NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Business (Vostro, Latitude, Precision) › Configuring Dell sys. - how much diff betwen memory 533 and 667?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Configuring Dell sys. - how much diff betwen memory 533 and 667?

post #1 of 28
2/16/06 at 4:46pm
Thread Starter 
Just curious if there is any noticeable difference in speed between the two options Dell offers for there memory. 533Hz or 667Hz. I was going to get 1GB of the 533Hz and to get 1GB of 667Hz it tacs on $140 more - it surely isn't worth it is it?


Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 28
2/16/06 at 7:58pm
I've read from several sources that there are zero differences between the two memory speeds due to a bottleneck somewhere else (for the E1705/I9400). I dont remember off the top of my head what this bottleneck was, or where those sources are, sorry - but just wanted to give you a preliminary answer.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 28
2/16/06 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidinKS
Just curious if there is any noticeable difference in speed between the two options Dell offers for there memory. 533Hz or 667Hz. I was going to get 1GB of the 533Hz and to get 1GB of 667Hz it tacs on $140 more - it surely isn't worth it is it?


Thanks!
You'll be introducing a self inflicted bottleneck if you put the 533 memory in.

The machine has a 667 front side bus, the answer is obvious.

When I purchased my 9400, with 667 memory, Dell also gave the option of 533 memory. My machine was in preproduction for about 6 days, then all of a sudden shipped.

There is no 533 option now on the UK Dell website. 667 All the way.

Also, Some Dell Systems may not even boot up if using different memory speeds (especially Dell Precision Workstations)
Dougie.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 28
2/16/06 at 9:08pm
Thread Starter 
So if I use 533Hz memory I'll be bottlenecking my system?

Why would a pc maker (Dell in this case) even offer something that would hinder the performance of the system (if it is true)?



Anyone else know anything about this?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 28
2/16/06 at 9:21pm
Dell = bunch of clowns
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 28
2/16/06 at 9:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by viperxiv
Dell = bunch of clowns

Wow thanks for an informative post there buddy.


Reply
Reply
post #7 of 28
2/16/06 at 9:36pm
Lmao
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 28
2/16/06 at 9:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidinKS
Why would a pc maker (Dell in this case) even offer something that would hinder the performance of the system (if it is true)?
It basically comes down to cost. I mean it comes with integrated graphics options, and slower cpu's and hard disks. For the same base model, they offer different priced variants so people could use them for different things.

ie to watch dvd's integrated graphics are fine, to play games and high end 3D cad, 7800 is the way to go. The same goes for memory, hard disk speed, and cpu, It is actually quite a good idea to offer so many variants. In my case I needed the fastest thing possbile so I went for the 2.16G, 2G 667 ram and 100G 7200 hard disk, 7800GO, becuase I will be running 3D cad and computational fluid dynamics stuff on this thing all the time. If they just offered a mid performance system, I would have gone somewhere else.

What they offer actually makes good business sense.

Stuman
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 28
2/16/06 at 10:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuman
It basically comes down to cost. I mean it comes with integrated graphics options, and slower cpu's and hard disks. For the same base model, they offer different priced variants so people could use them for different things.

ie to watch dvd's integrated graphics are fine, to play games and high end 3D cad, 7800 is the way to go. The same goes for memory, hard disk speed, and cpu, It is actually quite a good idea to offer so many variants. In my case I needed the fastest thing possbile so I went for the 2.16G, 2G 667 ram and 100G 7200 hard disk, 7800GO, becuase I will be running 3D cad and computational fluid dynamics stuff on this thing all the time. If they just offered a mid performance system, I would have gone somewhere else.

What they offer actually makes good business sense.

Stuman


I understand the 533Hz memory may be a tad slower than the 667Hz but is the 533Hz really a bottleneck? I mean was the system designed with 667Hz memory in mind and by using the slower 533Hz is it really handicapping the whole system?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 28
2/16/06 at 10:15pm
I believe by using the 533Mhz RAM you will slow the Front Side Buss down to the 533Mhz. If you get the 667Mhz the FSB will run at its full potential and everything else that travels through the FSB will run at the 667Mhz. Therefore handicapping the whole system. This is how I've always understood this concept, if I'm wrong please inform me!
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 28
2/16/06 at 10:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidinKS
I understand the 533Hz memory may be a tad slower than the 667Hz but is the 533Hz really a bottleneck? I mean was the system designed with 667Hz memory in mind and by using the slower 533Hz is it really handicapping the whole system?

