there is no "better"...
one is more and the other is faster

but Id say "more" is more usefull for you in this case...

Last ddr is ddr400,after that is ddr 2,so those are both ddr1.

I'd go for 512 MB 333mhz because of the high frequency. I think 512 is enough for a computer that does not want to manage 300 applications at a time and running on Windows XP. Also, I would buy a powerful graphics card and reduce the 'Graphics Aperture Size' to save RAM when running video games.

I would like to present you why exactly 512 MB 333 mhz is way better than the other one in all situations except one.

Your computer depends on the RAM speed in order to move data between the processor and the RAM (it also depends on the FSB also but that is another thing - it's a constant). In order for the PC to obtain data faster, it needs a faster RAM. However, when the PC runs out of RAM, it will move passive RAM blocks to the Harddisk (the so-called Page File) and get necessary info from the harddisk into the RAM. That is a VERY slow process and it's about 20-30 times or even more slower than the RAM. In case your RAM requirements often go beyond 512 MB, it's really necessary that you go for the 640 because otherwise it will not be 333mhz but something a lot slower. If your RAM necessities don't go beyond 512MB, go for this module.

To check how much RAM your computer is using, just press Ctrl+Alt+Del and click on the 'Performance' tab. Search for something called Commit Charge (Peak). If that is beyond 524 288, this means that your computer used more than 512 RAM at least once. However, to make sure, check the Commit Charge (Total) too and see if that value is above or under 524 288 K. If it is way under, you should run a few tasks that you usually run and even start quake. Again check the Total value and make sure it's still under 524 288. If it is, go for the 512MB 333

wrote:

Its depending on your FSB speed. The most effective is, if your RAM speed is 1:1 with FSB. For example i have AthlonXP 2500+ (barton). It has FSB 166MHz. So for this FSB is ideal DDR333 (real speed is half). But i overclocked it to 3200+ - its running on 200MHz FSB so i have DDR400 (200MHz in real).

FSB is actually 4x that speed, Beazt. It has quad speed the FSB, not just 166 or 200 Mhz, but 667 or 800 . And you also forget about the FSB burst option that enables it to use really high speed. As long as the mainboard supports the RAM frequency, it will use it at full power. There is no way the FSB can be below 333Mhz, that was a loooong time ago.

wrote:

it was help by AMD user to AMD user Intel sux

Buhahah, nice one They would but without Intel, Amd would be... well.. they wouldn't be at all. They always were a cheap copy of Intel and that is proven by the lack of top engineers. AMD had only one revolutionary idea in their whole existence and it was named "3d! now", while Intel had only 20 or 30... in fact all the revolutionary ideas came from Intel: MMX, SSE, SSE 2, SSE 3, Hyper Thread and Dual core are just a few to name. AMD copied these 100% and never came up with a better solution.

And the 2000 Mhz FSB from Intel should be a clue that they dont like to fool around:P. Intel's Pentium 4 is the only processor which can go up to 10 Ghz because of its long pipeline. AMD's microprocessors can't even go to half this freqency with their tech. Looks like they must copy Intel... again .

Intel Inside forever! Kill your AMD, come buy Intel processors.