Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   RAM (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ram/)
-   -   Forget High-Speed RAM- go for low latency and a 6xxi (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ram/582-forget-high-speed-ram-go-low-latency-6xxi.html)

Babrbarossa March 15, 2007 11:19 AM

Forget High-Speed RAM- go for low latency and a 6xxi
 
This article from Legion Hardware is a MUST read- It answers alot of questions about which memory to choose and finds some surprising results when coparing performance of different bandwidths and different latencies. They conclude that expensive high speed memory can be a real waste of money in some Intel setups (ie NVidia mobos unlocked), where it can be outperformed by 667 with low latencies.

"Double Data Rate (DDR) memory started life at 200MHz (PC-1600) developing 1.6GB/s and with dual channel technology had the potential to double this theoretical peak bandwidth. Eventually DDR hit 400MHz (PC-3200) and this was the final JEDEC specification for the DDR memory standard. In dual channel operation DDR-400 could produce up to 6.4GB/s of memory bandwidth, which was more than enough for any AMD or Intel processor at the time. In fact, it was more than enough for the upcoming AMD and Intel processors for quite some time as well.

Nevertheless, Intel wanted to push on and therefore did so by quickly adopting DDR2 technology, which started at 400MHz developing the same 3.2GB/s of DDR-400 memory. However, despite poorer memory timings DDR2-400 memory was actually much slower than DDR-400 memory, which was obviously quite a problem. Therefore the PC-4200 specification was quickly released, operating at 533MHz and developing 4.2GB/s of memory bandwidth. Despite offering a 32% increase in memory bandwidth, DDR2-533 memory was still slower than low latency DDR-400 memory. "
More from Legion Hardware

Misoprostol March 15, 2007 02:19 PM

very interesting read. Makes me feel pretty good about a position that I've had for a very long time: More memory is better than faster memory.

BALISTX March 15, 2007 03:04 PM

Very interesting and with the price of a nForce 650i board being $166.75 for an Asus P5N-E SLI nForce 650i it makes it very interesting.

Deathspawner March 15, 2007 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Misoprostol (Post 3644)
very interesting read. Makes me feel pretty good about a position that I've had for a very long time: More memory is better than faster memory.

True, but if you have a very high frequency, having loose timings may still wind up being faster than tighter timings at lower frequencies. I am sure 3-3-3 PC2-6400 beats out PC2-8000 4-4-4, but I doubt it would stand a chance against PC2-1100 5-5-5.

Mushkin just released a new kit that has the best of both worlds... 4GB (2* 2GB) PC2-8500 with 5-4-4 timings.

Babrbarossa March 15, 2007 04:23 PM

There's your next performance review right there! :biggrin: - try it on an evga 680i and a 975

papixx March 17, 2007 11:22 PM

Thanks, good read. What about DDR2 and AM2 systems? I have bought a DFI ULTRAII-M2 + X2 3800+ + X1950XT 512, but have YET to buy ram!! What do you guy's think?

Deathspawner March 18, 2007 11:20 AM

Any OCZ PC2-6400 kit should suit you well. Are you planning to overclock at all? I almost find less of a need to overclock on AM2s anyway... the latencies are always better as is the bandwidth, thanks to the IMC.

b1lk1 March 18, 2007 12:23 PM

For me, running 1:1 with the CPU has always been better for stability. For the minute gain in bandwidth almost always comes with a loss in stability. To each his own, but getting some good CAS 3 PC2 5400 ram or CAS 4 PC6400 is the best way to go. If you plan on running your CPU stock, anything over PC6400 is a huge waste of money. And more than 2GB is still only really needed by video processing pro's with a 64-bit OS.

papixx March 19, 2007 12:00 PM

Thanks. I think I'll order these today:
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...7&promoid=1030
:thumb:

lowfat March 31, 2007 04:12 PM

This doesn't hold as true for 965P boards. I got a good 5% increase in speed with Aquamark when using 500MHZ 4-4-4-4 over 400MHz 3-3-2-4. I did 5 benches with each one, and it was always consistent. CPU clock speed was the same both times.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:22 AM.