Ok, here is the issue.
The CPUs I am looking at are the
E6850 (3.0ghz @ $280 ), E6750 (2.66ghz @ $190) both at 1333mhz, or the
E6700 (2.66ghz @ $320) which is at 1066 mhz but more expensive then the e6850.
P.S. Why is the X6800 three times the price of the 6850? It is 2.93ghz at a slower FSB, but it is still 65nm technology?. Same goes for the 6700 being about $130 more then the 6750 and $40 more then the 6850. Sure the lower FSB means less heat and less power but it can?t be that big of a difference as they are both 65nm technology. Of course, you can just ramp the fsb speed up to 333 and you have a 3.3ghz (lower the multiplier too and get it to 3.0ghz, same as the 6850). Maybe you can explain it but it is not why I am here posting in memory.
I am not paying for DDR3, just too little bang for the buck right now. I will be getting a 8800 GT 512 (the G92) and just one of them, I will save my $250 and set my graphics to medium when I have to. I will be sticking this in a P35 mobo of some type and, unless someone can explain the price differences and the benefit to the 6700, I will have a cpu that runs on a 1333mhz bus.
The question: What speed DDR2 should I get?
To me it seems that a 1333mhz cpu has a FSB running at 333mhz. So DDR2 would like a 1:1 and run at 667. Seems to be no point in spending more money for the 800 or 1066 etc? Now, I know that the 800 is usually better ram and it can run at 800 far easier then the 667 can. But I am not going to overclock, so the only performance difference would be minimal even when running at 800 over 667. (I have seen some tests where they can play with the timings and voltages a bit, but the difference is usually minimal, the performance hit from not being 1:1 + the gain from the faster memory speed = a small gain see this articlehttp://images.anandtech.com/reviews/memory/ddr2/2006/gskill-ddr2-800/performance.html for example where 1066 was the cpu speed).
But, and here is where the 1066 CPU may play a role, at that speed (FSB @ 266) DDR2 1066 is possible. But it costs about twice that of DDR2 800.
So, for me it doesn?t seem to make much of a difference whether it is 800 or 667 ram as they cost about the same give or take five bucks. (for 2x2gb). So I will probably end up with the DDR2 800 and either it will be underclocked per spd, or I will take the time to speed it up to 800 (just bootstrapping, not overclocking the rest of the system).
Any comments or flaws in my reasoning?
Along the same vein, can anyone recommend some decent DDR2 800 2gb stick that maintains a 1.8v with decent timings? I have seen allot of low CAS ram, like the stuff from Patriot, but they have the default at 2.3v which is just higher than I want to go with (balance of quiet and gamming, yeah I know?.)
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
The CPUs I am looking at are the
E6850 (3.0ghz @ $280 ), E6750 (2.66ghz @ $190) both at 1333mhz, or the
E6700 (2.66ghz @ $320) which is at 1066 mhz but more expensive then the e6850.
P.S. Why is the X6800 three times the price of the 6850? It is 2.93ghz at a slower FSB, but it is still 65nm technology?. Same goes for the 6700 being about $130 more then the 6750 and $40 more then the 6850. Sure the lower FSB means less heat and less power but it can?t be that big of a difference as they are both 65nm technology. Of course, you can just ramp the fsb speed up to 333 and you have a 3.3ghz (lower the multiplier too and get it to 3.0ghz, same as the 6850). Maybe you can explain it but it is not why I am here posting in memory.
I am not paying for DDR3, just too little bang for the buck right now. I will be getting a 8800 GT 512 (the G92) and just one of them, I will save my $250 and set my graphics to medium when I have to. I will be sticking this in a P35 mobo of some type and, unless someone can explain the price differences and the benefit to the 6700, I will have a cpu that runs on a 1333mhz bus.
The question: What speed DDR2 should I get?
To me it seems that a 1333mhz cpu has a FSB running at 333mhz. So DDR2 would like a 1:1 and run at 667. Seems to be no point in spending more money for the 800 or 1066 etc? Now, I know that the 800 is usually better ram and it can run at 800 far easier then the 667 can. But I am not going to overclock, so the only performance difference would be minimal even when running at 800 over 667. (I have seen some tests where they can play with the timings and voltages a bit, but the difference is usually minimal, the performance hit from not being 1:1 + the gain from the faster memory speed = a small gain see this articlehttp://images.anandtech.com/reviews/memory/ddr2/2006/gskill-ddr2-800/performance.html for example where 1066 was the cpu speed).
But, and here is where the 1066 CPU may play a role, at that speed (FSB @ 266) DDR2 1066 is possible. But it costs about twice that of DDR2 800.
So, for me it doesn?t seem to make much of a difference whether it is 800 or 667 ram as they cost about the same give or take five bucks. (for 2x2gb). So I will probably end up with the DDR2 800 and either it will be underclocked per spd, or I will take the time to speed it up to 800 (just bootstrapping, not overclocking the rest of the system).
Any comments or flaws in my reasoning?
Along the same vein, can anyone recommend some decent DDR2 800 2gb stick that maintains a 1.8v with decent timings? I have seen allot of low CAS ram, like the stuff from Patriot, but they have the default at 2.3v which is just higher than I want to go with (balance of quiet and gamming, yeah I know?.)
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Facebook
Twitter