what's faster/efficient??? Ram Scenarios

1.5gb pc2 5300 (1gb x1 pc2 5300, 512mb x1 pc2 5300)

vs

2gb pc2 4200 (1gb x1 pc2 4200, 1gb pc2 5300)

which combo is more efficient with the amd turion 64 x2 tl 50 1.6ghz windows xp pro ati radeon xpress 1270??

thanks.

 

2 gb is, itll most likely downclock to meet the other one

 

More ram is always the better one... the difference between the 2Gb running @533mhz(the faster ram module will slow down to the slower speed) and the 1.5Gb running @ 667mhz won't be noticed. 2Gb is what you want...

 

Why do you ask bandwidth based on a GPU? But the question was answered above. Oh and I might disagree w/above comment.

Edit: No I don't. For different reasons.

 

Well he's asking about the GPU because it's integrated. So while it has its own core clock, the memory speed is based on the system memory speed. So his ram running at 667MHz means that the GPU is using memory that is running at 667MHz.

So in regards to your gpu, running the first setup (1.5gbs @ 667MHz) will be more beneficial for gaming.

For general computing purposes, the second choice is better because it's better to have more ram than speedy ram.

 

The 2GB @533mhz might run in dual channel if you are lucky. That would make the speed differance smaller.

If its not dual channel then the 1.5gb will be faster until you fil the 1.5gb. If the applications use less then 1.5gb then 2gb wont bring any benefit. I guess the GPU will use 128 or 256MB of the system ram. So if you are using Vista the rest 1.3gb will fill up pretty fast. I think 2GB would be better. Are you sure you cant find 1GB @667mhz for a similar price as the 1gb 533mhz?

 

Whoakay then. More RAM is ALWAYS better than higher clocks, come on people! Also remember that 667MHz RAM has higher latencies than 533MHz ram and as such the difference in performance is minimal. Dual Channel also makes very little difference.

Definitely go for 2GB ram.

 

There is not a correct answer to this question, it could not of been asked better on a test, here is what I mean.
The 2GB config gains from more RAM but runs @533 w/cas latencey of 5 so slower speed w/higher latency, I guess that is around 20% loss in performance over cas 4 at the speed it is going to run @533.
Less RAM But runs faster, CL5 is offset by faster speed so a little faster than @533 w/CL5 (2GB config), I think it will run in dual channel but it is AMD and a guess, I have based on benchmarks makes me think that is a 10% hit diff size sticks. On Intel only a 3% hit for diff size sticks.
So I guess 1.5GB ends up 10% faster than 2GB.
He runs XP so needs less RAM than Vista, If he doesn't need that 512MB diff much, 1.5GB is faster, if he needs it much, 2GB is faster. Two sticks @533 w/CL4 would be the fastest. My TL-52 w/@533 CL4 2X1GB runs the same as John Ratsey's Santa Rosa @667 CL5.
Get 2X1GB sticks w/CL4
@533 is 20% less than @667, 4 is 20% less than 5, dont mix them you get the worst of both, When speed and latency is matched they are equal when you mix you get the worst of both.

 

Or if you run the 2GB I think you can lower the cas to 4 of the @667 with software. I have never done so I will not advise. But if someone else can help it becomes a no-brainer, 2GB @CL4 is the best. It can be done I just don't know right now how to do. Good luck.