There's been a lot of debating on whether PC4000 with loose memory timings is better than PC3200 with tight timings. I've decided to test this myself using my rig below. To make sure I only changed the memory speed and timings I tested the system as follows:
3.25 GHz CPU
250 MHz FSB
GAT settings all set to "Auto"
For 1:1 ratio, 250 MHz 2.5-4-4-7 settings (Geil PC4000 1 GB)
PC Mark : CPU - 7996, Memory - 11148
SiSandra Memory : Buffered - 5969/5998, Unbuffered - 4755/4760
AquaMark03 - 48,261
3DMark2001 - 19,797
3DMark2003 - 6,218
MPeg2 Encoding (Premiere 6.5) - 2:03
Prime95 (2000 interations) - 1:23
For 5:4 ratio, 200 MHz 2-2-2-5 settings (Corsair XMS3500 1 GB)
PC Mark : CPU - 8000, Memory - 10483
SiSandra Memory : Buffered - 5550/5550, Unbuffered - 4383/4287
AquaMark03 - 48,402
3DMark2001 - 19,943
3DMark2003 - 6,230
MPeg2 Encoding (Premiere 6.5) - 2:02
Prime95 (2000 interations) - 1:23
So what can we conclude?
1) Synthetic memory benchmarks show a clear advantage with the PC4000 memory.
2) Graphics benchmarks show a very slight to insignificant advantage with PC3200 memory.
3) CPU intensive benchmarks show no difference.
There it is folks, basically there is no difference in "real world" applications for either memory. What's more important is your CPU speed. If I run the same benchmarks at my normal speed of 3.45 GHz, I get real gains accross the board. So my advice to you is to get the cheapest memory that will run at one of these configurations and use the left over cash to buy the absolute fastest CPU you can afford.
However since I now own both of the tested memory, I have to say that the Geil PC4000 memory is pretty damn cool! I haven't tested above 260 yet since all Abit Max3 boards currently have a problem running higher voltages than 2.8 VDimm. As soon as I get this sorted out, I plan on testing again at 266 versus 214 memory. Probably no difference again but I like the idea of having 8.4 GB of memory bandwidth!
Peace....
3.25 GHz CPU
250 MHz FSB
GAT settings all set to "Auto"
For 1:1 ratio, 250 MHz 2.5-4-4-7 settings (Geil PC4000 1 GB)
PC Mark : CPU - 7996, Memory - 11148
SiSandra Memory : Buffered - 5969/5998, Unbuffered - 4755/4760
AquaMark03 - 48,261
3DMark2001 - 19,797
3DMark2003 - 6,218
MPeg2 Encoding (Premiere 6.5) - 2:03
Prime95 (2000 interations) - 1:23
For 5:4 ratio, 200 MHz 2-2-2-5 settings (Corsair XMS3500 1 GB)
PC Mark : CPU - 8000, Memory - 10483
SiSandra Memory : Buffered - 5550/5550, Unbuffered - 4383/4287
AquaMark03 - 48,402
3DMark2001 - 19,943
3DMark2003 - 6,230
MPeg2 Encoding (Premiere 6.5) - 2:02
Prime95 (2000 interations) - 1:23
So what can we conclude?
1) Synthetic memory benchmarks show a clear advantage with the PC4000 memory.
2) Graphics benchmarks show a very slight to insignificant advantage with PC3200 memory.
3) CPU intensive benchmarks show no difference.
There it is folks, basically there is no difference in "real world" applications for either memory. What's more important is your CPU speed. If I run the same benchmarks at my normal speed of 3.45 GHz, I get real gains accross the board. So my advice to you is to get the cheapest memory that will run at one of these configurations and use the left over cash to buy the absolute fastest CPU you can afford.
However since I now own both of the tested memory, I have to say that the Geil PC4000 memory is pretty damn cool! I haven't tested above 260 yet since all Abit Max3 boards currently have a problem running higher voltages than 2.8 VDimm. As soon as I get this sorted out, I plan on testing again at 266 versus 214 memory. Probably no difference again but I like the idea of having 8.4 GB of memory bandwidth!
Peace....