgrade is also intriguing. The other day I happened to run the Windows Experience Index for the first time in a while, and my video rating had gone down to 3.3 (from the previous 3.4) even though I haven't made any changes at all to the hardware!?!

--JorgeA

[CoffeeFiend]

JorgeA, on 22 November 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

Now, the PC does currently have 4GB of RAM (4 x 1GB modules) installed.

Oh, OK then. No point in upgrading that then.

JorgeA, on 22 November 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

The video card upgrade is also intriguing. The other day I happened to run the Windows Experience Index for the first time in a while, and my video rating had gone down to 3.3 (from the previous 3.4) even though I haven't made any changes at all to the hardware!?!

That number is pretty much bogus when it comes to Intel 3100 video like your computer has. A lot of the thing it does (like vertex shaders) aren't actually done by the video card itself, but are rather done by your CPU (slowing it down). It's pretty far behind anything else basically. A Radeon 4650 performs several times faster (without needing the CPU's assistance -- it's still not a "gamer's card" though), doesn't use your system's RAM, has far better video decoding features, would give you at least a DVI output, etc. Intel video does the very basic stuff OK, but that's about it.

Anyway. It would help, but the faster CPU is still the main thing.