RAM
#1
Posted 03 August 2003 - 12:53 AM
#2
Posted 03 August 2003 - 02:32 AM
#3
Posted 03 August 2003 - 02:41 AM
#4
Posted 03 August 2003 - 07:42 AM
That used to be the case. Some of the newer stuf is 133 only, 100 only, etc. You can't really assume that 133 is backwards compatible anymore. I just found this out the hard way a couple months ago.
Jim
#5
Posted 03 August 2003 - 09:17 AM
I wouldn't invest a lot in that memory
#6
Posted 03 August 2003 - 12:46 PM
PC-133 memory should be backwards compatible. I run PC-133 at PC-100 in one of my PCs
#7
Posted 03 August 2003 - 06:24 PM
Also, you didn't mention the OS you're using, this will help determine the optimal amount of ram to use.
For Win 9x up to 512MB without the vcache patch.
For Win NT/2K/XP any amount you want, up to the maximum that the motherboard can address. With yours it could be listed as a maximum of 768MB in which case you can most likely only use 256MB memory modules. Check the user manual or the manufacturers website for more info on this.
#8
Posted 03 August 2003 - 07:58 PM
Sorry to nitpick, but that's not necessarily correct. If adding a new stick only half is addressed, there's a good chance that the motherboard cannot support double-sided memory modules.
As an example, my current workstation motherboard, an Asus P4B533-E with the Intel 845-E chipset, supports the following memory configurations:
Slot 1: Any single or double-sided module, up to 1GB.
Slot 2: Any single or double-sided module, up to 1GB.
Slot 3: If slot 2 has a double sided module, then slot 3 must be vacant. If slot 2 has a single-sided module, then only a single-sided module may be placed in slot 3.
Note that if single-sided modules are used in both slots 2 and 3, they may each be 1GB sticks, for a system (chipset) total limitation of 3GB.
Hope that clears things up a bit, and jmmijo was correct about Windows 9x and the vcache patch.
#9
Posted 03 August 2003 - 08:52 PM
Saying it doesn't support double-sided is not a good description as many older SDRAM modules can be either single or double sided including newer 256MB memory modules, but these are usually DDR instead of SDR memory
Now if you description of double-sided is different then what I interpret it as then that is where the mis-communication comes from...
#10
Posted 09 August 2003 - 11:28 PM
Sorry to nitpick, but that's not necessarily correct. If adding a new stick only half is addressed, there's a good chance that the motherboard cannot support double-sided memory modules.
As an example, my current workstation motherboard, an Asus P4B533-E with the Intel 845-E chipset, supports the following memory configurations:
Slot 1: Any single or double-sided module, up to 1GB.
Slot 2: Any single or double-sided module, up to 1GB.
Slot 3: If slot 2 has a double sided module, then slot 3 must be vacant. If slot 2 has a single-sided module, then only a single-sided module may be placed in slot 3.
Note that if single-sided modules are used in both slots 2 and 3, they may each be 1GB sticks, for a system (chipset) total limitation of 3GB.
Hope that clears things up a bit, and jmmijo was correct about Windows 9x and the vcache patch.
If it is any of the i845 chipsets from intel, then it's 2Gigs of ram. sorry, ASUS website is just too slow for me to chech the mobo. (why their site sucks so badly, i can never find anything there, i hate their website ;( )
My Gigabyte Mobo is like that. it has a i845PE chipset, BUT it has 3 DDR memory sluts! it's just that the 2nd and the 3rd one is shared. (that's only for DDR SDRAM and i have never seen it for SDRAM)
Come on, don't make it complex. just get a stick of ram and stick it in and see if it wors. how bad could it be? worse case senario is that your mobo may not support 1 stick of 512MB on each memory bank, or you can't mix it with the old one.
#11
Posted 09 August 2003 - 11:36 PM

Help










