Microsoft Wireless Desktop 3000 with BlueTrack Review
Predictably, after bringing to market optical and laser incarnations of its Wireless Desktop 3000 keyboard and mouse sets, Microsoft has updated the line to include its new BlueTrack sensor technology. Join us as we find out if this cordless combo really is one of the better-value sets around.
Unpacking the Desktop 3000 reveals a compact keyboard, mouse and dongle. Setup is a pinch, as you merely insert the four provided AA batteries into both the keyboard and mouse, plug in the pre-paired transceiver and you’re off.
To get the most out of the set you’ll also want to set up Microsoft’s software for Windows or Mac, which when installed divides into Microsoft Mouse (IntelliPoint) and Microsoft Keyboard (IntelliType). It offers a range of functionality for the mouse, including a nice animated diagram to show each button as you select it, and though the keyboard side of things is more restrained, at least the driver lets you assign functions to various keys here too.
Back on the hardware front, the mouse of this set is Microsoft’s Wireless BlueTrack Mouse 5000 which we reviewed a short while ago. The only difference is that the glossy black plastic strip at the peripheral’s base is now white, as are the two side buttons for thumb and pinky-finger (which were silver on the standalone mouse). We preferred the look of the separate 5000, but the white trim here goes with that around the outside edge of the keyboard.
If you want a detailed examination of the 5000′s ergonomics and performance we’d recommend a quick read through that review, but for those who don’t want to bother here’s what the mouse is like in a nutshell.
Its symmetrical shape and button layout make it ambidextrous, but also prevent it from being as comfortable as mice sculpted to fit a specific hand. Rubberised sides do help, but a glossy top shows up fingerprints
The mouse has five buttons, all of which offer crisp feedback. The four-way scroll wheel isn’t notched so scrolling is consistently smooth, which of course isn’t ideal for the odd game. There’s also a slight concern with the wheel’s build quality. Aside from this the 5000 is generally well-constructed and its BlueTrack sensor gives excellent tracking performance across almost any surface.
Since the 2,4GHz RF transceiver that comes with the Desktop 3000 is the same size as the one provided with the standalone 5000, it still fits into the recess in the mouse’s base for easy travelling.
Getting onto the Wireless Keyboard 3000 V2.0, it’s a fairly attractive affair: a relatively sleek and compact rectangle with rounded edges. Aside from the white trim it sports an appealing mix of matte and glossy black. Matte keys are set into a glossy surround for the main typing area, while the shiny shortcut keys are shown off against a matte background.
A permanently-attached wrist rest is coated in a pleasant soft-touch material, though personally I found the angle too low to be particularly comfortable. There’s no way to raise the keyboard’s front either, since the ingenious removable feet found on Microsoft’s excellent Wireless Laser Desktop 7000 have been done away with – a pity since it was a unique feature that (literally) lifted Microsoft’s keyboard above the competition.
Nevertheless the 3000s’ keyboard is generally quite comfortable, as you would hope from a company with the experience Microsoft has in this area. Its low-profile keys are shaped well and offer what is among the best feedback of any keyboard at this kind of price point. Just the right amount of travel combines with a positive click for every key to make typing a pleasure – if we had to choose we’d say Microsoft just about beats Logitech in this regard. With the exclusion of the spacebar, typing is also less noisy than on many rivals.
Along the top edge of the keyboard are 17 shortcut and multimedia keys arranged in four groups. The first one consists of home, chat, Skype and email buttons, the second offers six favourites buttons, the next group controls playback while the last section has volume controls. Of course each of these can be re-assigned, as can the zoom and document controls along the keyboard’s left side.
In addition to the dedicated shortcuts at the keyboard’s top, the F1-F12 keys also double as shortcuts – in fact the F-functions are set up as secondary, and need to be enabled by an F-lock button found above backspace. Rather than being grouped in threes or fours as on other keyboards, here the F-keys are all equally-spaced, which combines with the small function labels (the main ones on the keys being shortcut-icons) to make it far too easy to accidentally press the wrong one.
Come on Microsoft, there’s a good reason these keys are grouped on most keyboards!
Other extras worth mentioning are the ever-essential calculator shortcut and a low-battery status indicator LED above the number pad. The 3000 Keyboard is also spill-resistant, with built-in drainage channels should that cup of coffee empty itself into your precious peripheral.
As far as value goes, the Wireless BlueTrack Desktop 3000 makes quite a case for itself since it’s available for an eminently reasonable £33. Excellent value on its own merits, but with its price tag putting it right up against Logitech’s Cordless Desktop S520, currently demanding £35, let’s see how it fares.
Both sets offer a cordless experience with a compact, spillproof keyboard and ambidextrous mouse. As far as the dongle goes, Microsoft gets the first point with a far sleeker transceiver which can be stored in the mouse’s base.
When it comes to mice Logitech’s LX5 effort might be slightly more comfortable and thankfully lacking that glossy finish, but the 5000 has two more buttons and a superior battery insertion system. The LX5 offers notched feedback on its scroll-wheel, but Microsoft’s rodent uses superior BlueTrack technology, which allows it to be used on almost any surface, so depending on your needs we’d say the maker of Windows wins this one too.
Finally in the keyboard department, Logitech’s effort is slimmer and has a more supportive wrist-rest, which combines with the keys’ zero-degree tilt to offer superior comfort. Actual key feedback is far better on the 3000 V2.0 though, as the keys on the S520 feel comparatively light and lose. We’d call it a draw here, though if you can raise the front of Microsoft’s keyboard (using a gel wrist-rest, for example) it definitely receives the win. Overall then, we declare the Desktop 3000 the well-deserved champion.
| Author | Ardjuna Seghers |
| Published | 30th Jul 2009 |
| Manufacturer | Microsoft |
| Supplier | Play |
| Price | £28.69 (Exc VAT) |
| as reviewed | £32.99 (Inc VAT) |
Microsoft Wireless Desktop 3000 with BlueTrack Review
Predictably, after bringing to market optical and laser incarnations of its Wireless Desktop 3000 keyboard and mouse sets, Microsoft has updated the line to include its new BlueTrack sensor technology. Join us as we find out if this cordless combo really is one of the better-value sets around.
Unpacking the Desktop 3000 reveals a compact keyboard, mouse and dongle. Setup is a pinch, as you merely insert the four provided AA batteries into both the keyboard and mouse, plug in the pre-paired transceiver and you’re off.To get the most out of the set you’ll also want to set up Microsoft’s software for Windows or Mac, which when installed divides into Microsoft Mouse (IntelliPoint) and Microsoft Keyboard (IntelliType). It offers a range of functionality for the mouse, including a nice animated diagram to show each button as you select it, and though the keyboard side of things is more restrained, at least the driver lets you assign functions to various keys here too.
Back on the hardware front, the mouse of this set is Microsoft’s Wireless BlueTrack Mouse 5000 which we reviewed a short while ago. The only difference is that the glossy black plastic strip at the peripheral’s base is now white, as are the two side buttons for thumb and pinky-finger (which were silver on the standalone mouse). We preferred the look of the separate 5000, but the white trim here goes with that around the outside edge of the keyboard.
If you want a detailed examination of the 5000′s ergonomics and performance we’d recommend a quick read through that review, but for those who don’t want to bother here’s what the mouse is like in a nutshell.
Its symmetrical shape and button layout make it ambidextrous, but also prevent it from being as comfortable as mice sculpted to fit a specific hand. Rubberised sides do help, but a glossy top shows up fingerprintsThe mouse has five buttons, all of which offer crisp feedback. The four-way scroll wheel isn’t notched so scrolling is consistently smooth, which of course isn’t ideal for the odd game. There’s also a slight concern with the wheel’s build quality. Aside from this the 5000 is generally well-constructed and its BlueTrack sensor gives excellent tracking performance across almost any surface.