The link between the processor and the memory is running at 667mhz, so when you put 533mhz memory in, the memory isn't running as fast as the channel between that connects it to the processor would allow.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 28
2/16/06 at 11:17pm
I believe the Mainboards memory controler determines the RAM frequency not some circut inherant in the installed ram module. Does anyone have specs on the intel 945 chipset to determine frequency and multiplier tables?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 28
2/17/06 at 1:11am
Thread Starter 
So what's the verdict? Everyone is saying something different. Is there a real world noticeable differnce in performance between the two or what? Will 533Hz really bottleneck the systems performance? Or will it just be a tad slower than the 667Hz (134Hz different)?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 28
2/17/06 at 3:02am
it semms that the top bandwith of the 533 MHz is something near the 8 GB/s and 10 somethin' for the 667, but somewhere else, probably fsb the top is 5,8 or so. Wich means the 533 should handle the overall memory bandwith pretty well but it seems there are some unconsidered stuff, BTw it cost me U$30 to upgrade from 533 to 667 so it shouln't be considered expensive
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 28
2/17/06 at 4:27am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZtingerViper
it semms that the top bandwith of the 533 MHz is something near the 8 GB/s and 10 somethin' for the 667, but somewhere else, probably fsb the top is 5,8 or so. Wich means the 533 should handle the overall memory bandwith pretty well but it seems there are some unconsidered stuff, BTw it cost me U$30 to upgrade from 533 to 667 so it shouln't be considered expensive

Dell wants $140 more to go from 1GB 533Hz to 1GB 667Hz!!!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 28
2/17/06 at 8:32am
I've seen no big difference to my 2 GB OCZ DDR2 533 in my older i9300. Not in battlefield2, not in 3DMark06, nowhere.

Marcus
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 28
2/17/06 at 12:36pm
After these dissenting responses, I went to find sources to support my first response stating that there is no difference between 533 and 667 memory.

Here is one, from tom's hardware:

"Two cores automatically entail more memory access. To prevent the Front Side Bus (FSB) in these new CPUs from becoming a bottleneck, Intel raised the FSB clock rate from 133 MHz to 166 MHz in this latest incarnation. Since Intel deploys a quad data rate protocol, four data transfers occur per cycle, resulting in speed designations of FSB533 and FSB667. That increase boosts maximum FSB bandwidth from 4.2 GB/s to 5.3 GB/s. This is still well below the maximum memory bandwidth of 10.76 GB/s possible for DDR2-667 dual channel memory technology.

As a consequence of this improvement, installing DDR2-667 RAM in a Centrino Duo system removes the chances of the CPU being required to wait on memory for data delivery. Strictly speaking, DDR2-533 RAM, with a maximum bandwidth of 8.5 GB/s, is already sufficient to meet the needs of fast FSB667 in the dual core CPU. You should thus not worry if you look at a brand-new Yonah system and find it outfitted with DDR2-533 SO-DIMMs - faster DDR2-667 modules are more expensive and won't boost performance measurably."

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/...nse/page3.html

There are other sources that state the same thing, but i dont have time atm to look for them.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 28
2/17/06 at 1:43pm
To be completely honest, the difference in the end it looks good on paper, but real world applications, and synthetic benchmarks will show only a slight increase in performance that you may never notice anyway. It is not like going from 533 to 800, or 1066FSB difference, it will be more like going from a Pentium 3 300Mhz CPU to a 400Mhz CPU. Save your dough. I know alot of flames will come thy way with this post, but it is true. I know you guys remember the lovely Dual Channel memory debates on the i9300, no performance boost there was there =)
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 28
2/17/06 at 1:55pm


You have to remember, while the DDR2-667 has faster throughput than DDR2-533, it has high latency. On the other hand, DDR2-533 has comparably lower throughput but low latency. Thus, performance difference between the two end up being almost negligible.

See PCGeek's post on this matter and he also quotes the RAM timings for both DDR2-667 and DDR2-533.

FWIW, I decided on the DDR2-667 (2048 Gb [2x1024]) SDRAM, only because the price differential between the 2048 Gb of DDR2-533 and DDR2-667 SDRAM was a measly $6AUD from the Dell AU site.

Cheers.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 28
2/17/06 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney_bristow
I dont remember off the top of my head what this bottleneck was ...
Latency / RAM timings (CAS).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Business (Vostro, Latitude, Precision) › Configuring Dell sys. - how much diff betwen memory 533 and 667?