All this talk about latencies..

FyreDaug · Feb 3, 2005

And I personally havent experienced the value in spending 300$ for ram. I can get the same amount of ram for less than half the price and I cant really notice any performance increases. I've dealt with these at work, and we normally use kingston valueram because it has lifetime warranty and kingston seems to be good quality. But we got a couple higher quality stick in and there wasnt anything noticable, especially anything to make the price worth it.

We think there was an increase in loading up programs and multi tasking, but overall we werent impressed. Any reason why? Or is the hype for high quality fast (stock) ram overrated? I can understand HOW they are faster in theory, but for physical performance I cant notice anything. They are all running at stock speeds pc3200.

EDIT: This was between 3-3-3-8 and 2-2-2-5

el · Feb 4, 2005

well you are correct the ram timings help in a small way but you can basically overclock everything with good ram you can go higher and then the pay off is huge. If you are running outlook and word than 300 dollars for an entire pc is plenty of money.

glock19owner · Feb 4, 2005

275/5-3-3-2.5/1T/1:1

This is what you get with 240.00 ram and why a lot of people spend so much for ram...and still get the 5-2-2-2 PC3200 timings

Now if just going to run at default settings and never will OC the system...then there is physically no reason to spend 200.00+ on memory..becasue like you stated above...a few hundered Mhz on the memory will not effect the system to where you will physically see the difference between 200.00+ and cheap value ram...

FyreDaug · Feb 5, 2005

Thats exactly what I was thinking. Thanks

pelikan · Feb 5, 2005

With the A64 there's very little performance hit using dividers. So if money is tight then its better to spend it on a better video card than on expensive ram. There's a good thread with benches comparing different ram at Anandtech.

el · Feb 5, 2005

nice to know cuz the oCz stuff is crazy $$$$$

ONE · Feb 5, 2005

Yep, what glock said.
If you are not going to OC save that money.

Dragonprince · Feb 5, 2005

glock19owner said:
275/5-3-3-2.5/1T/1:1

This is what you get with 240.00 ram and why a lot of people spend so much for ram...and still get the 5-2-2-2 PC3200 timings

Now if just going to run at default settings and never will OC the system...then there is physically no reason to spend 200.00+ on memory..becasue like you stated above...a few hundered Mhz on the memory will not effect the system to where you will physically see the difference between 200.00+ and cheap value ram...

The only problem with this is you get the same performance running pc3200 with the memory divider that you get running 275 using an A64.

P4 is different, P4 does not like dividers...

pelikan said:
With the A64 there's very little performance hit using dividers. So if money is tight then its better to spend it on a better video card than on expensive ram. There's a good thread with benches comparing different ram at Anandtech.

You beat me to it pelikan....good link. :thup:

glock19owner · Feb 6, 2005

Dragonprince said:
The only problem with this is you get the same performance running pc3200 with the memory divider that you get running 275 using an A64:

I hear this all the time...yet has anyone physically shown this...no (I can write numbers down in a thread also...doesnt mean crap without physical proof)...as for low latency...lets see some cheap ram running async hit 38.5ns on latency...they cant...

All this crap about cheap ram being able to keep up with good ram running 1:1 is just like I stated...crap...

You want good system performance with good low latency...then get some good TCCD ram and run it 1:1...lets see cheap ram running async beat this latency...

just too keep it somewhat far...I have the memory running at default settings..

ADDED:

Heres what the latency is at 5-3-3-2.5 (36.5ns)

veryhumid · Feb 6, 2005

running at 200MHz I got an extra 300 points in 3dmark03 going from 3-4-4-8 timings to 2-2-2-6 timings. It also makes a noticeable difference in frame times when running folding@home. I will always get low latency now

pelikan · Feb 6, 2005

Low latency definately gives higher performance. For those who want to spend the money to max out their whole system, expensive ram will give 1-8% gains in real-world performance over cheap ram.

