DDR vs SDRAM

I'm going to replace my motherboard. All the newer ones support DDR

Is it possible for me to use my old SDRAM sticks (256) for a while until I
can buy some new DDR's in the new board?

"DrSardonic" wrote in message
...
I'm going to replace my motherboard. All the newer ones support DDR

Is it possible for me to use my old SDRAM sticks (256) for a while until I
can buy some new DDR's in the new board?



Yes and no ...

older SDR DIMMs have 168 pins, while new DDR DIMMs have 184 ... an old RAM
stick won't fit in a new DDR slot.

However, there are motherboards that have slots for both types. The ECS
K7S5A for instance. I bought this board for just this reason ... I wanted to
have the option of going to DDR without being forced to do so.

What I found though was that this particular board, while technically
supporting both types, was actually very unstable with the old RAM ... and
that DDR is MUCH faster.

IMO, if you're planning on upgrading, you're going to have to go to DDR
eventually. You might as well go ahead and do it now as the best and fastest
chipsets are DDR only.


Drumguy

DrSardonic wrote:
I'm going to replace my motherboard. All the newer ones support DDR

Is it possible for me to use my old SDRAM sticks (256) for a while until I
can buy some new DDR's in the new board?


No. The modules are not compatible.


-WD

"Will Dormann" wrote in message
.. .
DrSardonic wrote:
I'm going to replace my motherboard. All the newer ones support DDR

Is it possible for me to use my old SDRAM sticks (256) for a while until
I
can buy some new DDR's in the new board?

s
No. The modules are not compsatible.


-WD


thanks to both for the reply....guess I'll take the plunge for both.

I've kinda bought the computer on the instalment plan one or two component
at a time. I can come up with a hundred or two pretty easy. Can't imagine
putting out 2K all at once for one!

Thanks again.

DrSardonic wrote:
I'm going to replace my motherboard. All the newer ones support DDR

Is it possible for me to use my old SDRAM sticks (256) for a while until I
can buy some new DDR's in the new board?



OfficeMax has been practically giving away Kingston Value Ram 256MB
PC2100 2.5 sticks regularly for the past few months. They have them
often (now!) for $9.99 after rebate and sometimes free AR. Get a
Biostar M7NCD Pro for about $70 shipped and a Barton XP 2500+ w/HSF for
$90 shipped from newegg.com. I did and I couldn't be happier with the
stuff.

In article ,
says...

I've kinda bought the computer on the instalment plan one or two component
at a time. I can come up with a hundred or two pretty easy. Can't imagine
putting out 2K all at once for one!

2k?? What the hell are you buying? Jesus, that's about $1500 more than
you need to pay.


--
Nuckfut

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

"Nuckfut" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

I've kinda bought the computer on the instalment plan one or two
component
at a time. I can come up with a hundred or two pretty easy. Can't
imagine
putting out 2K all at once for one!

2k?? What the hell are you buying? Jesus, that's about $1500 more than
you need to pay.


--
Nuckfut

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

At least $1000 - $1200 too much, depending on the level of the components
that go into it.

Sure ... you CAN pay two grand for a PC these days, but you'd have to want
all the bleeding edge stuff, which is really a waste of money. I mean, it's
worth whatever people will pay for it ... but by the time you NEED it it'll
be half the price it is now, or less.

For instance, with the upcoming release of Half Life 2 I'm contemplating a
new video card purchase. The Radeon 9800 Ultra is the best there is ... and
sure it runs HL2 at around 100FPS ... but since the eye can only see 30FPS,
the extra 70 frames are wasted. So, I'm looking at a 9600 Pro ... it
benchmarked quite well with HL2 and looks like it'll have some head-room for
future DX9 titles, and is less than a third the price of the 9800 Ultra.


Drumguy

but since the eye can only see 30FPS,
the extra 70 frames are wasted.

ya know I have said this cause I'm old school too, BUT I was shot down by an instructor at a seminar, as he explained that its not
necessarily the speed that needs the higher frame rates but the layered FX that needs them?


"drumguy1384" wrote in message ...

"Nuckfut" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

I've kinda bought the computer on the instalment plan one or two
component
at a time. I can come up with a hundred or two pretty easy. Can't
imagine
putting out 2K all at once for one!

2k?? What the hell are you buying? Jesus, that's about $1500 more than
you need to pay.


--
Nuckfut

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

At least $1000 - $1200 too much, depending on the level of the components
that go into it.

Sure ... you CAN pay two grand for a PC these days, but you'd have to want
all the bleeding edge stuff, which is really a waste of money. I mean, it's
worth whatever people will pay for it ... but by the time you NEED it it'll
be half the price it is now, or less.

For instance, with the upcoming release of Half Life 2 I'm contemplating a
new video card purchase. The Radeon 9800 Ultra is the best there is ... and
sure it runs HL2 at around 100FPS ... but since the eye can only see 30FPS,
the extra 70 frames are wasted. So, I'm looking at a 9600 Pro ... it
benchmarked quite well with HL2 and looks like it'll have some head-room for
future DX9 titles, and is less than a third the price of the 9800 Ultra.


Drumguy

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:50:06 GMT, In this world we created
"DrSardonic" wrote :

I'm going to replace my motherboard. All the newer ones support DDR

Is it possible for me to use my old SDRAM sticks (256) for a while until I
can buy some new DDR's in the new board?

Only if you buy a board that supports them and then you can't use both
at the same time.



--
Free Windows/PC help,
It's a G not a J in jmx to reply
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
Free songs download,
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

"JAD" wrote in message
link.net...
but since the eye can only see 30FPS,
the extra 70 frames are wasted.

ya know I have said this cause I'm old school too, BUT I was shot down by
an instructor at a seminar, as he explained that its not
necessarily the speed that needs the higher frame rates but the layered FX
that needs them?



Well yeah, sure, that AND the fact that that 100FPS is not constant. You
want plenty of overhead because when things become intense (when it's most
important for things to stay smooth) the frame rate may drop too low. What
is a more important number would be the minimum FPS rather than maximum ...
but you rarely see benchmarks like that. Tom's Hardware however, when
benchmarking a video card, gives both the highest and lowest FPS a card puts
out.

Yes, I realize these things ... but I've never really heard anyone say that
layered effects needed that frame overhead. I certainly don't know that it's
NOT true. But I would think that a FPS measurement would be a measurement of
the actual number of frames delivered to the monitor ... this would be
completely separate (I would think) from whatever processing the card had to
do behind the scenes to render said frames. I mean, if the card has to work
overtime to process all of the multi-layer effects then FPS would go down
.... but if FPS is high, then I would assume that it's doing all of that
efficiently.


But I am by no means an expert on such things ... but I would think that
even the 9600 Pro's 60FPS (twice what the eye can see) would be fine for
rendering any layered effects. If it takes over twice the noticeable frame
rate to render these "layered FX" then they are certainly relying too much
on this technique and will hamstring themselves in the long run.


Drumguy