Thinkpads Forum

i was just wondering, currently i have an IBM600E and it has 256mb + 64mb + 32mb ( onboard ) memory. is there really a big difference if i add 2 x 256mb + 32mb ( onboard ) totally 544?

i am asking because i know some of you have it this way and wanted to get your opinions before i decide to buy.

thanks...anyone want to lend one to try, hehe...probably not.

If you work on one program/document at a time, then you should see a slight improvement for WinXP, a less obvious difference for Win2K, and probably no difference for Win98(SE). However, in all three cases, there should be a fairly big improvement for running multiple programs or viewing multiple documents simultaneously.

I'd say, depending upon the operating system you are using and the types and numbers of processes that are running, then you can see either no substantial difference or a huge amount.

For example: if you are simply using the system to surf the web or write up the occasional Word document, then you probably would not see much improvement. Yes, your programs would load slightly faster and you could have more programs loaded at the same time without the slowdown of disk swapping. However, if you are attempting to run something as memory-intensive as a graphics program (say Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro) or a video editing program, then the additional memory could be the difference between being able to run the program or not.

(gotta type faster!)

rkawakami wrote:(gotta type faster!)

Yep, I type fast, perhaps in part due to my superior pianistic skills.

nothing really, just surf the web, might download some files, running XP sp2. i guess i really don't need to get another 256, thanks for your input. i assume 128 would be enough for another machine running WIN2K.

I've booted a couple of my systems (T23s) with Win2K and 128MB of memory (I think I even did one with 64MB!). Yes, it loaded fine but I didn't actually try running a bunch of programs with it. Again, depending upon the types (and numbers) of programs you have loaded (count the stuff in the system tray too or open up the Task Manager), 128MB could be enough.

Its also important to consider the speed and timing of the chips, the 32mb is likely to be a bottleneck from this perspective when compared to the specs of the 256MB chips especially if its older.

smugiri wrote:<snip>... the 32mb is likely to be a bottleneck from this perspective when compared to the specs of the 256MB chips especially if its older.

That shouldn't matter. The (stock) 600E is going to run at the 66Mhz front-side bus speed no matter what faster modules are inserted.

rkawakami wrote:

smugiri wrote:<snip>... the 32mb is likely to be a bottleneck from this perspective when compared to the specs of the 256MB chips especially if its older.

That shouldn't matter. The (stock) 600E is going to run at the 66Mhz front-side bus speed no matter what faster modules are inserted.

Yep.

What I was saying is that the 32MB module might be 33Mhz meaning it would slow things down.

smugiri wrote:What I was saying is that the 32MB module might be 33Mhz meaning it would slow things down.

But why would Intel and/or IBM use an onboard RAM that would slow down the processor's 66MHz FSB?

smugiri wrote: What I was saying is that the 32MB module might be 33Mhz meaning it would slow things down.

If the processor runs at 66mhz the ram MUST run too at 66mhz.

Where did you get the 33mhz idea?

cmarti wrote:

smugiri wrote: What I was saying is that the 32MB module might be 33Mhz meaning it would slow things down.

If the processor runs at 66mhz the ram MUST run too at 66mhz.

Where did you get the 33mhz idea?

RAM does not run at processor speed. Both processor speed and memory speed run at a multiple of bus speed. I am not sure if this is the case with the 600E but most machines that use 66Mhz can run 33Mhz memory by waiting a cycle for data.

All this argument might be moot though as the specs seem to suggest that 600E's only access a max of 288MB of RAM (( 128 x 2 ) + 32 ) see Note #4.

smugiri wrote:All this argument might be moot though as the specs seem to suggest that 600E's only access a max of 288MB of RAM (( 128 x 2 ) + 32 ) see Note #4.

That page was written when 256MB sticks didn't exist. The 600E can use two 256MB sticks in addition to the 32MB onboard. And according to the twbook, the onboard memory is 66MHz.

Just make sure those 256mb sticks are low density. Most 256mb chips are high density and will only be detected as 128mb.

AlphaKilo470 wrote:Just make sure those 256mb sticks are low density. Most 256mb chips are high density and will only be detected as 128mb.

Or not at all.....

I bought a 256MB module for my 600E and was sent a high-density module - my 600E would not even boot with it installed.
Lucky that i bought it from a good seller and it was swapped for a low-density 256MB module that works perfectly.

I agree with the other replies to the original question.
I doubt you will notice any real-world improvement in performance with a second 256MB module unless you have LOTS of programs running at the same time.

warwound.