Since the 2,4GHz RF transceiver that comes with the Desktop 3000 is the same size as the one provided with the standalone 5000, it still fits into the recess in the mouse’s base for easy travelling.
Getting onto the Wireless Keyboard 3000 V2.0, it’s a fairly attractive affair: a relatively sleek and compact rectangle with rounded edges. Aside from the white trim it sports an appealing mix of matte and glossy black. Matte keys are set into a glossy surround for the main typing area, while the shiny shortcut keys are shown off against a matte background.
A permanently-attached wrist rest is coated in a pleasant soft-touch material, though personally I found the angle too low to be particularly comfortable. There’s no way to raise the keyboard’s front either, since the ingenious removable feet found on Microsoft’s excellent Wireless Laser Desktop 7000 have been done away with – a pity since it was a unique feature that (literally) lifted Microsoft’s keyboard above the competition.
Nevertheless the 3000s’ keyboard is generally quite comfortable, as you would hope from a company with the experience Microsoft has in this area. Its low-profile keys are shaped well and offer what is among the best feedback of any keyboard at this kind of price point. Just the right amount of travel combines with a positive click for every key to make typing a pleasure – if we had to choose we’d say Microsoft just about beats Logitech in this regard. With the exclusion of the spacebar, typing is also less noisy than on many rivals.
Along the top edge of the keyboard are 17 shortcut and multimedia keys arranged in four groups. The first one consists of home, chat, Skype and email buttons, the second offers six favourites buttons, the next group controls playback while the last section has volume controls. Of course each of these can be re-assigned, as can the zoom and document controls along the keyboard’s left side.
In addition to the dedicated shortcuts at the keyboard’s top, the F1-F12 keys also double as shortcuts – in fact the F-functions are set up as secondary, and need to be enabled by an F-lock button found above backspace. Rather than being grouped in threes or fours as on other keyboards, here the F-keys are all equally-spaced, which combines with the small function labels (the main ones on the keys being shortcut-icons) to make it far too easy to accidentally press the wrong one.
Come on Microsoft, there’s a good reason these keys are grouped on most keyboards!
Other extras worth mentioning are the ever-essential calculator shortcut and a low-battery status indicator LED above the number pad. The 3000 Keyboard is also spill-resistant, with built-in drainage channels should that cup of coffee empty itself into your precious peripheral.
As far as value goes, the Wireless BlueTrack Desktop 3000 makes quite a case for itself since it’s available for an eminently reasonable £33. Excellent value on its own merits, but with its price tag putting it right up against Logitech’s Cordless Desktop S520, currently demanding £35, let’s see how it fares.
Both sets offer a cordless experience with a compact, spillproof keyboard and ambidextrous mouse. As far as the dongle goes, Microsoft gets the first point with a far sleeker transceiver which can be stored in the mouse’s base.
When it comes to mice Logitech’s LX5 effort might be slightly more comfortable and thankfully lacking that glossy finish, but the 5000 has two more buttons and a superior battery insertion system. The LX5 offers notched feedback on its scroll-wheel, but Microsoft’s rodent uses superior BlueTrack technology, which allows it to be used on almost any surface, so depending on your needs we’d say the maker of Windows wins this one too.Finally in the keyboard department, Logitech’s effort is slimmer and has a more supportive wrist-rest, which combines with the keys’ zero-degree tilt to offer superior comfort. Actual key feedback is far better on the 3000 V2.0 though, as the keys on the S520 feel comparatively light and lose. We’d call it a draw here, though if you can raise the front of Microsoft’s keyboard (using a gel wrist-rest, for example) it definitely receives the win. Overall then, we declare the Desktop 3000 the well-deserved champion.
| Author | Ardjuna Seghers |
| Published | 30th Jul 2009 |
| Manufacturer | Microsoft |
| Supplier | Play |
| Price | £28.69 (Exc VAT) |
| as reviewed | £32.99 (Inc VAT) |
MSI Wind Top AE1900 review
MSI’s Wind Top sports a 16:9 touchscreen, making ideal for watching movies and stroking your favourite star…
The mighty Atom. Having conquered the very same netbook market that it helped to create, we’re now finding the processor seeping into other computers – non-portable ones.
And, as demonstrated above, it’s even got the processor oomph to power an all-in-one touchscreen device, such as MSI’s latest Wind Top AE1900.
MSI has always been slightly ahead of the game as well, whether that’s with its neat little Atom-based Wind netbooks, or the introduction of its rather lovely motherboards.
MSI’s latest, the Wind Top AE1900, has the dual-core iteration of the sprightly little fella at its core, and it’s by far the sleekest all-in-one PC we’ve looked at so far.
The display is vital in any touchscreen computer, and the Wind Top AE1900 is exceptional in this respect. The first thing you notice is how wide it is, discarding the conventional 16:10 format in favour of more cinematic 16:9 ratio. This makes it ideal for watching films, and something of a workout to merely drag the cursor from one side of the screen to the other.
The display’s performance is stunning, with good colours and a sharp, bright picture. The 720p video we tested on it stalled a tad when played with VLC, but using the Combined Community Codec Pack (CCCP) ensured slick, smooth playback.
It’s a shame that Atom-based systems are pretty much incapable of gaming, as this would be a wonderful system for blowing up badduns. We’d love to see a similar system based around Nvidia’s Ion, which would give it that little bit more power for gaming and hi-def video playback.
The Wind Top does include a few touchscreen-specific apps on top of its Windows XP Home installation. There are also a couple of genuinely odd webcam-based games, such as MSI Space Game and MSI Chicken Game, in which you use your head movements to control a spaceship and, um, a chicken. Project Natal it ain’t, but it’s still quite good fun.
A genuinely useful app is SoftStylus, which does away with the need for a physical keyboard in favour of an onscreen iPhone-esque one. But unfortunately the handwriting recognition option leaves a lot to be desired.
MSI has also missed a couple of tricks, in that there’s a glaring lack of wall-mounting fixtures and it’s failed to chuck a remote into the bundle.
It’s not exactly cheap, but the Wind Top is an eye-catching, head-turning PC, and if you install Windows 7 you’ll have quite possibly the best PC in the world. Unless you want to play games.
Packard Bell Refreshes imedia Desktops
The market for Packard Bell’s refreshed imedia range isn’t hard to determine. Let’s face it, buying a pre-built computer might not have the cache that a home-built system can draw, but it’s a damn sight easier to just buy one. Plus, with the way prices are falling on pre-assembled systems, they can hardly be called bad value considering the time and effort saved.
The imedia line-up starts from £299 and rises upwards from there depending on the configuration. Both Intel Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 CPUs are available, up to 8GB of RAM can be fitted and storage options topping out at 1TB of capacity. Graphics can be upgraded from the default integrated chipset to a more capable nVidia GeForce GT230. Wi-Fi and a DVB-T tuner are also optional upgrades.
The case, which is apparently 60 per cent of “full-sized” features an array of front-mounted card readers, in addition to two of the six available USB ports. A recessed area on top of the system is provided for storage of external storage devices, MP3 players and the like while connected to the system.
Okay, so would-be Crysis players aren’t going to find a solution in the imedia range, but for general office applications and most multimedia there should be more than enough power on tap.
Zotac Ion Mini-ITX with Atom N330 review
Nvidia’s new Ion platform gives Intel’s Atom processor some sizzle
Amidst the gloom of global economic meltdown and tumbling PC sales, Intel’s plucky little Atom processor has provided a glimmer of hope.
