Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
What's the best type of 512mb SDRAM to upgrade with?
- Thread starter mike718
- Start date
Crucial, Kingston, Micron just to name a few...
has a system to guide you to the right type of memory for your motherboard
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
has a system to guide you to the right type of memory for your motherboard
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
- Thread starter
- #3
- Thread starter
- #4
I now know my series # it's G6-450. I went to crucial.com and found some modules
The highest available stick is 128mb. I only have 3 slots one of which is already taken. So if I add 2 more it will go up to 384mb. Will my motherboard accept a 512mb stick?
The highest available stick is 128mb. I only have 3 slots one of which is already taken. So if I add 2 more it will go up to 384mb. Will my motherboard accept a 512mb stick?
I couldn't locate the documentation for the "G6-450", but you'll want to look for the specs here:
Chances are that if crucial only lists 128 MB sticks for your pc, then that's probably the highest supported...
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
Chances are that if crucial only lists 128 MB sticks for your pc, then that's probably the highest supported...
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
One thing worth considering....
which OS are you using. If you're using Win98/Me, then I wouldn't go any higher than 384Mb, as Win98/Me has been known to misbehave after that.....
If you're running 2k/XP, then cram as much as you can on, but to be honest, 384Mb should be fine. Check your graphics card as well, as it might not be able to handle the latest games.
I'm currently running XP Pro on a Duron 950Mhx, with 128Mb of DDR RAM and a 32Mb GForce 2 MX200 graphics card, and I can run most of the latest games fine, including Aliens Vs Predator 2, Unreal Tournament, Red Faction & Mobile Forces.....
Scotsdude![[bravo]](/data/assets/smilies/bravo.gif "[bravo] [bravo]")
which OS are you using. If you're using Win98/Me, then I wouldn't go any higher than 384Mb, as Win98/Me has been known to misbehave after that.....
If you're running 2k/XP, then cram as much as you can on, but to be honest, 384Mb should be fine. Check your graphics card as well, as it might not be able to handle the latest games.
I'm currently running XP Pro on a Duron 950Mhx, with 128Mb of DDR RAM and a 32Mb GForce 2 MX200 graphics card, and I can run most of the latest games fine, including Aliens Vs Predator 2, Unreal Tournament, Red Faction & Mobile Forces.....
Scotsdude
You haven't stated your full system spec! but whatever it is extra memory isn't what you want to play games, you want a decent graphics card.
As long as you have more than say 96mb of ram more memory will make little differance in 3D gaming.
Spend your money on a decent graphics card.
Min: Geforce 2 MX400 or above. Martin Please let members know if there advice has helped any.
As long as you have more than say 96mb of ram more memory will make little differance in 3D gaming.
Spend your money on a decent graphics card.
Min: Geforce 2 MX400 or above. Martin Please let members know if there advice has helped any.
CitrixEngineer
Technical User
Quote "As long as you have more than say 96mb of ram more memory will make little differance in 3D gaming."
Only true if you're running Windows 9.x/ME, and no background stuff (all those things that sit in the taskbar consuming memory). If you're running Win2k, then you need 128Mb just to load the Operating System.
It's true, though, that a high-end GF2 will make all the difference over an old graphics card.
As for type of RAM, Crucial, Kingston, Micron, Corsair are all good quality brands, but this mobo will only support up to 348Mb - even though it has 4 slots it will not use 4 128Mb DIMMS.
In short; I'd recommend a GeForce MX400 based card AND a 128Mb DIMM. You can get a MX400 for around $50-$70 on newegg.com, so don't pay too much more elsewhere ;-) CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk
Only true if you're running Windows 9.x/ME, and no background stuff (all those things that sit in the taskbar consuming memory). If you're running Win2k, then you need 128Mb just to load the Operating System.
It's true, though, that a high-end GF2 will make all the difference over an old graphics card.
As for type of RAM, Crucial, Kingston, Micron, Corsair are all good quality brands, but this mobo will only support up to 348Mb - even though it has 4 slots it will not use 4 128Mb DIMMS.
