What's faster--1.66 proc with 2 RAM 667Mhz or

Which system would run more reliably/faster?

Uses will include word processing, internet, music, internet videos, occassional online gaming.

Dell D620 latitude with

1.) a 1.83 (667 Mhz) core duo processor with 1.0 GB (533 Mhz) RAM

2.) a 1.66 (667 Mhz) core duo processor with 2.0 GB (667 Mhz) RAM

 

I'd probably spring for the T2400 (1.83GHz) CPU and 1GB. You can always upgrade the RAM in the long run. Doesn't look like you'll need more than 1GB to start with.

And the 533MHz RAM vs. 667MHz RAM makes no difference at all.

 

Yep, RAM is much easier to upgrade than the CPU. But if you have no plans of upgrading ever then the 1.66+2GB RAM is better.

 

Also, we never reached a conclusion in this very similar thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=65248

 

Oh. I thought the 533 vs. 667 would be an important consideration. Thx man.

 

You can see the results here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=67099

 

Reliability *should* be the same, assuming you haven't overclocked anything, and no parts are defective.
Faster? Hard to say. For high-end games, the CPU can be a bottleneck, and 1.66 GHz isn't *that* impressive. For most other uses, it won't be a problem.

On the other hand, the extra GB of memory can make a big difference too, if you run really demanding games, but for most of the uses you listed, 1GB will be enough. The RAM speed could still make a difference in some cases though. (Depending on the timings of the ram) On the whole, hard to say. I'd go with the 2GB ram, but for *some* games, the faster CPU might be more important. (For most games though, and most other tasks, I'd expect #2 to perform better)

Does the number in parenthesis after the CPU speed refer to FSB speed? If so, I'd definitely go with option 2. It's always a good idea to have the FSB speed synched with your memory speed.

 

I assume the parenthesis number is FSB. It's on dell's site and they didn't specify. It's got to be FSB.

Will not having FSB and RAM Mhz sync up create any problems that will cause crashing or anything that wouldn't occur with a sync up?

 

No, just possibly slower performance.

I know on the Durons (100 FSB desktop), they said that 100 FSB memory worked better than 133, but 166 worked better than either one.

 

The FSB of the Core Solo is 667MHz - the memory doesn't have to be the same frequency as the FSB, and there will be no problems with stability as far as I know if you had slower RAM. DDR2-667 is handicapped because it has a terrible CAS latency of 5, so it sort of negates the bandwidth advantage.

 

Newegg had some Simpletech DDR2 667 with a CAS of 4, unless that was a typo.

 

ram intensive = 1.66 cpu intensive = 1.83. But in real world performance there isnt a huge difference in cpu speed when both are compared. But there is a difference and it will depend on your tasks. The faster ram wont matter as the cas trumps the fast speed.

yeah I saw that too, but as you can see even though its 667 ddr2 and cas 4 nobody has bought it yet. That speaks alot about the item in general. Me Ill wait for a trusted brand to come out with cas 4...or Ill wimp out and buy 2gb in the next week

 

Most people running Windows XP will never need more than 1 GB (unless you're planning to do heavy gaming or Photoshop work for example) so I would take the faster CPU. Besides, you can always upgrade the memory later on.