For starters, Atom has been the driving force behind the explosively popular new netbook segment. And later this year, it will attempt also to assimilate the smartphone market with the arrival of Moorestown, a massively more power efficient revision of the Atom architecture.
So far, however, Atom has frankly flopped when tasked with more performance-critical workloads.
Whether it’s HD video decoding, gaming or heavy duty web browsing, Atom simply hasn’t had the necessary chops.
Partly that’s a function of the modest processing power of the Atom chip itself. But it also reflects the absolutely feeble Intel integrated graphics with which it’s been paired.
You could say, therefore, that what Atom really needs is a new chipset with decent graphics. That’s exactly what graphics specialist NVIDIA is betting on with Ion, its new Atom-compatible motherboard chipset.
Geforce 9400M by another name
Actually, Ion is nothing new. It’s little more than a repackaging of the firm’s familiar GeForce 9400M integrated chipset. That’s possible because the Atom CPU uses essentially the same bus interface as the Intel Core 2 processors for which the 9400M was originally conceived.
But that’s no bad thing. To take one high profile example, Apple reckons the 9400M is good enough to power a whole range of systems including several MacBook and iMac models.
More to the point, Ion / 9400M is definitely a massive upgrade in terms of 3D horsepower and in particular hardware 2D video decode features compared to Intel’s awful integrated graphics.
Anywho, our first taste of Ion comes in the form of this natty little mini-ITX board-and-chip combo from Zotac. On paper, it’s a fantastic package and comes complete with the flagship Atom 330 processor. It’s a dual-core 1.6GHz chip with 1MB of cache and support for two threads per core.
It also sports a healthy array of video output options including VGA, DVI and HDMI, plenty of USB ports, a trio of SATA ports and even wireless networking, all as standard. It’s also a completely passively cooled board making it effectively silent in operation and comes with its own laptop-style external power brick.
In other words, all you need to do it drop in a stick or two of memory, connect a hard disk and optical drive and you have a full featured PC. Hence, for our money, there are two basic usage models for this little mobo.
Firstly, it could be the basis of an occasional or casual secondary PC, perhaps on a kitchen worktop, in family room, that sort of thing. A cheap system that wouldn’t be expected to do heavy duty number crunching. The other option is a cut-price alternative for a home theatre PC.
Desktop duties
As a general desktop tool, sadly, even Ion’s multimedia prowess can’t make the difference. We did our testing with Windows 7 RC-1. When Windows 7 arrives later this year, we think will be the mainstream choice for this sort of chipset.
It’s definitely a bit kinder on hardware than the bloat-tastic Windows Vista. But in terms of day to day desktop use, it’s still a little too much for even the dual-core Atom 330 to cope with. Responses are sluggish and web pages fail to scroll smoothly, for instance.
Passive
There are no fans on the board, so it runs very quietly
As for outright processing power, well, our benchmarks suggest the Atom chip has about 1/10th the grunt of a high end quad-core chip. It’s also worth noting that this board-and-chip combo is a very poor solution for gaming.
Even at a meagre resolution of 800 x 600, it only manages about 15 frames per second in a relatively undemanding game such as Call of Duty 4.
Cinema on a budget
If desktop duties get the better of the Atom-Ion combo, can it achieve redemption courtesy of its hardware video decode capabilities?
To a degree, yes. Generally, we’re very impressed with Ion’s PureVideo 2D video engine. In our Blu-ray disc test, it puts in a pretty much faultless performance.
Our test Blu-ray movie is Fanstastic Four coded in the demanding H.264 codec. Playback is completely smooth and CPU utilisation during decode is typically around 15 per cent. Incredible given the weakness of the Atom processor.
Toshiba 500GB USB HDDR500E03E external hard drive
Let’s face is storage is boring. Toshiba, however, is hoping to change that with a funky looking external hard drive adding some “zip” into your file saving habits. Is it all show though?
Coming in a monochrome “frost white” colour scheme – snazzy – the drive’s cover is made from plastic rather than metal, is incredibly glossy like the gadget it wants to be, and well, simple in its design.
If we were a design website I am sure we would be able to wax lyrically about the smooth lines, the “frost white” detailing that represents the movement of data in the transient world that we live in, but we aren’t, so in reality all we are going to say is that it looks good.
Button-less, status light-less, the only break from the glossy design is the small USB slot on the back so you can connect it to your computer via a USB 2.0 cable.
Power is provided by the same USB 2.0 cable saving the need for an additional power supply and behind that glossy exterior, the Toshiba HDD packs half a terabyte of mobile storage. It boasts out-of-the-box operation for both PC and Mac, which it achieves, and will give you space for roughly 131,000 MP3 music files or 142,000 digital photos on the go in a very light package.
Transfer speeds are as good as you would expect for a drive of this nature and it’s no slouch when it comes to transferring content, probably done to the fact it has an 8MB buffer size. We were able to transfer a 2.4GB file from our internal hard drive to the Toshiba drive in 1 minute 20 seconds.
The drive comes with an internal shock sensor and ramp loading technology to help protect your drive. We dropped it a number of times onto a hard surface from waist height and it still worked, however with the plastic case we wouldn’t recommend you do this if you can avoid it. It’s not a rugged drive, nor is it pitched as that.
Acer AspireRevo nettop – First Look
We all know about netbooks: a cut-down laptop that offers a cheaper computing solution so you can check your email or surf the web on the go for little cost. Now it’s the turn of the desktop computer to get a bit of net love with the nettop.
While there have been cut-down versions in the past, Acer is hoping the move to team up with Nvidia and use its latest low cost graphics chip, the ION, will mean that this model will still be able to pack a punch.
We’ve had two looks at the AspireRevo now, first at an Nvidia demo day and secondly at the launch of the computer at an Acer event. The diamond shaped computer is small, small enough to hide behind a monitor and surprisingly for a desktop model isn’t big, boxy or beige.
Instead it comes in a gloss blue, with the option to mount it to a monitor via the included VESA brackets or perched on a desk with the accompanying stand.
Being diamond in shape and designed to sit on a point rather than square on your desk, there isn’t a back as such for all the ports to sit. So instead they are scattered around. This has its pros and cons as you can imagine. The pros being that there is plenty of space to plug stuff in, the cons being that the four USBs all packed tightly in next to each other mean that sticking in anything larger than a standard USB cable will knock all of the sockets out. The other downside is that all these cables coming from all these directions mean it’s a bit like an octopus.
One nice feature about the design is the power switch, which when mounted on the monitor is left poking out over the top (in theory). Conveniently there is also another USB socket here as well so plugging in a webcam is easy as pie. A small detail, but a good one.
So you’ve managed to connect it all up now what? Well there are two real options. You can either opt for a Windows Vista system or Linux (Ubuntu to be precise) or of course you could buy it and then install Windows 7, for which it would be perfect.
At £149.99 you get the Linux version (Ubuntu) with 1GB of RAM and an 8GB solid state drive (SSD). Those wanting a Windows Vista experience will be able to opt for a £249.99 price point and with it get 2GB of RAM and a 160GB hard drive.
The computer will also come in a third option (£299.99) that includes a wireless game pad that looks like the Wii Remote. The remote, which has yet to be completely finalised will be available on its own for £49.99.
The included keyboard and mouse are unfortunately a wired option. The mouse is pretty standard, but the keyboard has been cut down to make it more compact, but with separated keys, has a nice responsive feel to it.
The first small form factor PC to offer the Nvidio ION platform, the new graphics chip promises to offer 10x faster graphic performance than comparable PCs. In our play the ION chip really makes a difference allowing you to view full HD video, play games and mess around with encoding or graphically heavy applications.
