|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
New Member
![]() Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 19
|
I just received an old computer (HP Pavilion 7845), and would like to max out the memory. Since I received the computer for free, I'm trying to spend as little as possible on this. According to the HP website, the factory-installed memory is a 128MB SDRAM 168-pin DIMM 133MHz FSB chip (ASUS 810E processor, socket 370), and the maximum supported is 512MB. My problem is, depending on the website, I get a different recommendation on the "correct" memory for this processor (I'm looking for 2 256MB chips)--crucial.com shows PC133, but almost all other sites recommend PC100 (ex.: edgetechcorp.com). Also, I know that the memory should be unbuffered, non-parity, and non-ECC, but most sites recommend 32Mx64 and 16x8 chips. My question is how crucial are the last two specifications? According to pricewatch.com, PC100 256MB memory is only $21.99, but it's 32x72; the cheapest PC100 256MB that's explicitly both 32Mx64 and 16x8 is $16.00 more. Also, the cheapest is PC133 256MB is $23.00 for 32x72, but the cheapest that's both 32Mx64 and 16x8 is $25.00. If the PC133 won't give me any performance advantage, I'd just assume get the cheapest ($22) chips, IF they're compatible with my system. Otherwise, I'd just assume get the $25 PC133 memory (Micron Technology), which I assume should be completely compatible. Any suggestions?
-Charles |
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Memory upgrade now | Nevakonaza | Computer Memory and Hard Drives | 6 | 06-11-2006 05:31 AM |
| memory upgrade | alfredw1 | Laptop and Smartphones | 1 | 06-10-2006 09:25 AM |
| Video Card 101 | Praetor | Video Cards and Monitors | 15 | 02-26-2006 03:03 PM |
| Is it because of the memory upgrade? | bloggs | Computer Memory and Hard Drives | 2 | 02-15-2005 09:04 PM |
| Memory upgrade questions | Hammy211 | Computer Memory and Hard Drives | 2 | 02-05-2004 09:03 PM |