MODS CLOSE THIS: NOOBS KILLED IT

[Soulkeeper]

seems like they are gonna continue to sell us this junk unless you start making your dollars count.

just one man's thoughts
what do you all think ?

 

[Kwint Sommer]

Because it doesn't make much of difference in performance with the new Conroes so I would rather buy high latency stuff that costs a lot less.

 

[n7]

?

You have many choies for buying RAM

Timings are not the only factor in performance.
I'd much rather have DDR2-1000 @ 5-5-5 than DDR2-533 @ 3-3-3

Keep in mind a lot of the higher clocked RAM also works at tighter timings if vcore is increased, or if you lower the frequency.

I fail to see your thread's point...

 

[Captante]

No reason to do so... lower latency DDR2 will be available in greater quantity soon enough.

 

[BrownTown]

is this supposed to be a joke?

 

[Soulkeeper]

i doubt it will ever be available in 2-2-2 latencies
cause everyone is content buying 4-4-4 and 5-5-5 not realizing how much difference this actually makes in many things

i for one will be boycotting higher latency DDRII anyone else care to join me ?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
i doubt it will ever be available in 2-2-2 latencies
cause everyone is content buying 4-4-4 and 5-5-5 not realizing how much difference this actually makes in many things

i for one will be boycotting higher latency DDRII anyone else care to join me ?

How can you be so misinformed???

Your 2-2-2 DDR is running @ 200 (DDR400) usually.

Both timings & frequency affect performance, not just one or the other :roll:

Please go here: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/

And starting reading about DDR2 so you can understand how performance scales with frequency/timings.

 

[Cuhulainn]

sure, if you wanna pay for some cas 3 for me, I'll be happy to join your boycott. But for the time being, my wallet is boycotting anything under 4..

 

[TheRyuu]

I like my DDR memory

DDR500 (250mhz) @ 3-3-2-7, 2x1gb, 1T

It's as fast as the Conroe DDR2 even at DDR1066 my DDR500 about the same (6+GB/s, I've gotten 8.8GB/s on some, 6.6+ on others) bandwidth and probably lower latency.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
i doubt it will ever be available in 2-2-2 latencies
cause everyone is content buying 4-4-4 and 5-5-5 not realizing how much difference this actually makes in many things

i for one will be boycotting higher latency DDRII anyone else care to join me ?

How can you be so misinformed???

Your 2-2-2 DDR is running @ 200 (DDR400) usually.

Both timings & frequency affect performance, not just one or the other :roll:

Please go here: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/

And starting reading about DDR2 so you can understand how performance scales with frequency/timings.

i am definately not misinformed
get ddrII-1000 running at 2-2-2 and show yurself the bechmarks
haha
i bet money you'll see like 20% boosts in performance in atleast a few things regardless of how fast your conroe/p4 feels now or how well you believe it performs with inferior memory


and before you go pointing me to more articles know that i have pretty much read every article on anandtech and tomshardware over the last few years
as i like to keep up to date on new tech
i just don't too much like the sacrifice of latency for bandwidth
increasing both is far better imo even if 1 is not so spectacular

 

[aggressor]

So who sells DD2-1000 @ 2-2-2?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper


i am definately not misinformed
get ddrII-1000 running at 2-2-2 and show yurself the bechmarks
haha
i bet money you'll see like 20% boosts in performance in atleast a few things regardless of how fast your conroe/p4 feels now or how well you believe it performs with inferior memory

???

Can someone tell me what this guy is smoking?

Sure, i'd love to buy 2x1024 MB DDR2-1000 @ 2-2-2, but it's pretty obvious that's not possible with current RAM technology!

 

[Some1ne]

I could be wrong, but isn't the unit for the CAS latency specifcation just clock ticks?

If so, then it would seem like RAM that can do DDR2-800 with a CL of 4 should be identical (in terms of latency) to RAM that can do DDR400 with a CL of 2 (because in the former case each clock tick is exactly half as long as in the latter). In terms of actual time (i.e. CL * duration of a single clock tick), the two modules would offer identical latency, and if DDR2-800 modules were introduced with a CL of 2, they would offer half the latency of CL2 DDR400 RAM.