We fired up the computer and sat down for a game of Portal. All good, the game was responsive the graphics were at a respectable level. Then on to Spore, again another low end game but one that still has plenty of graphic elements and plenty going on. At the top graphics settings with every detail turned on it doesn’t work. An ION powered machine isn’t going to be a gaming rig. The game did run smoothly with settings at medium however.
Gaming is of course the app that is going to push the processor to work hardest, however we managed to have a play not only with viewing HD content – very smooth – but also encoding. Using encoding software we were able to get roughly 20 frames per second suggesting an almost real time encoding offering – compare this to an Atom powered machine without an ION graphics chip where its almost impossible to encode anything.
Finally we played with Cooliris a very “cool” product that allows you to view images from Google image search in a very graphical way – no problem here either.
How It Works: Memory
So here we are, into the fourth entry in the “How it Works” series, and it feels like we’ve barely scratched the surface. If laptops are so simple, why the heck do they require a massive multipart series like this? Try to keep things in perspective: there are only a few key concepts that you need to understand. Like the motherboard article, for example. You don’t need to know every little thing the motherboard does, just that it connects everything to everything else. Likewise, in the processor article, I’m mostly interested in providing a bit of an easy reference for all the numbers and “useless information” that Intel and AMD are apt to throw at you.
Buying Choices for the Crucial memory – 4 GB ( 2 x 2 GB ) – SO DIMM 200-pin – DDR2
——————————————————————————–
Amazon.com $106.72
Newegg.com $99.99
TheNerds.net $105.99
Next Warehouse $115.83
PC Connection $119.95
——————————————————————————-
view detailed pricing from 7 stores starting at $94.00
Now that we’ve been going for a couple weeks, though, I do want to address some of the comments on the forums. I really appreciate the support, and it’s gratifying to watch my rep jump up every time a new one of these is posted. That said, on each article there are generally one or two people that want to know why I didn’t cover something, or why I fudged something else.
On the latter part, if there’s a mistake, it’s either an intentional fudging (I usually mark those), or honestly, I’m just human. I may be hanging my cred out to dry here, but I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast first and foremost, and not an engineer. If I do make a mistake, please feel free to correct me in the forums … that’s just one of the things they’re there for. But most of the time, I’m pretty confident I’ve got my facts in order – confident enough that I’ve been able to (and fortunate enough to) continue freelance writing for Notebook Review for as long as I have.
On the former, please note that most of my omissions are intentional ones. I’m keenly aware of how many other hardware enthusiasts frequent Notebook Review, and it’s one of the things that makes it such a nice place to hang out. That said, details that seem elementary to us as enthusiasts can needlessly complicate things, and oftentimes are just plain useless to the people I’m largely trying to reach: consumers like my dad who just don’t know what the heck all this stuff is. I’m not trying to create an intensely detailed series here, I’m just tossing out the basics. So if I omit something, chances are it was intentional. Now, on with the show! 
How It Works: Memory
Memory, or RAM (which is just an acronym for “Random Access Memory”) is one of the big reasons why “bandwidth” was one of the key terms I defined in Part I. Simply put, memory is a sort of a buffer.
Let me explain: Your processor has its own on-board memory (explained in Part III) which is very fast. Your hard disk, on the other hand, is dog slow. There isn’t a whole lot that can be done about that; even just ignoring the physical mechanics of it, you can think of your processor as being able to store a single newspaper worth of information, and the hard disk as being an archive of every newspaper printed since 1920. It’s a heck of a lot easier to find the obituaries in the single newspaper than the obituaries in one of the hundreds of thousands of newspapers. Simply put, it takes a heck of a lot longer to find it.
So if your processor just had a direct connection to your hard disk, your computer would be dog slow and horribly unresponsive. And this is where RAM comes in.
RAM basically works like a buffer for the processor between any number of the components inside the system. Since they all have varying degrees of speed in which they work, RAM was designed as a high-speed place to stash information and pull it up as needed. So while your hard disk may be peaking at 60MB/sec on a good day, your RAM can be hitting at least 6GB/sec or better. So we’re clear, that’s 100 times faster, and again, these are rough figures and I’m fudging them a bit. 6GB/sec still isn’t as fast as the on-die cache of the processor is, but it’s a hell of a lot faster than waiting for the hard drive.
Before I get into the statistics of memory itself, though, I want to talk a little bit about …
The Memory Interface
AMD and Intel use two different interfaces for accessing RAM. AMD uses what’s called Hypertransport technology, and what that basically means is that the memory is connected directly to the processor instead of going through the northbridge. There are tradeoffs involved (the processor is tied to a specific type of memory and only certain speeds, and the memory needs to be in close physical proximity to the processor), but the flipside is a massive boost in memory bandwidth.
Intel, on the other hand, uses a front-side bus, which I discussed in previous articles. While the front-side bus technology has evolved quite well, it still can’t quite match the kind of raw bandwidth Hypertransport is able to produce; as a result, Intel’s next chip design ditches the front-side bus to use an Intel-developed analogue to Hypertransport, a technology they call Quickpath. The same principles as Hypertransport still apply, though.
Of course, something else needs to be kept in mind: a boost in memory bandwidth doesn’t mean anything if the processor itself isn’t fast enough to take advantage of it. This is going to be a reoccurring theme at every point in this article: the value of memory will often be dependent on the performance of the processor itself. So just because AMD’s chips enjoy a substantially fatter pipeline to their memory doesn’t automatically make them faster; the processor itself has to be able to actually utilize all that bandwidth efficiently.
Memory Type
Okay, so basically there are three types of memory in circulation right now: DDR, DDR2, and DDR3. The “DDR” stands for “Double Data Rate,” but don’t concern yourself with that; all that really means is that the effective speed of the memory is twice the actual clock speed it runs at. Because, yes, memory runs at a clock speed, just like your processor does, and that speed is actually tied to your processor’s speed. It’s a little complicated, but I’ll explain.
So what do you need to know about all these memory types? Simple: they aren’t interchangeable, they aren’t backwards or forwards compatible, and DDR2 is the most pervasive one as of the writing of this article. Consider them sequels to each other, revisions and redesigns that improve on their predecessors.
Now remember what I said about Hypertransport and how it ties the processor to a specific type of memory? This is what I’m talking about. Intel can produce a northbridge that communicates with both DDR2 and DDR3 (though never simultaneously). AMD, however, is tied to DDR2. In order for an AMD chip to support DDR3, that chip has to be physically designed to support it. Likewise, when Intel makes the switch to Quickpath, that switch will prevent them from being as flexible with memory types as they are today.
Memory Speed
I’m gonna let you in on a big secret: memory speed is almost totally irrelevant to your system’s performance and has virtually no tangible effect on its day to day use. The exception would be integrated graphics parts which just appreciate all the memory bandwidth they can get.
The speed of memory is defined in two ways: its clock speed, and its theoretical bandwidth. So let’s say you have DDR2 memory that runs at 667 MHz, the common speed for modern notebook RAM. That memory would be notated as DDR2-667. However, it may also be notated by its theoretical bandwidth, in which case it would be PC2-5400 or PC2-5300. This is where it gets a little bit silly: some manufacturers prefer one over the other or may play up this number. Mercifully, however, the vast majority of people just prefer to notate memory the first way, as its speed.
At this point I’m going to get into a little bit of minutiae that may or may not be of value to you: the listed speed of the memory is its specification speed. This means that DDR2-800 is specced to run UP TO DDR2-800, but can also run happily at lower speeds.
