DDR400 versus DDR333 (Memory Performance)

MothballsWallet

My desktop system's currently got 1GB of DDR400 memory on a MSI K8N Neo motherboard with 3 memory slots.

Now, according to the manual, this mobo supports a maximum of 2GB using DDR400 or 3GB using DDR333. From looking at Crucial's website, I've spotted that there's no real price difference between the two memory types, so I'd like to gradually upgrade my system from 1GB to 3GB.

What I'd like to know is if there's a noticeable performance difference between DDR400 and DDR333 modules since I'd like to eventually swap all the modules?

(Btw, I've currently got 2x 512MB DDR400 modules installed, and I know that the system will run at the lower memory access speed if I add a DDR334 module.)

spannerzone

"What I'd like to know is if there's a noticeable performance difference between DDR400 and DDR333 modules since I'd like to eventually swap all the modules?" - short answer is probably no, not under normal conditions.

I doubt you'd notice any speed improvement from the speed of the ram, but adding ram will make things run faster usually so from my perspective, get more ram and don't worry about the speed of it..... of course you must get ram that can work in the PC so the speed issue is relevent (some PC's can't handle higher speed modules or may need a BIOS update)

If you're running Windows XP then 1Gb ram should be ok, 2 Gb might help but a good system clear out and tidy up will often give a good performance boost without adding more ram. See the 'How to speed up a slow or infected PC' thread on this forum.

If you're running Vista or Win7 then 2Gb is probably the realistic minimum ram ammount otherwise things can get sluggish. From my own tests, I found XP didn't appear to perform any better when going from 2gb to 3gb ram whereas from 1gb to 2gb did make some applications (video, photo editing, gaming) run better.

SteveJH200

I have recently broken a computer with one of these motherboards. They take DDR Ram and I tried 2 x 1Gb PC3200 in the first two slots. It had a fairly good AMD processor (for it's time) but I never could get it to perform very well. I tried it with XP, Windows 7 and Linux but I wasn't happy with it compared to my other P4 Gigabyte machines using the same amount of Ram. If your computer is sluggish then by all means try a clean up and if you're happy with it then don't waste any money.

I have not yet binned my K8N motherboard and you're welcome to it for free - send me a pm if you're interested.

andy2004

Dont believe everything you read in the motherboard manual, I have a ECS KT600-A motherboard and it said exactly the same as yours, if i installed 400mhz memory i would only be able to use 2 in the 3 slots, and if i used 333mhz i would be able to use all 3 slots, well currently and for the past 4 years i have had 3x400mhz running fine on my system, and yes i'm running xp sp3 and it shows all 3gb, with an AMD Athlon XP 2500 processor, yeah i know its about time i updated, which i was thinking of doing to a 4core, but i just cant be bothered at reinstalling the OS due to the new motherboard etc, and the fact the new combo would come with 4gb.

You wont notice a difference at all by using 333mhz, I've run xp with a minimum of 256mb damn slow but working, followd by 1gb+256mb, to 2gb before upgrading to the full 3gb, thanks in part to my nephew killing his pc and getting a whole new system, and giving me the memory from his old system.