 

[Soulkeeper]

my point is if people keep buying 5-5-5 and 4-4-4 that's all anyone is ever gonna get before ddrIII hits the market
and what incentive then are they gonna have to make ddrIII low latency ?

 

[OBCT]

I'd rather have DDR2 with 4-4-4 timings than with 2-2-2 timings and the world's worst stability.

You really don't realize how much of an idiot you are. The processor makes a tick every millisecond. 4-4-4 means that the entire memory cycle takes about 12 seconds (give or take a few for tRas). Or, about 83 times each second. At 2-2-2, the cycle repeats 166 times each second. Tell me who is going to notice the difference.

Bitching about that minor difference is like saying you can't play a game because you only get 50fps but you want 90.

Oh, and don't forget to factor in the different frequencies. Then your minor difference is null and void, like everyone told you 89 times already.

 

[Some1ne]

my point is if people keep buying 5-5-5 and 4-4-4 that's all anyone is ever gonna get before ddrIII hits the market
and what incentive then are they gonna have to make ddrIII low latency ?

But what you miss is the point that the absolute latency of DDR2 RAM with a CL of 4 (assuming its rated speed is DDR2-800 or better) is identical to or better than the absolute latency of "low latency" CL2 @ DDR400 modules. Just because the number has gotten bigger doesn't mean that the latency of the RAM has also gone higher. Even a CL5 DDR2-1000 module has the same latency as the CL2 DDR-400 one.

Maybe it makes more sense to complain about how these things are specified (i.e. it would be more clear if instead of listing CAS latency, manufacturers listed the latency of their RAM in nanoseconds or some such thing)?

The processor makes a tick every millisecond.

No, it doesn't...at least, not for these purposes it doesn't. If your *base* RAM clock (before being multiplied to calculate the DDR value) is 200 MHz, then the processor (or more appropriately, memory controller) makes a tick every 1 / 200,000,000 th of a second.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: Some1ne
I could be wrong, but isn't the unit for the CAS latency specifcation just clock ticks?

If so, then it would seem like RAM that can do DDR2-800 with a CL of 4 should be identical (in terms of latency) to RAM that can do DDR400 with a CL of 2 (because in the former case each clock tick is exactly half as long as in the latter). In terms of actual time (i.e. CL * duration of a single clock tick), the two modules would offer identical latency, and if DDR2-800 modules were introduced with a CL of 2, they would offer half the latency of CL2 DDR400 RAM.

i'm no expert, but if you got twice as many clocks per second (higher mhz) then a cas latency of 4 would roughly translate into the same overal latency than a module at half the mhz with a cl2 rating, so yeah roughly speaking i guess yur right

i personally feel that most this trading the cas latencies for raw mhz is a marketing ploy
it's easier to sell DDR2-1000 at cl4 than DDR2-750 or something at cl2
they merely decapitated the least known of the 2 numbers to trick people into thinking your memory was 2x or 3x higher performance when in fact it's maybe only 20 or 50% greater for example (and yeah i'm pulling numbers outta my azz but still true)

 

[RichUK]

Your logic is flawed. If that was the case, then why does AMD and Intel make faster and faster FX and EE chips if 99% of people don?t go no where near them.

The electronics/computing industry has such a fast pace, that today?s technology is already yesterdays technology. They don?t stand still for one moment, with companies always trying to out do each other. Competition moves the market forward.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: OBCT
I'd rather have DDR2 with 4-4-4 timings than with 2-2-2 timings and the world's worst stability.

You really don't realize how much of an idiot you are. The processor makes a tick every millisecond. 4-4-4 means that the entire memory cycle takes about 12 seconds (give or take a few for tRas). Or, about 83 times each second. At 2-2-2, the cycle repeats 166 times each second. Tell me who is going to notice the difference.