The really crazy details follow, and you’re welcome to skip these. If you’re not interested in getting a brain cramp, just cut to the part that says “END BRAIN CRAMP” and move forward.
There’s basically a relationship between memory speed, front-side bus speed, and processor speed. It’s okay, it’s a lot simpler than it sounds. First of all, for DDR2, divide the noted clock speed by four to get its actual clock speed. So DDR2-667, for example, is actually running at 166 MHz. On an Intel machine, the front-side bus speed is defined the same way. And then the speed of the processor is defined by the fron-side bus’s true clock speed multiplied by what’s called a – wait for it – “multiplier.” And the speed the system runs the memory at is defined by a ratio against the front side bus speed.
That’s a whole lot of gobbledegook, so let’s give you an example.
You have a 2.4GHz processor with an 800MHz front-side bus. What this means is:
The front-side bus’s true clock speed is 200MHz, but because Intel “quad pumps” the front-side bus, the speed is 800MHz effectively, and that’s how it’s referred to.
The processor’s clock speed, 2.4GHz, is achieved by multiplying that front-side bus speed (200MHz) by the processor’s multiplier (in this case, 12). Presto, 2.4GHz.
Now let’s say you’re using DDR2-800. The northbridge sets the memory ratio at 1:1, so the memory is basically running at the same speed as the front-side bus.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way, so memory may run at a different ratio, like 6:4, or 12:8 as is the case on my desktop machine.
** END BRAIN CRAMP **
That mess above is provided you’re running an Intel machine; AMD’s HyperTransport will make memory run at odd frequencies. Don’t worry about it.
The important thing to remember is that on AMD machines, the memory speed makes a small difference in performance, and on Intel machines, it makes almost no difference.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
Memory Capacity
This is, of course, “the big one.” First of all, sticks of memory are widely available in the following capacities: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB (1024MB), and 2GB (2048MB).
This is the aspect of memory that really affects performance, because this is how much your computer can actually access fairly quickly before it winds up hitting the hard disk. When you run a program, that program is loaded into RAM. The more RAM you have, the more that can be loaded into RAM, and thus the faster the laptop can run. If you start to run out of RAM, your system will hit what’s called the “page file:” basically an optimized portion of the hard disk used to stash stuff that won’t immediately fit in memory but may need to be quickly swapped in later. You don’t want to hit the page file.
However, shedloads of RAM aren’t automatically going to make your computer run faster. In an Atom-based machine, for example, more than 1GB of RAM is a waste; the Atom just isn’t fast enough to really make use of all of it. A faster processor – particularly the quad cores on the horizon – will more readily use a greater amount of memory.
The amount of memory you need also depends on the operating system you’re running. If you’re using 32-bit Windows Vista, 2GB is really as low as you want to go. In 64-bit Vista, 4GB is ideal. And if you’re using Windows XP, 1GB is the minimum, and again, 2GB is preferable. As for Mac OS X or Linux? Mac OS X will use as much RAM as you can throw at it, and tends to be a bit of a hog, so I’d go for at least 2GB. And if you’re running some flavor of Linux, mercifully Linux is pretty efficient, so you’ll probably be fine with even just 1GB.
And, per the “dual channel” bit before, if you’re going to run 2GB, ideally you’ll want to do it in a pair of 1GB sticks as opposed to a single 2GB. While the single gives you an upgrade path later on, it leaves a little performance on the table. If you’re thinking about upgrading later, just do it now and get it out of the way. RAM is cheap and easy to add.
But since we’re talking about upgrading …
Upgrading Memory
First of all, if you buy your laptop custom built, don’t pay extra for RAM. Manufacturers – especially Apple – will gouge you like crazy on it. Just get the bare minimum; RAM can be bought very cheaply online at sites like NewEgg. I’d advise against buying in the store either; Best Buy in particular gouges even worse than the manufacturers do, charging as much as three times more than you’d pay buying it online.
Now, I have yet to see a laptop that comes with more than two memory slots, so while your desktop may happily accommodate 8GB (as mine does), your laptop’s going to top out at 4GB. MOST (not all) laptops have a user-accessible panel on the bottom of the machine that lets you access the memory slots, and a careful inspection of the slots inside will show how the memory is held in. In laptops in particular, you generally insert the RAM diagonally as opposed to vertically or horizontally: you tilt it into the memory slot then push it down until the retaining clips snap into place.
If you’re worried about this voiding your warranty, you can (and should) of course check what your warranty covers or contact customer service, but the vast majority of modern notebooks will allow you to upgrade the memory or hard disk without voiding the warranty.
Recommendations and Conclusion
This was a much more long-winded installment than my previous entries. As far as memory goes, as I said before, buy only online or at a place which offers prices comparable to buying online. For example, as of this writing the only 4GB DDR2 laptop memory kit I could find on Best Buy’s site is going for $99 – on sale from $319. A visit to NewEgg has the same kit for just $70, and that’s not even for a particularly great brand.
If you’re buying memory, the most trouble free brand I can recommend is Corsair (though Crucial, Kingston, and Patriot can also be solid buys). I happily run Corsair in my desktop, and it’s basically become the stand-by for reliability in my computers.
Now this has been a lot to digest and unfortunately, I can’t really break it down into easy to digest points for you because there are so many little conditions here and there. Memory is a big deal, and the only points I can really give you are:
How It Works: Memory
So here we are, into the fourth entry in the “How it Works” series, and it feels like we’ve barely scratched the surface. If laptops are so simple, why the heck do they require a massive multipart series like this? Try to keep things in perspective: there are only a few key concepts that you need to understand. Like the motherboard article, for example. You don’t need to know every little thing the motherboard does, just that it connects everything to everything else. Likewise, in the processor article, I’m mostly interested in providing a bit of an easy reference for all the numbers and “useless information” that Intel and AMD are apt to throw at you.
Buying Choices for the Crucial memory – 4 GB ( 2 x 2 GB ) – SO DIMM 200-pin – DDR2
——————————————————————————–
Amazon.com $106.72
Newegg.com $99.99
TheNerds.net $105.99
Next Warehouse $115.83
PC Connection $119.95
——————————————————————————-
view detailed pricing from 7 stores starting at $94.00
Now that we’ve been going for a couple weeks, though, I do want to address some of the comments on the forums. I really appreciate the support, and it’s gratifying to watch my rep jump up every time a new one of these is posted. That said, on each article there are generally one or two people that want to know why I didn’t cover something, or why I fudged something else.
On the latter part, if there’s a mistake, it’s either an intentional fudging (I usually mark those), or honestly, I’m just human. I may be hanging my cred out to dry here, but I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast first and foremost, and not an engineer. If I do make a mistake, please feel free to correct me in the forums … that’s just one of the things they’re there for. But most of the time, I’m pretty confident I’ve got my facts in order – confident enough that I’ve been able to (and fortunate enough to) continue freelance writing for Notebook Review for as long as I have.
On the former, please note that most of my omissions are intentional ones. I’m keenly aware of how many other hardware enthusiasts frequent Notebook Review, and it’s one of the things that makes it such a nice place to hang out. That said, details that seem elementary to us as enthusiasts can needlessly complicate things, and oftentimes are just plain useless to the people I’m largely trying to reach: consumers like my dad who just don’t know what the heck all this stuff is. I’m not trying to create an intensely detailed series here, I’m just tossing out the basics. So if I omit something, chances are it was intentional. Now, on with the show!
How It Works: Memory
Memory, or RAM (which is just an acronym for “Random Access Memory”) is one of the big reasons why “bandwidth” was one of the key terms I defined in Part I. Simply put, memory is a sort of a buffer.
