Jump to content

Recommended Posts

hi guys, i'm upgrading and i want some opinion on ram. currently i'm using 2GB of twin2x6400 5-5-5-12 so should i go with higher frequency or go for extra capacity.

 

here's my thought

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820227347

or this?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820104073

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, what other hardware (and OS) will you be running them with?

 

I generally think that 2GB is the bare minimum these days, so would go with 4GB personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx bro, i also agree that 2GB is bare minimum these days.. and 1 more thing, am i going to see any difference going from 800 to 1066? maybe 1200mhz is an overkill hehe :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert, but I think you'd see only a minor difference with a 266MHz increase. (Other OCCers feel free to correct me ;))

 

What are your system specs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c'mon man, don't give the dilemma again :blink: i'm running the ram with x3 8750 on nforce720d mobo with 9800GT, OS is vista ultimate 32bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What CPU are you running these with? That's what will really make the difference.

 

Personally though, I generally think high memory speeds are WAY overrated and you'll generally get much more gain from higher capacity than higher speeds.

 

EDIT###

AMD? Yeah, 1066 and 1200 are both mega overkill. Get yourself a nice set of 2x2 DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12 timings and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What CPU are you running these with? That's what will really make the difference.

 

Personally though, I generally think high memory speeds are WAY overrated and you'll generally get much more gain from higher capacity than higher speeds.

 

EDIT###

AMD? Yeah, 1066 and 1200 are both mega overkill. Get yourself a nice set of 2x2 DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12 timings and be done with it.

 

so basically i get better performance with lower latency 800 ( 4-4-4-12) than 1066 at 5-5-5-15 ? but it doesn't look like an upgrade since the only thing that change is the latency :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so basically i get better performance with lower latency 800 ( 4-4-4-12) than 1066 at 5-5-5-15 ? but it doesn't look like an upgrade since the only thing that change is the latency :blink:

I don't understand what you're saying here. It doesn't look like an upgrade compared to what?

 

If you understand how memory works and how FSB/HTT work, you'll realize that just because the package says 1066 and not 800 doesn't mean it will make your computer perform better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you understand how memory works and how FSB/HTT work, you'll realize that just because the package says 1066 and not 800 doesn't mean it will make your computer perform better.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the main advantage to buying over 800mhz ram the ability to OC your mobo past 400mhz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the main advantage to buying over 800mhz ram the ability to OC your mobo past 400mhz?

Yes, that is the main advantage.

 

However, not all processors will go that high. If yours doesn't then the extra speed will do you no good. If you're buying a chip that commonly overclocks past 400 and you do in fact plan to do so yourself, then 1066 is usually worth the extra money. However, older chips like a Q6600 (for example) may not see any real benefit because they rarely go higher than that. If your chip doesn't OC significantly past 400FSB, 1066 may actually run slower. That's because 1066 sticks usually have worse timings. So you get no benefit from the extra bus-speed headroom on the 1066 and now you're running worse timings. Hardly an "upgrade" IMO.

 

And that's just Intel. Have you taken a look at the base HTT speeds on even the newest AMD chips? Even 800 kits are overkill. AMD chips usually run a big memory multiplier which inflates the memory speeds up into 1066 territory, but this is OPTIONAL and I have still yet to see any real benefit in real world performance from doing so. You'll be able to score a few more points in synthetic memory benchmarks, but you won't notice any difference outside of that. Most current applications are not memory speed limited, so increasing memory speeds does very little to benefit them. It puts pretty numbers on the screen, but that's about it.

 

(Note: The above paragraph does not take into account the mega-tweakers out there who know all about memory-straps and pertinent memory divider/multiplier enabling and the advanced timing settings that are available from them. There is some benefit there, but most people will never tweak on this level and so I don't see this as really applicable for the most part. If you're enlightened enough to make use of all that stuff, you don't need to read a thread like this :P)

 

My point through this whole thing is that 1066 is not always greater than 800. People see bigger numbers and they just assume it's better. I've seen a million times all the way back to a friend swapping DDR1-400 for DDR1-500 on a stock-clocked chip. 400 > 500, right? Wrong. You see the same thing now with DDR3. You see these ungodly speeds with DDR3 (and also truly ungodly timings), but I've yet to see a real need (or even use) for that kind of memory bandwidth. No chips clock anywhere near that high and I'm still far less than sold on the real world benefits of memory multipliers so to me it's just a lot more money spent for no real gain. But DDR3 sounds cooler than DDR2, so it's worth it, apparently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i know.. The higher memory frequency is useful if you intend to run crazy high FSB above 500 or something.. Even at 500 is very hard to keep the whole system stable as it puts a load of strain on the north bridge.. But I have heard from buddies of mine that CPU's that have more then 2 cores could utilise memory better..? Newer quads Q9XXX series not inlcuding the i7 as it's architecture is totally different. Is this a fact or a myth..? DDR2-800 sticks usually are able to oc decenlty so I don't think 1066 or 1200 is a good upgrade.. That's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx for quote verran, i'm kinda sux when it come to memory since i never really care about it :withstupid:. just another question, let say i wanna upgrade my cpu to phenom 2 ( P II 720/ P II 955 ) will i be able to run it with DDR2 800? since the native support for phenom 2 DDR2 is 1066. and i never see anyone use AM2+ based board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...