Ram vs HD vs FSB

PCHanson

New Member
I have an existing desktop (older) that I want to inexpensively upgrade to be more usable (I don't have too many issues right now with it being "too slow" for what I do, but need more hard drive space.
Using WinXp, have 256MB Ram and capable of only going up to 512MB.
Uses only PC-133 FSB.

I'm looking at putting in another 256MB Ram (PC-133) and want to install another Hard Drive. Thinking of WD ATA-100 250MB 8MB Cache 7200...have EIDI cable anyway....or WD S-ATA 250MB 16MB Cache at same price...and get an inexpensive S-ATA controller card. Here is what I'm not sure about...I realize my "restriction" is my slow Frontside Bus...I'm spending a little more to get the S-ATA harddrive because of the additional cache, but will it matter when considering my whole system (ie. will my FSB make everything pretty much the same anyway and might as well not waste the money)?
 
Upgrading your RAM or hard drive won't really make it much faster. I'd just save your money and do a full system upgrade later.

And realize 133MHz FSB isn't THAT slow, considering Athlons technically run at 200MHz :P
 
Your FSB will always be faster than what a hard drive can do. Don't worry about the RAM when considering the hard drive. It's the slowest part of your computer.
 
No...not offhand...it is a Gatewayl computer about 5 years old. I just asked my wife to give me the serial number from the side of the console since I know I can get info from their System Advisor...but don't know if that'll give me the mainboard model.
 
Thanks all --
Styrak, I take it you are sayingthe the hard drive is the slowest part....so going with the 16MB cache will indeed be "better" than the 8MB?
 
Thanks all --
Styrak, I take it you are sayingthe the hard drive is the slowest part....so going with the 16MB cache will indeed be "better" than the 8MB?

Yes the hard drive is the slowest part. It would most likely make a difference to get the bigger cache drive, even though your system is kind of slow.
 
Back
Top