Let me explain: Your processor has its own on-board memory (explained in Part III) which is very fast. Your hard disk, on the other hand, is dog slow. There isn’t a whole lot that can be done about that; even just ignoring the physical mechanics of it, you can think of your processor as being able to store a single newspaper worth of information, and the hard disk as being an archive of every newspaper printed since 1920. It’s a heck of a lot easier to find the obituaries in the single newspaper than the obituaries in one of the hundreds of thousands of newspapers. Simply put, it takes a heck of a lot longer to find it.
So if your processor just had a direct connection to your hard disk, your computer would be dog slow and horribly unresponsive. And this is where RAM comes in.
RAM basically works like a buffer for the processor between any number of the components inside the system. Since they all have varying degrees of speed in which they work, RAM was designed as a high-speed place to stash information and pull it up as needed. So while your hard disk may be peaking at 60MB/sec on a good day, your RAM can be hitting at least 6GB/sec or better. So we’re clear, that’s 100 times faster, and again, these are rough figures and I’m fudging them a bit. 6GB/sec still isn’t as fast as the on-die cache of the processor is, but it’s a hell of a lot faster than waiting for the hard drive.
Before I get into the statistics of memory itself, though, I want to talk a little bit about …
The Memory Interface
AMD and Intel use two different interfaces for accessing RAM. AMD uses what’s called Hypertransport technology, and what that basically means is that the memory is connected directly to the processor instead of going through the northbridge. There are tradeoffs involved (the processor is tied to a specific type of memory and only certain speeds, and the memory needs to be in close physical proximity to the processor), but the flipside is a massive boost in memory bandwidth.
Intel, on the other hand, uses a front-side bus, which I discussed in previous articles. While the front-side bus technology has evolved quite well, it still can’t quite match the kind of raw bandwidth Hypertransport is able to produce; as a result, Intel’s next chip design ditches the front-side bus to use an Intel-developed analogue to Hypertransport, a technology they call Quickpath. The same principles as Hypertransport still apply, though.
Of course, something else needs to be kept in mind: a boost in memory bandwidth doesn’t mean anything if the processor itself isn’t fast enough to take advantage of it. This is going to be a reoccurring theme at every point in this article: the value of memory will often be dependent on the performance of the processor itself. So just because AMD’s chips enjoy a substantially fatter pipeline to their memory doesn’t automatically make them faster; the processor itself has to be able to actually utilize all that bandwidth efficiently.
Memory Type
Okay, so basically there are three types of memory in circulation right now: DDR, DDR2, and DDR3. The “DDR” stands for “Double Data Rate,” but don’t concern yourself with that; all that really means is that the effective speed of the memory is twice the actual clock speed it runs at. Because, yes, memory runs at a clock speed, just like your processor does, and that speed is actually tied to your processor’s speed. It’s a little complicated, but I’ll explain.
So what do you need to know about all these memory types? Simple: they aren’t interchangeable, they aren’t backwards or forwards compatible, and DDR2 is the most pervasive one as of the writing of this article. Consider them sequels to each other, revisions and redesigns that improve on their predecessors.
Now remember what I said about Hypertransport and how it ties the processor to a specific type of memory? This is what I’m talking about. Intel can produce a northbridge that communicates with both DDR2 and DDR3 (though never simultaneously). AMD, however, is tied to DDR2. In order for an AMD chip to support DDR3, that chip has to be physically designed to support it. Likewise, when Intel makes the switch to Quickpath, that switch will prevent them from being as flexible with memory types as they are today.
Memory Speed
I’m gonna let you in on a big secret: memory speed is almost totally irrelevant to your system’s performance and has virtually no tangible effect on its day to day use. The exception would be integrated graphics parts which just appreciate all the memory bandwidth they can get.
The speed of memory is defined in two ways: its clock speed, and its theoretical bandwidth. So let’s say you have DDR2 memory that runs at 667 MHz, the common speed for modern notebook RAM. That memory would be notated as DDR2-667. However, it may also be notated by its theoretical bandwidth, in which case it would be PC2-5400 or PC2-5300. This is where it gets a little bit silly: some manufacturers prefer one over the other or may play up this number. Mercifully, however, the vast majority of people just prefer to notate memory the first way, as its speed.
At this point I’m going to get into a little bit of minutiae that may or may not be of value to you: the listed speed of the memory is its specification speed. This means that DDR2-800 is specced to run UP TO DDR2-800, but can also run happily at lower speeds.
The really crazy details follow, and you’re welcome to skip these. If you’re not interested in getting a brain cramp, just cut to the part that says “END BRAIN CRAMP” and move forward.
There’s basically a relationship between memory speed, front-side bus speed, and processor speed. It’s okay, it’s a lot simpler than it sounds. First of all, for DDR2, divide the noted clock speed by four to get its actual clock speed. So DDR2-667, for example, is actually running at 166 MHz. On an Intel machine, the front-side bus speed is defined the same way. And then the speed of the processor is defined by the fron-side bus’s true clock speed multiplied by what’s called a – wait for it – “multiplier.” And the speed the system runs the memory at is defined by a ratio against the front side bus speed.
That’s a whole lot of gobbledegook, so let’s give you an example.
You have a 2.4GHz processor with an 800MHz front-side bus. What this means is:
The front-side bus’s true clock speed is 200MHz, but because Intel “quad pumps” the front-side bus, the speed is 800MHz effectively, and that’s how it’s referred to.
The processor’s clock speed, 2.4GHz, is achieved by multiplying that front-side bus speed (200MHz) by the processor’s multiplier (in this case, 12). Presto, 2.4GHz.
Now let’s say you’re using DDR2-800. The northbridge sets the memory ratio at 1:1, so the memory is basically running at the same speed as the front-side bus.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way, so memory may run at a different ratio, like 6:4, or 12:8 as is the case on my desktop machine.
** END BRAIN CRAMP **
That mess above is provided you’re running an Intel machine; AMD’s HyperTransport will make memory run at odd frequencies. Don’t worry about it.
The important thing to remember is that on AMD machines, the memory speed makes a small difference in performance, and on Intel machines, it makes almost no difference.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
Memory Capacity
This is, of course, “the big one.” First of all, sticks of memory are widely available in the following capacities: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB (1024MB), and 2GB (2048MB).
This is the aspect of memory that really affects performance, because this is how much your computer can actually access fairly quickly before it winds up hitting the hard disk. When you run a program, that program is loaded into RAM. The more RAM you have, the more that can be loaded into RAM, and thus the faster the laptop can run. If you start to run out of RAM, your system will hit what’s called the “page file:” basically an optimized portion of the hard disk used to stash stuff that won’t immediately fit in memory but may need to be quickly swapped in later. You don’t want to hit the page file.
However, shedloads of RAM aren’t automatically going to make your computer run faster. In an Atom-based machine, for example, more than 1GB of RAM is a waste; the Atom just isn’t fast enough to really make use of all of it. A faster processor – particularly the quad cores on the horizon – will more readily use a greater amount of memory.
The amount of memory you need also depends on the operating system you’re running. If you’re using 32-bit Windows Vista, 2GB is really as low as you want to go. In 64-bit Vista, 4GB is ideal. And if you’re using Windows XP, 1GB is the minimum, and again, 2GB is preferable. As for Mac OS X or Linux? Mac OS X will use as much RAM as you can throw at it, and tends to be a bit of a hog, so I’d go for at least 2GB. And if you’re running some flavor of Linux, mercifully Linux is pretty efficient, so you’ll probably be fine with even just 1GB.
And, per the “dual channel” bit before, if you’re going to run 2GB, ideally you’ll want to do it in a pair of 1GB sticks as opposed to a single 2GB. While the single gives you an upgrade path later on, it leaves a little performance on the table. If you’re thinking about upgrading later, just do it now and get it out of the way. RAM is cheap and easy to add.