Bitching about that minor difference is like saying you can't play a game because you only get 50fps but you want 90.

Oh, and don't forget to factor in the different frequencies. Then your minor difference is null and void, like everyone told you 89 times already.

just to get the record straight I didn't insult you, your way of life, or anyone's mother

so your calling me an idiot now, and using bold ?
guess your no rocket scientist......

it's sad that your limited intellect considers all who dissagree or have differing preferences than you an idiot.

 

[Kwint Sommer]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
my point is if people keep buying 5-5-5 and 4-4-4 that's all anyone is ever gonna get before ddrIII hits the market
and what incentive then are they gonna have to make ddrIII low latency ?

I would rather they make DDRIII high speed than low latency. I can't speak for AMD x2 systems but for every Intel from the P4s to the Core 2 Duos the system will perform much better with a modest increase in the FSB than in timings. Especially for Core 2 Duo it would be vastly better to have DDR2-800 @ 5-5-5-15 than DDR2-600 @ 2-2-2-6.


Anandtech's article about the Core 2 Duo went into detail about how the far cheaper DDR2 RAM reached almost as high a speeds as the $400 stuff it simply had worse timings and they definitely stated that the performance (despite the difference in timings) was almost identical.

 

[JAG87]

your topic is stupid, and your stupid for making it. you are saying lets boycott high latency memory like its a free choice. some people just cant afford 500 dollars for 2 sticks of ram. So they are not gonna buy CL3 ram, they will buy CL4 ram. even CL5 ram.

you boycott something when you have a choice between 2 things, and you choose one to screw the other. when there is a substantial difference in cost between the 2 choices its not boycotting anymore, its bragging.

Plus you should know better that DDR2 800 ram at CL4 is as fast as DDR 400 CL2 ram. and Im sorry, but when did we ever hear of DDR 400 with CL1 or 1.5 latency? never, so why would manufacturers bother making DDR2 800 CL3 ram? for bragging, thats why! And for those extra 1.2 fps in BF2. And dont tell me I dont know what Im talking about, I have 6400C3 ram, and its amazing, but I can tell you its not worth double what 6400C4 ram costs.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: JAG87
your topic is stupid, and your stupid for making it. you are saying lets boycott high latency memory like its a free choice. some people just cant afford 500 dollars for 2 sticks of ram. So they are not gonna buy CL3 ram, they will buy CL4 ram. even CL5 ram.

you boycott something when you have a choice between 2 things, and you choose one to screw the other. when there is a substantial difference in cost between the 2 choices its not boycotting anymore, its bragging.

Plus you should know better that DDR2 800 ram at CL4 is as fast as DDR 400 CL2 ram. and Im sorry, but when did we ever hear of DDR 400 with CL1 or 1.5 latency? never, so why would manufacturers bother making DDR2 800 CL3 ram? for bragging, thats why! And for those extra 1.2 fps in BF2. And dont tell me I dont know what Im talking about, I have 6400C3 ram, and its amazing, but I can tell you its not worth double what 6400C4 ram costs.

well by that logic i guess that makes you stupid for replying

anymore flamers ?

and btw if you don't have a choice with the way you spend your money then your being had

 

[Soulkeeper]

btw this thread is not a DDR vs. DDRII debate

 

[n7]

Hey on a different note, what modes do you play in UT2k4?

I'm still playing 2k4 a bit these dayz

 

[JPH1121]

Last I checked...the mininum cl for DDR2 is 3 :|

RAM really doesn't make a huge difference in performance...

Rarely will RAM hold you back (considering you have enough). It'll be your graphics card.

Mininum timings for i975 or w/e intel's chipset is are 3-2-2 and 3-3-3 for AMD CPUs.

Timings have been shown to have an effect on performance of no more than 5%. Oh dear, going from the best to the worst you drop 5% of no advantage for gaming performance.

For that, I shall shed a tear.

Oh, and just to throw it in...if you have an 85hz monitor, anything over 85fps is tossed out anyhow :|