Best DDR3 OCZ RAM for a new system?

[Shaitan00]

Looking to buy some RAM for a new system I am building - I am a huge fan of OCZ so wanted to stick with it and looking to get 2x 2GB of DDR3 RAM (PC-12800 1600mhz) but wasn't sure which would be the best choice. Currently I was looking into the following two options:
- OCZ Platinum (Cas Latency: 7) (Timing: 7-6-6-24) (Voltage: 1.9V)
- OCZ Reaper HPC (Cas Latency: 7) (Timing: 7-7-7-24) (Voltage: 1.9V)

The Reaper is almost $100 cheaper ... and it has the heat dissipation things on it, are the platinums really that much better? Is there a better choice price/quality?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Also, when comparing CAS LATENCY the lower the number the better right?
As well as timing (such as 7-7-7-24), again the lower the number the better right?

Thanks,

[Profile]
CPU: INTEL Core 2 Quad Q9450
MOTHERBOARD: Asus X48 DDR3 (still debating on which one)
VIDEO: ASUS/SAPHIRE 4870 (Arctic AccelS1 rev2 with dual fans)
RAM: 2x2G OCZ DDR3 PC-12800 1600 MHZ (Platinum or Reaper HPC)
HDD: 4x Western Digital SATA2 500GB
2x Western Digital PATA 320GB
Case: Full ATX Tower with 5x 120mm & 1x 200mm fans

 

[mpilchfamily]

Yes with timings lower is better. The difference between the 2 you listed isn't all that much so just go with the cheaper of the 2. You wouldn't notice a difference between them during every day tasks. But you could see a bit of a difference with benchmarks.

 

[DSF]

Any reason you're not going with the considerably less expensive DDR2?

 

[Shaitan00]

DSF:

I am very glad you asked - and hopefully can tell me if I am right or wrong on this. At first I was considering DDR2 (as it was much cheaper) but now the difference isn't as large (a mere $100 in some cases).

DDR3 seemed like the better choice because:
a) it is fasted (1600 DDR3 vs 1066 DDR2)
b) my CPU Q9450 is FSB 1333 so getting 1066 DDR2 would slow me down no?
c) the DDR3 motherboards seem better then DDR2 (newer), for example check out the Asus Rampage Extreme (DDR3) vs Asus Rampage Formula (DDR2), what a nice board.

But - some people are still saying DDR2 is the way to go (and does save me around $250 considering the RAM and Mobo).

What do you think?
Price isn't a big deal but I also don't want to waste any $.
And I don't plan on changing PC's for anther 3-5 years (hopefully).

 

[DSF]

a) It's capable of running faster, but that's at most a 4-5% performance difference on an Intel system, and usually less. Not worth the extra $100 in my mind.

b) No. The "matching" RAM speed for a given FSB is half of what Intel reports as the CPU's FSB. The RAM rated to run at the same speed as a 1066 FSB CPU is actually DDR2-533. Most people buy DDR2-800 because it's just as cheap a lot of the time.

c) I don't know enough about motherboard construction to say that one is better than the other, but I don't suppose it really matters. Motherboards built to use DDR2 are solid, and DDR3 isn't generally worth the extra expense.

The fact that you're not changing the PC for several years is even less reason to go with DDR3 in my mind. On a Core2 system, it just doesn't do anything. The only real reason I can think of to buy DDR3 right now is if you expect to carry it over to a Nehalem system in a year or two. Even then I don't think you're getting good value for your money, as DDR3 prices are expected to continue to fall once the Nehalem platform makes DDR3 mainstream.

 

[Quiksilver]

Originally posted by: DSF
a) It's capable of running faster, but that's at most a 4-5% performance difference on an Intel system, and usually less. Not worth the extra $100 in my mind.

b) No. The "matching" RAM speed for a given FSB is half of what Intel reports as the CPU's FSB. The RAM rated to run at the same speed as a 1066 FSB CPU is actually DDR2-533. Most people buy DDR2-800 because it's just as cheap a lot of the time.

c) I don't know enough about motherboard construction to say that one is better than the other, but I don't suppose it really matters. Motherboards built to use DDR2 are solid, and DDR3 isn't generally worth the extra expense.

This right here is all correct.

Let's just make sure you understand DDR and Intel's FSB rating. FSB is quad pumped while DDR is double pumped.

So for example let's take e8400 for example it's rated FSB is 1333Mhz. Divide that by 4 and you get it's real FSB rating which would be 333Mhz. Now if you wanted to run a 1:1 ratio and didn't plan on overclocking at all you wouldn't need any more than DDR2-667(333Mhz double pumped).

Understand?

Anyway if you really want a DDR3 system, wait a couple of more months; and build a Nehalem based system when it launches.

 

[Shaitan00]

DSF / Quiksilver:

Thank you both for all the information, I had no clue that was how the DDR / Intel FSB actually worked (always thought it was 1:1 already) - makes a LOT more sense now (as to why people tend to still recommend DDR2).

I guess the only reason now would be because I really loved the Asus Rampage Extreme (DDR3 motherboard) - but for the extra couple of hundred $ I guess it really isn't worth it.

Thanks for saving me some $ while not loosing any performance...
If I am to keep the PC for at least 4 years the 5% increase in performance may almost have been worth it - I guess not in the end...

 

[DSF]

5% is the difference between 60 and 63 FPS. Not really worth a couple hundred dollars in my opinion, and 5% is about the greatest difference you'll see, not the average.

 

[Quiksilver]

I may also add that because you are choosing a Q9450 that DDR2-667 is all you would need if you wanted plain-jane stock settings, however DDR2 is so cheap now that you could probably grab DDR2-800 for about the same price and still have plenty of room to overclock it and if it weren't enough overclocking room for you you probably can grab DDR2-1066 for $10 to $20 more; which is still far cheaper than say DDR3.

Also may I ask your only interesting in purchasing OCZ ram? Not that I am trying to steer you away from at (as I'm using some myself; granted it is old ddr400) but they usually require some odd amount of voltage to run at their rated specifications.

 

[Shaitan00]

DSF: When playing games that 3 FPS could make all the difference (joking)
Thanks - for the $250 difference (DDR3 vs DDR2) I am starting to think DDR2 is the best bet. Only that I expect to keep my system for a good 4 years so I wanted to ensure it was as powerful as possible to start off with.

Quicksilver: If, given the Q9450, I get no advantage from the speed of DDR3 (as 1600mhz is way past what I need) - then where does the 5% increase (max) come from? what makes it 5% faster/better then DDR2?

As for "why OCZ", I was always a Corsair fan and then for my P4 I got DDR OCZ (was on special and heard good things about it), never regretted my decision and since then noticed a lot of poeple recommend OCZ - so I thought it was the best way to go.

Why - would you recommend something else?
One person I spoke to said, OCZ over 2 gigs wasn't the best choice and that I should stick with Corsair - or Mushkin ...

What are your opinions?
Thanks,