But since we’re talking about upgrading …
Upgrading Memory
First of all, if you buy your laptop custom built, don’t pay extra for RAM. Manufacturers – especially Apple – will gouge you like crazy on it. Just get the bare minimum; RAM can be bought very cheaply online at sites like NewEgg. I’d advise against buying in the store either; Best Buy in particular gouges even worse than the manufacturers do, charging as much as three times more than you’d pay buying it online.
Now, I have yet to see a laptop that comes with more than two memory slots, so while your desktop may happily accommodate 8GB (as mine does), your laptop’s going to top out at 4GB. MOST (not all) laptops have a user-accessible panel on the bottom of the machine that lets you access the memory slots, and a careful inspection of the slots inside will show how the memory is held in. In laptops in particular, you generally insert the RAM diagonally as opposed to vertically or horizontally: you tilt it into the memory slot then push it down until the retaining clips snap into place.
If you’re worried about this voiding your warranty, you can (and should) of course check what your warranty covers or contact customer service, but the vast majority of modern notebooks will allow you to upgrade the memory or hard disk without voiding the warranty.
Recommendations and Conclusion
This was a much more long-winded installment than my previous entries. As far as memory goes, as I said before, buy only online or at a place which offers prices comparable to buying online. For example, as of this writing the only 4GB DDR2 laptop memory kit I could find on Best Buy’s site is going for $99 – on sale from $319. A visit to NewEgg has the same kit for just $70, and that’s not even for a particularly great brand.
If you’re buying memory, the most trouble free brand I can recommend is Corsair (though Crucial, Kingston, and Patriot can also be solid buys). I happily run Corsair in my desktop, and it’s basically become the stand-by for reliability in my computers.
Now this has been a lot to digest and unfortunately, I can’t really break it down into easy to digest points for you because there are so many little conditions here and there. Memory is a big deal, and the only points I can really give you are:
How It Works: Memory
So here we are, into the fourth entry in the “How it Works” series, and it feels like we’ve barely scratched the surface. If laptops are so simple, why the heck do they require a massive multipart series like this? Try to keep things in perspective: there are only a few key concepts that you need to understand. Like the motherboard article, for example. You don’t need to know every little thing the motherboard does, just that it connects everything to everything else. Likewise, in the processor article, I’m mostly interested in providing a bit of an easy reference for all the numbers and “useless information” that Intel and AMD are apt to throw at you.
Buying Choices for the Crucial memory – 4 GB ( 2 x 2 GB ) – SO DIMM 200-pin – DDR2
——————————————————————————–
Amazon.com $106.72
Newegg.com $99.99
TheNerds.net $105.99
Next Warehouse $115.83
PC Connection $119.95
——————————————————————————-
view detailed pricing from 7 stores starting at $94.00
Now that we’ve been going for a couple weeks, though, I do want to address some of the comments on the forums. I really appreciate the support, and it’s gratifying to watch my rep jump up every time a new one of these is posted. That said, on each article there are generally one or two people that want to know why I didn’t cover something, or why I fudged something else.
On the latter part, if there’s a mistake, it’s either an intentional fudging (I usually mark those), or honestly, I’m just human. I may be hanging my cred out to dry here, but I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast first and foremost, and not an engineer. If I do make a mistake, please feel free to correct me in the forums … that’s just one of the things they’re there for. But most of the time, I’m pretty confident I’ve got my facts in order – confident enough that I’ve been able to (and fortunate enough to) continue freelance writing for Notebook Review for as long as I have.
On the former, please note that most of my omissions are intentional ones. I’m keenly aware of how many other hardware enthusiasts frequent Notebook Review, and it’s one of the things that makes it such a nice place to hang out. That said, details that seem elementary to us as enthusiasts can needlessly complicate things, and oftentimes are just plain useless to the people I’m largely trying to reach: consumers like my dad who just don’t know what the heck all this stuff is. I’m not trying to create an intensely detailed series here, I’m just tossing out the basics. So if I omit something, chances are it was intentional. Now, on with the show!
How It Works: Memory
Memory, or RAM (which is just an acronym for “Random Access Memory”) is one of the big reasons why “bandwidth” was one of the key terms I defined in Part I. Simply put, memory is a sort of a buffer.
Let me explain: Your processor has its own on-board memory (explained in Part III) which is very fast. Your hard disk, on the other hand, is dog slow. There isn’t a whole lot that can be done about that; even just ignoring the physical mechanics of it, you can think of your processor as being able to store a single newspaper worth of information, and the hard disk as being an archive of every newspaper printed since 1920. It’s a heck of a lot easier to find the obituaries in the single newspaper than the obituaries in one of the hundreds of thousands of newspapers. Simply put, it takes a heck of a lot longer to find it.
So if your processor just had a direct connection to your hard disk, your computer would be dog slow and horribly unresponsive. And this is where RAM comes in.
RAM basically works like a buffer for the processor between any number of the components inside the system. Since they all have varying degrees of speed in which they work, RAM was designed as a high-speed place to stash information and pull it up as needed. So while your hard disk may be peaking at 60MB/sec on a good day, your RAM can be hitting at least 6GB/sec or better. So we’re clear, that’s 100 times faster, and again, these are rough figures and I’m fudging them a bit. 6GB/sec still isn’t as fast as the on-die cache of the processor is, but it’s a hell of a lot faster than waiting for the hard drive.
Before I get into the statistics of memory itself, though, I want to talk a little bit about …
The Memory Interface
AMD and Intel use two different interfaces for accessing RAM. AMD uses what’s called Hypertransport technology, and what that basically means is that the memory is connected directly to the processor instead of going through the northbridge. There are tradeoffs involved (the processor is tied to a specific type of memory and only certain speeds, and the memory needs to be in close physical proximity to the processor), but the flipside is a massive boost in memory bandwidth.
Intel, on the other hand, uses a front-side bus, which I discussed in previous articles. While the front-side bus technology has evolved quite well, it still can’t quite match the kind of raw bandwidth Hypertransport is able to produce; as a result, Intel’s next chip design ditches the front-side bus to use an Intel-developed analogue to Hypertransport, a technology they call Quickpath. The same principles as Hypertransport still apply, though.
Of course, something else needs to be kept in mind: a boost in memory bandwidth doesn’t mean anything if the processor itself isn’t fast enough to take advantage of it. This is going to be a reoccurring theme at every point in this article: the value of memory will often be dependent on the performance of the processor itself. So just because AMD’s chips enjoy a substantially fatter pipeline to their memory doesn’t automatically make them faster; the processor itself has to be able to actually utilize all that bandwidth efficiently.
Memory Type
Okay, so basically there are three types of memory in circulation right now: DDR, DDR2, and DDR3. The “DDR” stands for “Double Data Rate,” but don’t concern yourself with that; all that really means is that the effective speed of the memory is twice the actual clock speed it runs at. Because, yes, memory runs at a clock speed, just like your processor does, and that speed is actually tied to your processor’s speed. It’s a little complicated, but I’ll explain.
So what do you need to know about all these memory types? Simple: they aren’t interchangeable, they aren’t backwards or forwards compatible, and DDR2 is the most pervasive one as of the writing of this article. Consider them sequels to each other, revisions and redesigns that improve on their predecessors.
Now remember what I said about Hypertransport and how it ties the processor to a specific type of memory? This is what I’m talking about. Intel can produce a northbridge that communicates with both DDR2 and DDR3 (though never simultaneously). AMD, however, is tied to DDR2. In order for an AMD chip to support DDR3, that chip has to be physically designed to support it. Likewise, when Intel makes the switch to Quickpath, that switch will prevent them from being as flexible with memory types as they are today.
