RAM Upgrade slowed memory operations/sec

I just exchanged one of two 1MB's with a 2MB in an HP s3220n Vista Home Premium.

The memory was recognized fine (3MB showing now) but the Vista Performance rating score for Memory Operations per Second DECREASED from 5.9/sec to 4.9/sec

One chip is 5300 and the new one is 6500 but mine is not dual channel, so I think the speed should not matter. What could be going on?

 

I think you mean 1, 2 and 3 Gigabytes (gb) rather than MB.

And yes not using RAM stick in dual chanel mode does decrease the RAM's operational speed.

 

Yes GB, thanks, there is supposed to be an "EDIT" button for my post (according to FAQ) but none appears for me. (ah! an edit button appeared on this post but not on my first - maybe no edit on a thread opener)

So since my box is not dual channel, what would slow down the ops/sec?

 

Have a read of this, although it is about the newer triple channel RAM, it still explains well, ish.

 

The s3220n to which I'm referring is Not dual-channel architecture, nor is it triple-channel...no matching banks or color coding on the motherboard.... just two RAM slots. Anyone know how or why adding RAM would result in a decrease in memory operations per second?

 

2 things
1. the performance score in vista 7 is notoriously inaccurate
2. secondly YES your system had DUAL channel ram ( almost all of them do) if you install a stick of ram that don't match the speed of the other one ( this applys to dual and single channel setups ) it will clk-down and or self adjust its "timeings" to ensure stability usually by increasing the latency of the ram to keep everything in step so to speak higher timings = slower
at any rate the advantage of having MORE ram that's a BIT slower MIGHT outweigh ram that's faster depending on the application or it might be SLOWER

 

Thanks rjc, I understand that the new 2GB stick which is 6400 would "step down" or be sort of backward compatible with the 1GB 5300 stick that was left in the box. but since I was replacing one 5300 with 6400 wouldn't both continue to run at 5300 rather than going below what it was before? ...or doesn't the "law of backward compatibility apply?

(yes I have heard from others, including Crucial techs, that Vista performance benchmarks are notoriously goofy!)

 

what more then likely happened is that the bios increased the SPD timings a bit to keep things in sync you might able to go into the bios a lower them back and see if its stable
download and run this tool http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php and give me the memory motherboard and spd info and ill see what I can find out

 

im sorry tyanyy,

i miss read the OP.

Atleast rjc was on the ball. :-o

 

Here is the mainboard, memory, and speeds for slots 1+2. This gadget also indicates that the memory is Single Channel RAM not dual as you were saying earlier, so I'm still confused, but really just curious about it all...