In short; I'd recommend a GeForce MX400 based card AND a 128Mb DIMM. You can get a MX400 for around $50-$70 on newegg.com, so don't pay too much more elsewhere ;-) CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk
raindancer
Technical User
I have to agree² with citrixE. and paparazi. if 200$ is your limit spend 54$ at crucial.com and get your system to 384mb then upgrade that video card with whatever you have left, if you go with the geforce2 from newegg.com(i recomend newegg ive had good dealings)you will have 65$ left over to buy a brand new game. but read the package carefully, games are requiring alot more processer these days.
scotsdude- i'm in no way saying you are wrong but I could barely get windows XP to run smoth with 512 ddr i'm impressed that you can play games with 128. i run a gig now to be sure(corsair)
scotsdude- i'm in no way saying you are wrong but I could barely get windows XP to run smoth with 512 ddr i'm impressed that you can play games with 128. i run a gig now to be sure(corsair)
Citrix - just to correct you a little, but Win2K can and will run with only 64Mb. Its only the Server editions that require a minimum of 128Mb.
Raindancer - quite a few people have said the same, but I've had no probs. I admit, I could do with doubling the memory anyway, but cash flow is rather tight, and it seems to work anyway
The biggest problem I have is it sometimes takes the games a while to load up, and Mobile Forces jerks a bit when you start a level, but then that clears, and it runs just as well as my mates system whos running 512Mb DDR(he's also got a faster CPU. Duron 1200 I think....)
I dunno what it is about XP, but for some reason, things can go bizarre. My mate actually has the same mobo, an MX400 instead of a 200 for his graphics, and the rest is the same as mine. His copy of XP Pro came from me, so thats the same, but the amount of problems he's had are unreal, whereas I've had no problems whatsoever from day 1.
Go figure.
Scotsdude
Raindancer - quite a few people have said the same, but I've had no probs. I admit, I could do with doubling the memory anyway, but cash flow is rather tight, and it seems to work anyway
The biggest problem I have is it sometimes takes the games a while to load up, and Mobile Forces jerks a bit when you start a level, but then that clears, and it runs just as well as my mates system whos running 512Mb DDR(he's also got a faster CPU. Duron 1200 I think....)I dunno what it is about XP, but for some reason, things can go bizarre. My mate actually has the same mobo, an MX400 instead of a 200 for his graphics, and the rest is the same as mine. His copy of XP Pro came from me, so thats the same, but the amount of problems he's had are unreal, whereas I've had no problems whatsoever from day 1.
Go figure.
Scotsdude
CitrixEngineer
Technical User
Quote/ "Citrix - just to correct you a little, but Win2K can and will run with only 64Mb. Its only the Server editions that require a minimum of 128Mb." /Quote
OK, hands up - I'm more used to servers than desktops
You still wouldn't want to run Windows 2000 Pro with such a small amount of RAM - it works better and quicker the more you throw at it (to a point).
To demonstrate, open a few apps and press Ctrl-Alt-Del for Task Manager and look at how much RAM is being consumed.
My Windows 2000 desktop has 384Mb RAM, and I am using 291Mb of it by running 5 apps, 8 background (Systray) apps, and 44 processes.
Watch what happens when you close apps and kill taskbar icons - not all memory is reclaimed.
This is just part of why you should give Windows NT (2000, XP) lots of RAM - it WILL use it!
CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk
OK, hands up - I'm more used to servers than desktops
You still wouldn't want to run Windows 2000 Pro with such a small amount of RAM - it works better and quicker the more you throw at it (to a point).
To demonstrate, open a few apps and press Ctrl-Alt-Del for Task Manager and look at how much RAM is being consumed.
My Windows 2000 desktop has 384Mb RAM, and I am using 291Mb of it by running 5 apps, 8 background (Systray) apps, and 44 processes.
Watch what happens when you close apps and kill taskbar icons - not all memory is reclaimed.
This is just part of why you should give Windows NT (2000, XP) lots of RAM - it WILL use it!
CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.ukI'm don't disagree mate. Like I said, I'd have mine sitting at some absurd number IF i had the cash
(drools over the thought of dual athlon mp 2200 system with 2 Gb of RAM)
I know exactly what all NT systems are like - black holes when it comes to memory........
Scotsdude
(drools over the thought of dual athlon mp 2200 system with 2 Gb of RAM)
I know exactly what all NT systems are like - black holes when it comes to memory........
Scotsdude
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