Memory Speed
I’m gonna let you in on a big secret: memory speed is almost totally irrelevant to your system’s performance and has virtually no tangible effect on its day to day use. The exception would be integrated graphics parts which just appreciate all the memory bandwidth they can get.
The speed of memory is defined in two ways: its clock speed, and its theoretical bandwidth. So let’s say you have DDR2 memory that runs at 667 MHz, the common speed for modern notebook RAM. That memory would be notated as DDR2-667. However, it may also be notated by its theoretical bandwidth, in which case it would be PC2-5400 or PC2-5300. This is where it gets a little bit silly: some manufacturers prefer one over the other or may play up this number. Mercifully, however, the vast majority of people just prefer to notate memory the first way, as its speed.
At this point I’m going to get into a little bit of minutiae that may or may not be of value to you: the listed speed of the memory is its specification speed. This means that DDR2-800 is specced to run UP TO DDR2-800, but can also run happily at lower speeds.
The really crazy details follow, and you’re welcome to skip these. If you’re not interested in getting a brain cramp, just cut to the part that says “END BRAIN CRAMP” and move forward.
There’s basically a relationship between memory speed, front-side bus speed, and processor speed. It’s okay, it’s a lot simpler than it sounds. First of all, for DDR2, divide the noted clock speed by four to get its actual clock speed. So DDR2-667, for example, is actually running at 166 MHz. On an Intel machine, the front-side bus speed is defined the same way. And then the speed of the processor is defined by the fron-side bus’s true clock speed multiplied by what’s called a – wait for it – “multiplier.” And the speed the system runs the memory at is defined by a ratio against the front side bus speed.
That’s a whole lot of gobbledegook, so let’s give you an example.
You have a 2.4GHz processor with an 800MHz front-side bus. What this means is:
The front-side bus’s true clock speed is 200MHz, but because Intel “quad pumps” the front-side bus, the speed is 800MHz effectively, and that’s how it’s referred to.
The processor’s clock speed, 2.4GHz, is achieved by multiplying that front-side bus speed (200MHz) by the processor’s multiplier (in this case, 12). Presto, 2.4GHz.
Now let’s say you’re using DDR2-800. The northbridge sets the memory ratio at 1:1, so the memory is basically running at the same speed as the front-side bus.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way, so memory may run at a different ratio, like 6:4, or 12:8 as is the case on my desktop machine.
** END BRAIN CRAMP **
That mess above is provided you’re running an Intel machine; AMD’s HyperTransport will make memory run at odd frequencies. Don’t worry about it.
The important thing to remember is that on AMD machines, the memory speed makes a small difference in performance, and on Intel machines, it makes almost no difference.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
A Brief Word About Timings
Someone will someday talk to you about memory timings. This is esoterica you don’t need to worry about or give a crap about. Memory timings are for enthusiasts with too much free time and people who think they’re actually achieving something.
I’ve tested standard Corsair RAM and I’ve tested high end OCZ and Crucial RAM. You can tease out differences based on memory speed and timings in synthetic benchmarks, but in practical use it’s virtually impossible to tell the difference. Enthusiast RAM exists to separate suckers from their money.
Dual and Single Channel
This is another brief word and it’s a simple one. Your notebook is typically designed to handle memory in a configuration called “dual channel.” Without getting into too much detail, it’s basically a means of effectively doubling memory bandwidth by running a matched pair of memory sticks.
In practice, the difference between single and dual channel is largely negligible on Intel platforms (just like the speed), though it’s much more relevant on AMD systems.
Intel systems are also designed to operate in a sort of “hybrid” fashion in such a way that two unmatched sticks of RAM can run in a weird dual channel mode, so if you have a 1GB stick and a 2GB stick that are running at the same speed, you can get most of the benefit of dual channel operation.
Ultimately, this is performance that you don’t need to pay extra for, and it’s too easy to pick up for you to leave it on the table.
Memory Capacity
This is, of course, “the big one.” First of all, sticks of memory are widely available in the following capacities: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB (1024MB), and 2GB (2048MB).
This is the aspect of memory that really affects performance, because this is how much your computer can actually access fairly quickly before it winds up hitting the hard disk. When you run a program, that program is loaded into RAM. The more RAM you have, the more that can be loaded into RAM, and thus the faster the laptop can run. If you start to run out of RAM, your system will hit what’s called the “page file:” basically an optimized portion of the hard disk used to stash stuff that won’t immediately fit in memory but may need to be quickly swapped in later. You don’t want to hit the page file.
However, shedloads of RAM aren’t automatically going to make your computer run faster. In an Atom-based machine, for example, more than 1GB of RAM is a waste; the Atom just isn’t fast enough to really make use of all of it. A faster processor – particularly the quad cores on the horizon – will more readily use a greater amount of memory.
The amount of memory you need also depends on the operating system you’re running. If you’re using 32-bit Windows Vista, 2GB is really as low as you want to go. In 64-bit Vista, 4GB is ideal. And if you’re using Windows XP, 1GB is the minimum, and again, 2GB is preferable. As for Mac OS X or Linux? Mac OS X will use as much RAM as you can throw at it, and tends to be a bit of a hog, so I’d go for at least 2GB. And if you’re running some flavor of Linux, mercifully Linux is pretty efficient, so you’ll probably be fine with even just 1GB.
And, per the “dual channel” bit before, if you’re going to run 2GB, ideally you’ll want to do it in a pair of 1GB sticks as opposed to a single 2GB. While the single gives you an upgrade path later on, it leaves a little performance on the table. If you’re thinking about upgrading later, just do it now and get it out of the way. RAM is cheap and easy to add.
But since we’re talking about upgrading …
Upgrading Memory
First of all, if you buy your laptop custom built, don’t pay extra for RAM. Manufacturers – especially Apple – will gouge you like crazy on it. Just get the bare minimum; RAM can be bought very cheaply online at sites like NewEgg. I’d advise against buying in the store either; Best Buy in particular gouges even worse than the manufacturers do, charging as much as three times more than you’d pay buying it online.
Now, I have yet to see a laptop that comes with more than two memory slots, so while your desktop may happily accommodate 8GB (as mine does), your laptop’s going to top out at 4GB. MOST (not all) laptops have a user-accessible panel on the bottom of the machine that lets you access the memory slots, and a careful inspection of the slots inside will show how the memory is held in. In laptops in particular, you generally insert the RAM diagonally as opposed to vertically or horizontally: you tilt it into the memory slot then push it down until the retaining clips snap into place.
If you’re worried about this voiding your warranty, you can (and should) of course check what your warranty covers or contact customer service, but the vast majority of modern notebooks will allow you to upgrade the memory or hard disk without voiding the warranty.
Recommendations and Conclusion
This was a much more long-winded installment than my previous entries. As far as memory goes, as I said before, buy only online or at a place which offers prices comparable to buying online. For example, as of this writing the only 4GB DDR2 laptop memory kit I could find on Best Buy’s site is going for $99 – on sale from $319. A visit to NewEgg has the same kit for just $70, and that’s not even for a particularly great brand.
If you’re buying memory, the most trouble free brand I can recommend is Corsair (though Crucial, Kingston, and Patriot can also be solid buys). I happily run Corsair in my desktop, and it’s basically become the stand-by for reliability in my computers.
Now this has been a lot to digest and unfortunately, I can’t really break it down into easy to digest points for you because there are so many little conditions here and there. Memory is a big deal, and the only points I can really give you are:
