Memory Upgrade

[lukispuki]

I guess considering everything the price between the corsair and OCZ is really minimal, while OCZ is 1000 vs the 800 corsair.

 

This might make it sweet if I decide to OC the heck out of the processor ... my cooling is way good trust me, although it's not water cooling, I'm running 4 good fans for the case, plus good proc cooling ... funny my readings show cooler processor than the case, i think i really do need to OC it a bit. I even had to do manual work on the case itself to ensure good airflow... and so I could fit all the fans I wanted.

Edited December 24, 2008 by lukispuki

[abid]

OOT: lukipuki, where are you from?

[lukispuki]

OOT: lukipuki, where are you from?

 

Why?

Chicago, but originally from Europe.

[abid]

owh ok... never mind..

[Verran]

Exactly, go for the OCZ 1066 kit, will perform better compared to the 800's you have.

No. It will perform worse.

 

Most people don't seem to understand that just because the number on the package is higher doesn't necessarily mean it will perform better. This is especially true for memory.

 

Check out the Q6600 overclocks that are out there. Without crazy cooling, most people top out around 3.6. With the 9x multiplier on the Q6600, 3.6 can be reached with only 400FSB. That means that a DDR2-800 kit can max out your Q6600 overclock without running past its stock rated speeds. So if you only need 400FSB, why pay for higher rated memory?

 

Not only that, but like I said before, higher rated ram will actually run slower in this case. You're going to max your FSB out around 400 anyways. So your beautiful new 1066 sticks (533FSB) will still be sitting at 400FSB anyways. And since the 1066 have higher speeds, they'll probably have higher latencies too. So would you rather run 400FSB with 4-4-4-12 timings, or 5-5-5-15 timings?

 

This is one of those instances where it just kills me to read all these responses. People just pick the higher number and recommend it without really understanding what they're talking about.

[Kingfisher]

No. It will perform worse.

 

Most people don't seem to understand that just because the number on the package is higher doesn't necessarily mean it will perform better. This is especially true for memory.

 

Check out the Q6600 overclocks that are out there. Without crazy cooling, most people top out around 3.6. With the 9x multiplier on the Q6600, 3.6 can be reached with only 400FSB. That means that a DDR2-800 kit can max out your Q6600 overclock without running past its stock rated speeds. So if you only need 400FSB, why pay for higher rated memory?

 

Not only that, but like I said before, higher rated ram will actually run slower in this case. You're going to max your FSB out around 400 anyways. So your beautiful new 1066 sticks (533FSB) will still be sitting at 400FSB anyways. And since the 1066 have higher speeds, they'll probably have higher latencies too. So would you rather run 400FSB with 4-4-4-12 timings, or 5-5-5-15 timings?

 

This is one of those instances where it just kills me to read all these responses. People just pick the higher number and recommend it without really understanding what they're talking about.

 

If it's good quality RAM like OCZ it will all be relative.

If the OP can achieve at least a 3.6 clock on that Q then what difference will it make? 4-4-4-12@ 800mhz =5-5-5-15@ 1066.

By getting the faster RAM he at least will have a chance to go higher with the Q. If not, big deal, run that 1066 RAM @ 800 with the 4-4-4-12 timings.

No worries.

[Verran]

If the OP can achieve at least a 3.6 clock on that Q then what difference will it make? 4-4-4-12@ 800mhz =5-5-5-15@ 1066.

That's the whole point though. The chance of going over 400FSB with a Q6600 are extraordinarily slim. And even still, 400 is only the stock speed of the memory. Any decent brand will OC well over that. The 1066 won't run at 1066, it'll run at 800 because that's where the Q6600 tops out. So like I said, the real choice is 4-4-4-12@800 or 5-5-5-15@800. The only way to run memory at 1066 with a Q6600 is on extreme cooling and an incredible chip, or a positive memory divider (which provides debatable benefits and requires an incredible amount of tweaking which very few people will ever do to get there).

 

So if you know you won't be going significantly over 400FSB, why pay more for 533? Why take the chance on hoping your 1066 will dial down to 4-4-4-12@800 when chips that are guaranteed to do so cost less?

[Kingfisher]

Verran I am totally with you sir.

 

However, the cost of a "decent" set of DDR2 800mhz VS. a "decent" set of DDR2 1066 is maybe 20 dollars at best if we are shopping at Newegg so why not get the faster RAM and perhaps in the future upgrade to a newer chip that can inherently clock higher and utilize the 1066 speeds. Core I7 not-withstanding?

Or perhaps the guy is lucky and has a Q6600 that clocks to 4 Ghz. It's not out of the realm of possibility.

 

Disclaimer, this is just from my current set-up and benchmarks show there is a very slim performance difference between DDR2 800 mhz RAM @ 4-4-4-12 and DDR2 1066 @ 5-5-5-15 speeds.

Unless I am a complete moron, what is the difference and why not get the faster RAM and if you are stuck at DDR2 800mhz speeds just tighten those timings?

[Verran]

OK, I see your point.

 

But chances are at this point that a lot of people's next upgrade will probably be on the new socket and DDR2 won't carry over. Besides that, it is not guaranteed that the 1066 stuff will clock down to 4-4-4-12/800. Often those higher clocked sets use different chips that don't scale as well at lower speeds.

 

Ultimately though, for most people the $20 probably isn't a huge deal and the difference between 4-4-4-12 and 5-5-5-15 probably won't even be noticeable, so I agree with you and it seems that we're pretty much on the same page. The reason I stress this so much, like I said before, is that it bothers me when most people act knowledgeable when all they're really thinking is 1066 > 800. The 800 will perform better and cost less for the proposed setup, but they don't understand that so they just pick the higher number and act like they know when they don't. You are obviously not one of these people, but many of those people are participating in this thread and could stand to learn a little more about what they pretend to know.

[ccokeman]

800-900MHz at 4-4-4 will out perform 5-5-5 at 1066-1100Mhz any day of the week. Max FSB on Q6600s is in the 445 to 465 FSB range so the 800MHZ ram or memory that will do 900MHz 4-4-4 is the ticket. Some but not all higher speed memory that run at 1066MHz can have the latencies reduced at the lower speed and show an increase in performance. Really its what you intend to do. Since you said you were not overclocking I would get a set with the tightest timing you can find at 800MHz. Of course within your economical boundaries. This set is 49.99 and runs 4-4-4-12 at 1.8v. I have a set and they do well for the price.

[Turophiliac]

i've seen plenty of 1066 chips run at 4-4-4-12 when clocked to 800MHz. mine, and everybody I know in person that has 1066 RAM (3 or 4 people) all can run the 1066 chips at 800 with the 4-4-4-12 timings and they perform beautifully.

[ekiM]

As previously stated, that's not to say that the higher stock-clocked RAM cannot preform at those same low latencies when downclocked to 800Mhz, my Reapers are sitting at 5-4-4-11 2T with 1.8v @800 MHz, right now