Optimum RAM for processor?

R

rekawamo

New Member
I'm really not sure on something here. The more the processor's fsb, the faster ram is communicated with, I think. I have 384 mb of ram and 400 fsb processor. Is this an optimum ratio? If not, which could be better?

Thank you.
 
Ram to fsb wont tell you anything. We need ram to processor speed.

The fsb is just how fast everything runs. Increase it and everything goes faster. It doesn't matter what the fsb is when deciding how much ram is enough because fsb doesn't change performance by a huge amount(assuming you change the multipliers and stuff so everything is still running the same speed (I know that you cant do that for some parts but it is the concept, ok?)))
 
I know I'm changing the subject here, but if I upgrade my cpu to say, celeron 2.8 ghz then what would be the optimum ram?
 
Why a celeron? I don't know much about intel sockets, but if both celeron and pentium use the same socket a pentium would be much better. Even if the pentium is clocked lower (~0.2ghz) it should still be comparable if not better. If you must use the 2.8 celeron, you should be fine with 512 or even 768. Really it depends on how many programs you have open at a time and what you do with the computer.

If you play games 256 should be the minimum (512 better)

Only one window open at a time would run well with 256.

Up to three windows open could use 512.

5 windows would be smooth with 768.

Anything more would use 1 Gb.

Remember that this is only approximate and big programs will use more ram.

You probbably wont need more than 768.

Just to help could you post the rest of the system?
 
My system is as follows:

1.8 ghz celeron processor
384 megabytes ram
GeForce MX 440 64 megabyte video card, using pci slot

The main reason why I wanted Celeron is because it is quite a bit cheaper.

For what will be done with the computer, I would like to be able to play games smoothly on the lowest graphics settings/resolution.
 
rekawamo said:
My system is as follows:

1.8 ghz celeron processor
384 megabytes ram
GeForce MX 440 64 megabyte video card, using pci slot

The main reason why I wanted Celeron is because it is quite a bit cheaper.

For what will be done with the computer, I would like to be able to play games smoothly on the lowest graphics settings/resolution.
Click to expand...
To do games better, tou need a better video card. You can get pretty much any 8x agp card on the market, what is your budget?
 
This is where I have a large problem. First, my computer is one of those mini towers so most video cards are too large - they stick out the top and don't fit in the slot at all. So I had to get this directly through the manufacturer. I still can't believe it was $70 and I only got it 6 months ago. So now I'm diciding whether to get a new motherboard, case, probably processor, and transfer everything. Man that will cost a lot. But if you know a good, small, video card around $70 - please let me know.
 
rekawamo said:
This is where I have a large problem. First, my computer is one of those mini towers so most video cards are too large - they stick out the top and don't fit in the slot at all.
Click to expand...
Stick out the top??? Not fit?

If your computer is AGP 4x, any card out there (agp) should work. If it is 2x, then they wouldn't fit, yes. But I don't know what your computer is....therefore I really can't help you unless you can tell me what computer or motherboard. Also, what games do you want to play???
 
You could change the case and mobo for ~100$ if you choose carfully. I don't think a new processor would be nesscary because celerons are common.
 
I was thinking about upgrading to Athlon anyway though. Anyway about the sticking out thing - the height of my current computer case is ~5 inches, I think most video cards are ~7 inches tall?
 
I was thinking about upgrading to Athlon anyway though. Anyway about the sticking out thing - the height of my current computer case is ~5 inches, I think most video cards are ~7 inches tall?
Click to expand...
You need a low profile (aka half height) card. They can be a bit hard to find sometimes. Something like this FX5200 or Radeon 9250 would suffice for most games at lower graphics. Note that these are not great cards or great prices, but like I said low pro cards are sort of a rarity.

As for your RAM, it wouldn't hurt to add another 256 or 512 though you'd probably get by okay with your 384. Do you have an empty slot? Do you know what type of RAM it is?
 
Last edited:
The MX 440 (I used to have that in my old computer) runs in 4x/8x (I think...). So, you say that your case can't fit things like GeForce FX 5200/5700/5900, etc...

Also rekawamo, what games are you hoping to play? Old games will run ok on a graphics card like that, but many new games on the market today wont even support that graphics card. For example, Theif III: Deadly Shadows or Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow both require pixel shading to operate, a feature which the MX 440 doesn't support... That is when I upgraded the card.
 
The MX 440 (I used to have that in my old computer) runs in 4x/8x (I think...). So, you say that your case can't fit things like GeForce FX 5200/5700/5900, etc...
Click to expand...
As I said, it is a low profile card. The physical height of the card and bracket are smaller. It has nothing to do with the AGP specs
 
Well, I stupidly got Half-Life 2 thinking it would run, and, by some miracle, it does. On lowest settings. And a lousy frame rate whenever there's fire. Anyway, the comuter came with 128 ram, then I used the second slot (there were two) for 256 more. I think DDR SDRAM is supported. So I would have to replace my slot that has 128 to put in more. Now which would probably save more money in the long run: getting a new motherboard and case that is full size or keeping with my current and buying low profile cards at high prices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top