ddr3 256mb?

[thrasher_565]

so is there ddr3 256mb ram?

[8tg]

Smallest you’ll find ddr3 is extremely early 800mhz low profile sticks that were 512mb, regular ddr3 is a minimum of 1gb and most commonly 2gb at the low end

 

[my name is guru iam tech]

6 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

so is there ddr3 256mb ram?

what are you trying to say

[thrasher_565]

11 minutes ago, 8tg said:

Smallest you’ll find ddr3 is extremely early 800mhz low profile sticks that were 512mb, regular ddr3 is a minimum of 1gb and most commonly 2gb at the low end

 

hmm so what would be faster 1x 512mb ddr3 vs 2x 256mb ddr2? i wanted to attempt an ddr3 98se build...

[Eigenvektor]

6 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

hmm so what would be faster 1x 512mb ddr3 vs 2x 256mb ddr2? i wanted to attempt an ddr3 98se build...

Fastest DDR2 you can get has 8533 MB/s, the slowest DDR3 you can get has 6400 MB/s and goes up to 12800 MB/s. So DDR3 would be faster in most cases. Of course dual channel would double your theoretical bandwidth (actual speed +10–15%)

[mariushm]

Dual channel would be a bit faster, if you use a motherboard that has the concept of dual channel  (I think some nvidia chipset boards did back then)

DDR2 would be more in line with hardware from around Windows 98 times... by the time DDR3 was a thing, we already had Windows XP for some time, if my memory is correct.

I remember having a Barton (amd xp) machine when Windows XP came out, and those were using DDR 2 ...

Before that there were boards with 3 DDR1 slots and I remember sticking to 2 x 128 MB DDR1 because adding a 3rd stick would break dual channel and slow down the system. I think it was a super socket 7 (amd k6 2 3d-now) system.

[thrasher_565]

1 minute ago, mariushm said:

Dual channel would be a bit faster, if you use a motherboard that has the concept of dual channel  (I think some nvidia chipset boards did back then)

DDR2 would be more in line with hardware from around Windows 98 times... by the time DDR3 was a thing, we already had Windows XP for some time, if my memory is correct.

I remember having a Barton (amd xp) machine when Windows XP came out, and those were using DDR 2 ...

you are correct but dose not mean you cant get 98se to run on ddr3 thow... we thought pcie and 98se what impossible but look at us now. maybe even sli is posable?

 

the fastest newest sock i could find for agp is am2 or 939. you can do core 2 quad 775 ddr2 with pcie pity easy (thow only 1 core is used so the fasted single core with the highest cash would be the best? then there overclocking finding an mb that can overclock the cpu would in theory be the fastest. i man heat not really a problem now days wc. or really good cpu heat sinks.

[thrasher_565]

1 hour ago, Eigenvektor said:

Fastest DDR2 you can get has 8533 MB/s, the slowest DDR3 you can get has 6400 MB/s and goes up to 12800 MB/s. So DDR3 would be faster in most cases. Of course dual channel would double your theoretical bandwidth (actual speed +10–15%)

this is help full. well my guess finding hi end ddr2 is slim or expensive same gose for 512mb ddr3 so ill just have to be happy with ddr2 then. still might try an quadcore, ddr2. pcie sli build.

 

the the ram has both the same mhz then timings will pay a roll as well as it seems.

Edited June 29, 2021 by thrasher_565

[jaslion]

3 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

you are correct but dose not mean you cant get 98se to run on ddr3 thow... we thought pcie and 98se what impossible but look at us now. maybe even sli is posable?

 

the fastest newest sock i could find for agp is am2 or 939. you can do core 2 quad 775 ddr2 with pcie pity easy (thow only 1 core is used so the fasted single core with the highest cash would be the best? then there overclocking finding an mb that can overclock the cpu would in theory be the fastest. i man heat not really a problem now days wc. or really good cpu heat sinks.

You can? 98 will install just nothing will really work without drivers unless you have a ps/2 port for keyboard input. 98se gets unstable past 512mb of ram.

[thrasher_565]

8 hours ago, jaslion said:

You can? 98 will install just nothing will really work without drivers unless you have a ps/2 port for keyboard input. 98se gets unstable past 512mb of ram.

no...like i said we can do things to 98 like we didn't before like usb drivers...and 1gb ram patch.

 

people say you need drivers and you you get errors but never say what errors so

Edited June 29, 2021 by thrasher_565

[brian105]

The errors are called "it won't boot". There's a reason that people aren't using modern DDR3 platforms on 98, and it's because when you go that new there are no chipset drivers available for 98SE. The latest that you have drivers for are early LGA775 boards with DDR2. 

12 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

this is help full. well my guess finding hi end ddr2 is slim or expensive same gose for 512mb ddr3 so ill just have to be happy with ddr2 then. still might try an quadcore, ddr2. pcie sli build.

 

the the ram has both the same mhz then timings will pay a roll as well as it seems.

RAM speeds at that level will not influence how Windows 98 runs, as you're already running it on very overpowered hardware. Quad cores won't help either, as 98 cannot use multiple cores. PCI-e is not very stable on 98, and you're not gonna find a board that has 2 x16 lanes, and to top it off people have already tried nVidia SLI in 98. Not gonna happen.

[thrasher_565]

20 minutes ago, brian105 said:

The errors are called "it won't boot". There's a reason that people aren't using modern DDR3 platforms on 98, and it's because when you go that new there are no chipset drivers available for 98SE. The latest that you have drivers for are early LGA775 boards with DDR2. 

RAM speeds at that level will not influence how Windows 98 runs, as you're already running it on very overpowered hardware. Quad cores won't help either, as 98 cannot use multiple cores. PCI-e is not very stable on 98, and you're not gonna find a board that has 2 x16 lanes, and to top it off people have already tried nVidia SLI in 98. Not gonna happen.

there a 512mb ram limit for installing the os but once installed with a patch you can do 1gb. hacked drivers you can do more. there people that have run 98 on modern hardware with 16gb ram so its doable. can i do it no.

 

well installing pcie gpus and 98 is a Paine so i think we need to look in to why its a Paine and learn from it. in my findings it seems there files missing in the video drivers. i can install other drivers and they install some files  but fails the full install. when installing the good drivers i go to the NVIDIA folder and look for thow files.

 

then it seem like it wont auto switch to the new gpu drivers and keeps the generic os drivers and you have to disable them then it should work.

 

i got an mb that has 98se drivers and seem like it makes it worse. could be just that mb thow.

 

there talks that pci an pcie there not much difference.

 

so you saying there's NO performance from an quad core , duel core vs single core? and no differences from an am2 cpu?

Edited June 29, 2021 by thrasher_565

[jaslion]

1 hour ago, thrasher_565 said:

there a 512mb ram limit for installing the os but once installed with a patch you can do 1gb. hacked drivers you can do more. there people that have run 98 on modern hardware with 16gb ram so its doable. can i do it no.

 

well installing pcie gpus and 98 is a Paine so i think we need to look in to why its a Paine and learn from it. in my findings it seems there files missing in the video drivers. i can install other drivers and they install some files  but fails the full install. when installing the good drivers i go to the NVIDIA folder and look for thow files.

 

then it seem like it wont auto switch to the new gpu drivers and keeps the generic os drivers and you have to disable them then it should work.

 

i got an mb that has 98se drivers and seem like it makes it worse. could be just that mb thow.

 

there talks that pci an pcie there not much difference.

 

so you saying there's NO performance from an quad core , duel core vs single core? and no differences from an am2 cpu?

All 98 cares about is a single core that os basically has no multi core support so to say.

 

I mean a core 2 duo e8400 is well over dozens of times better compared to what was out at the time of 98 se. You are not going to run into software performance issues with any of that core 2 and amd phenom era. Just don't expect too much of it too as well it is still just windows 98.

[thrasher_565]

12 minutes ago, jaslion said:

All 98 cares about is a single core that os basically has no multi core support so to say.

 

I mean a core 2 duo e8400 is well over dozens of times better compared to what was out at the time of 98 se. You are not going to run into software performance issues with any of that core 2 and amd phenom era. Just don't expect too much of it too as well it is still just windows 98.

idk if its like 1000X more powerful. i want to no do i get more fps with a single core form a single core, duel core or quad core.

 

would a single core Phenom II X4 3.5 out pro from an single core Core 2 Quad Q9650 out pro from an single Core2 Duo E8600 or would an p4 3.8 single core be the same or better?

Edited June 29, 2021 by thrasher_565

[thrasher_565]

 

[thrasher_565]

hmm people say the E5800 800Mhz FSB is the best cpu because any more then 800mhz can mess with ram speeds. but not conformed on all mbs

[jaslion]

9 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

idk if its like 1000X more powerful. i want to no do i get more fps with a single core form a single core, duel core or quad core.

 

would a single core Phenom II X4 3.5 out pro from an single core Core 2 Quad Q9650 out pro from an single Core2 Duo E8600 or would an p4 3.8 single core be the same or better?

At this point you just need to compare single core performance and well whilst it is FOR SURE FLAWED passmark does have a good library of this and the q9650 or phenom II x4 are best.

 

But again keep in mind software made for 98 has it's limits. All game engines of the time were hard capped (as far as I know) and those fps could easily be gotten on far lesser cpu's and a fair few games would go nuts running at too high fps.

[thrasher_565]

2 minutes ago, jaslion said:

At this point you just need to compare single core performance and well whilst it is FOR SURE FLAWED passmark does have a good library of this and the q9650 or phenom II x4 are best.

 

But again keep in mind software made for 98 has it's limits. All game engines of the time were hard capped (as far as I know) and those fps could easily be gotten on far lesser cpu's and a fair few games would go nuts running at too high fps.

funny i was looking at passemark and it said 6800 gt was faster then the 6800 ultra so i dont no... i mean all these sites probably lie a bit.

 

ya i no 300 fps is nuts and not need when back then you were lucky to get 25fps... but more is better. i dont play dos games so that dose not matter. i no red alert was a game that if the pc ran too fast it had problems but there were programs to slow the pc down with a click of a button.

 

maybe im over thinking it and should be happy with a pcie 6800, e8600 ddr2 mb.

 

i was reading on some other forms of people having drag races (over clocking and running 3dmark 2001se scores) but why got board of 98se so it was opened up to faster and faster hardware... at the end the were hitting 80k score haha stared at like 17k

[jaslion]

3 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

maybe im over thinking it and should be happy with a pcie 6800, e8600 ddr2 mb.

Yeah that is so far beyond overkill for anything on 98 that would be totally fine.