The question for the budget minded person: is buying expensive ram the most cost-effective way to get more performance out of my A64 system? The answer is no. The extra $100. that expensive ram costs over value ram should be put towards a better video card instead.

glock19owner · Feb 6, 2005

pelikan said:
Low latency definately gives higher performance. For those who want to spend the money to max out their whole system, expensive ram will give 1-8% gains in real-world performance over cheap ram.

The question for the budget minded person: is buying expensive ram the most cost-effective way to get more performance out of my A64 system? The answer is no. The extra $100. that expensive ram costs over value ram should be put towards a better video card instead.

This all depends on what you use your system for...if you use it for more real world apps...then it is worth the extra money...if you are a gamer...and have a choice of better ram or better VC at the time...then it just depends on the person...because good ram with a higher 1:1 settings will give more bandwidth...which equals faster FPS and smmother gameing...

But if you are on a budget anyways...who has the money to get a 400.00 VC if they cant afford 200.00 memory

...

Reefa_Madness · Feb 7, 2005

With all due respects to those that believe otherwise...all other things being equal...your best bang for your bucks if you are a gamer is to put your money into your card, not your ram. You will see much improved gaming with the extra $100 put towards a higher-end card than you will by going with lower latency or higher clocking ram. This has been pretty much proven beyond the point of discussion by reviewers and posters across the net.

That said, the best performing system is one that is balanced in such a way that there are no bottlenecks. It makes no sense either to buy a 6800 Ultra and then mate it with a P3 @ 800MHz and PC133 ram. You just have to use common sense, as in many other things...a chain is only as strong as its weakest link...that certainly holds true here, as well.

More and more it is being documented that the benefits of low latency ram over value ram is more for benchies and bragging rights. Most real world apps, while documented to be performing better with lower latency ram, do so at such small percentage increases that they are not noticeable to the average user.

FyreDaug · Feb 7, 2005

Thats what I thought too Reefa_Madness, all a gamer really needs is ddr and quite a bit of it, if you have enough ram to not use a page file, its better than having a little less ram and have to page it.

gvw · Feb 8, 2005

How about strategy games.
In that case wouldn't a higher fsb help more than a better videocard?

glock19owner · Feb 8, 2005

FyreDaug said:
Thats what I thought too Reefa_Madness, all a gamer really needs is ddr and quite a bit of it, if you have enough ram to not use a page file, its better than having a little less ram and have to page it.

So you saying my A64 is just as good as my barton 2500 if I add say 2G of memory?

FyreDaug · Feb 14, 2005

No, not quite sure how you got that outta that statement, but what I was saying is (completely leaving processors out of it, not sure why that was brought up) you could have either 256 ram of some quality tccd and have to page it, or you could spend the same money and get 512 ram and page less. You will definately notice more performance outta the 512 generic than the 256 tccd. All I was meaning to say, this was just an example, maybe compare 512 to 1024 instead.

rseven · Feb 15, 2005

Interesting thread. But if we didn't blow our money on ram we'd aste it on fast cars and wild ladies!

Albuquerque · Feb 15, 2005

glock19owner said:
So you saying my A64 is just as good as my barton 2500 if I add say 2G of memory?

I think the statement was pretty self-explanatory; I'm not sure how can construe it to such an idiotic point.

What will perform better? A matched pair of 128mb sticks running 2-2-2-5, or matched pair of 256mb sticks running 2.5-3-3-6? If you're playing Quake, then maybe the former. If you're playing any games built in the last three years, more than likely the latter will run better.

glock19owner · Feb 15, 2005

Albuquerque said:
I think the statement was pretty self-explanatory; I'm not sure how can construe it to such an idiotic point.

Did it not get them to explain their post a little better?

And if it was so self-explanatory...then why would I post something like that

Also...there is a big difference from a A64 and XP...most A64's dont like more then a Gig...since most do not like more then 2 DIMMS filled...

So if using a A64...then adding more memory can hamper the performance...not help the page file...because running at 2T is hampering both the latency and pagefile transfer...

So its not as self-explanatory as you thought it was...

All this talk about latencies..

Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

DRAM Guru Senior

Member

Registered

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads