• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

1333FSB + DDR2 OR DDR3?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Mycobacteria

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
When 1333 CPUs come out later this year, will they need DDR3 RAM modules to run them?

If they still require DDR2 will 6400 Modules still be ok?
 
Mycobacteria said:
When 1333 CPUs come out later this year, will they need DDR3 RAM modules to run them?

If they still require DDR2 will 6400 Modules still be ok?


ddr3 for the cpu wont be needed for a while.... a 1333 cpu (intel i assume cus amd doesnt do stuff like that) runs at 333 fsb... and the fsb is quad pumped between the cpu and north bridge. so at a 1:1 ratio you would need 667 mhz ram. the way i run my system @ 9x333 or 3ghz 1333fsb my ddr2 800 runs at ddr2 1000 with the 2:3 ram divider.
 
DDR3 not expected to become mainstream untill 2009. I have no idea why, everything I read about it says this date, even though it already exists and works at like insane speeds, like 2000mhz and over.
 
Well, look at what it was like a few years ago when DDR2 first came out. I can still remember folks asking if they should go with an Intel 915 chipset for DDR or if they should dump on a 955X and get the slower and more skeptical DDR2. It's going to be the same thing, just go with what works and by the time it's mainstream, and decent, you'll be building a new system anyway.

-Mobious-
 
ddr2 will probably last for some time... ddr lasted a strong several years...
 
Mobious said:
Well, look at what it was like a few years ago when DDR2 first came out. I can still remember folks asking if they should go with an Intel 915 chipset for DDR or if they should dump on a 955X and get the slower and more skeptical DDR2. It's going to be the same thing, just go with what works and by the time it's mainstream, and decent, you'll be building a new system anyway.

-Mobious-


Slower?? Can you push DDR past 1200 mhz?? Didnt think so.
 
DDR2 was slower than DDR1 and didn't offer much of a b/w premium either when it first became available.

DDR3 on the other hand will completely trounce any and all DDR2 right from the beginning.
 
I don't know about that...

But that isn’t all though, as it looks like we’re definitely going to see the same problem we had with the DDR to DDR2 transition, in that low latency DDR2 will be faster than any of the first DDR3 modules. This leads to having a rather unexciting and pointless product for the next 6-12 months while DRAM manufacturers get used to the new process. Of course, if something special happens from the DRAM manufacturing industry, DDR3 could take off quickly, but all of the current signs point to that not happening.
Full Article

I am admittedly no expert on DDR, but I'd say the above makes sense. I don't see DDR3 trouncing DDR2 until it has had some time to develop, just as DDR2 did. Seeing as how this is a more complicated process for the manufacturers, it may even take longer...price/performance ratios aside.

my 2cents :)
 
Last edited:
DDR2 is faster than DDR...the downside to it was/is the higher timings. You won't find DDR2 that will do 2-3-3-5 like DDR could. But the tradeoff is the clockspeeds in DDR2 make up for the higher timings.
 
jivetrky said:
DDR2 is faster than DDR...the downside to it was/is the higher timings. You won't find DDR2 that will do 2-3-3-5 like DDR could. But the tradeoff is the clockspeeds in DDR2 make up for the higher timings.
News flash:
Timings are clock cycles.
 
My point is the figures generally associated with latency (=timings) are not absolute. Thinking DDR2 is worse latency-wise because it can't do 2-3-3-5 like DDR does is wrong. Timings (clock cycles) don't mean anything at all if frequency is left out of the equation, that's because the lenght of a clock cycle is inversely proportional to frequency.

Doubled frequency = halved clock cycle length.
-> double a given frequency and double the timings = latency stays the same.
-> 2-3-3-5 @ DDR1-400 is exactly same as 4-6-6-10 @ DDR2-800. DDR2-800 at those timings is ofcourse nothing but, well, slow DDR2.

DDR2 can do 4-4-4-8 at > DDR2-1200...
No DDR1 has ever been that low latency.

Assuming it's the latency that matters, not the amount of clock cycles, id est, timings.
 
Mycobacteria said:
The DDR3 needs a new MB?


The memory controller is on the motherboard...if you change the RAM, you will have to change the memory controller.

but don't worry, by the time DDR3 comes popular, you'll want to upgrade your system anyway.
 
largon said:
My point is the figures generally associated with latency (=timings) are not absolute. Thinking DDR2 is worse latency-wise because it can't do 2-3-3-5 like DDR does is wrong. Timings (clock cycles) don't mean anything at all if frequency is left out of the equation, that's because the lenght of a clock cycle is inversely proportional to frequency.

Doubled frequency = halved clock cycle length.
-> double a given frequency and double the timings = latency stays the same.
-> 2-3-3-5 @ DDR1-400 is exactly same as 4-6-6-10 @ DDR2-800. DDR2-800 at those timings is ofcourse nothing but, well, slow DDR2.

DDR2 can do 4-4-4-8 at > DDR2-1200...
No DDR1 has ever been that low latency.

Assuming it's the latency that matters, not the amount of clock cycles, id est, timings.

Thank you.
 
largon said:
My point is the figures generally associated with latency (=timings) are not absolute. Thinking DDR2 is worse latency-wise because it can't do 2-3-3-5 like DDR does is wrong. Timings (clock cycles) don't mean anything at all if frequency is left out of the equation, that's because the lenght of a clock cycle is inversely proportional to frequency.

Doubled frequency = halved clock cycle length.
-> double a given frequency and double the timings = latency stays the same.
-> 2-3-3-5 @ DDR1-400 is exactly same as 4-6-6-10 @ DDR2-800. DDR2-800 at those timings is ofcourse nothing but, well, slow DDR2.

DDR2 can do 4-4-4-8 at > DDR2-1200...
No DDR1 has ever been that low latency.

Assuming it's the latency that matters, not the amount of clock cycles, id est, timings.


Thanks for clearing that up. Adds a little understanding to things.
 
Back