My laptop already came with 2 GB (1 DIMM) 667 MHz DDR2 RAM. I'm upgrading it to 4 GB, and I know if I get 800 MHz RAM it'll just downgrade it anyway. I was wondering if it would be worth it to replace the 2 GB stock RAM to 800 MHz for a laptop used for non-gaming/graphic intensive applications (Vista 64-bit OS). I'm sure the answer is probably "no", but I just thought I'd ask out of curiosity.
-
Even for gaming, like you said, it's just going to downclock. Save your money and get the 667.
The only way getting the 800 could help, short of having a laptop that supports the 800, would be if the timings on the 800 and 667 were the same, the 800's timings would improve when it was downclocked. -
I just realized that Santa Rosa doesn't support PC6400 800MHz anyway, nevermind.
-
masterchef341 The guy from The Notebook
it'll support it in that you can put it in...
its just going to run at 667mhz though (pc 5300 speed) -
just get the 667
-
Even if your chipset did support DDR2 800, the difference in performance would be at most 5% in the most memory intensive tasks. Unless you can get DDR2 800 sticks at the same price or cheaper than DDR2 667, it is definitely not worth it.
Noticable performance difference between 667MHz and 800 MHz DDR2?
Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Funkymoe, Jun 8, 2008.