MODS CLOSE THIS: NOOBS KILLED IT

[zsdersw]

The bottom line is that the performance difference between low and high latency DDR2 makes low latency DDR2 a *very* poor value. The price/performance ratio on it is *horrible*. Sometimes nearly double the price (100% increase) for somewhere between 6 and 10% performance gain? No way.

So what does this mean? It means that latency clearly isn't the bottleneck. If improvements in latency (or anything else, for that matter) don't translate into appreciable gains in performance, it's not what's holding back the system.

It's like the L2 cache on K8 chips. Increasing the cache didn't translate into an appreciable performance gain.. meaning that the cache wasn't a bottleneck in the system.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: 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

the more you post, the more stupid you are making yourself. dont you understand most people cannot follow your boycott because they cant afford it? omg, try going out on the street and getting a boycott going agains something, where everybody who joins the boycott has to pay money, and see how many people care about joining your boycott.

and yea, this is not a DDR vs DDR2 thread. the only problem is DDR2 comes from DDR, and therefore it is perfectly ok to compare them. My question is, when DDR400 CL2 ram was the primary ram used (and it has been on AMD systems for about 2 years now), did you have the same feeling about latencies? I bet you did not, so why the hell are you complaining about DDR2 800 ram at CL4, when it gives the exact same performance using less voltage.

I dont even know why im replying this is so pointeless.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: n7
Hey on a different note, what modes do you play in UT2k4?

I'm still playing 2k4 a bit these dayz

i still can't get tired of UT99 yet
but i can play 1600x1200 max detail with little or no AA and ut2k4 runs pretty playable on this system
i like low grav matches usually with rocket launchers in DM or CTF
my msn is sterling56@cox.net if you wanna play some UT sometime..




i guess this thread pretty much died
guess i'm prob one of the only ones that notices high performance increases in the things i do from lower latencies.....

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: 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

the more you post, the more stupid you are making yourself. dont you understand most people cannot follow your boycott because they cant afford it? omg, try going out on the street and getting a boycott going agains something, where everybody who joins the boycott has to pay money, and see how many people care about joining your boycott.

and yea, this is not a DDR vs DDR2 thread. the only problem is DDR2 comes from DDR, and therefore it is perfectly ok to compare them. My question is, when DDR400 CL2 ram was the primary ram used (and it has been on AMD systems for about 2 years now), did you have the same feeling about latencies? I bet you did not, so why the hell are you complaining about DDR2 800 ram at CL4, when it gives the exact same performance using less voltage.

I dont even know why im replying this is so pointeless.

it's called trolling for pride....
yur pretty good keep up the good work

 

[JAG87]

lol get bent idiot, I only replied to this thread because it was so outragously stupid. I couldnt resist. And I dont troll, i read these forums everyday and I only reply to interesting threads, or help people who need help. You need help too, but of another kind.

 

[Soulkeeper]

hahahaha

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Some1ne
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.

I like the thought of RAM spec'd on nanoseconds, instead of timings. But, your second statement isn't completely correct. Well, you've left out or forgotten something: the base clock of the processor. 2-2-2-5 DDR isn't accessed nearly as often with a 1.8 Ghz A64 3000 as it is with a 2.6 Ghz FX-60, since the base clock of the 3000 is less than 70% as fast as that of the FX-60.

 

[OBCT]

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

...says the person who ignores every piece of logic thrown into this thread. Face the facts. It isn't enough of a difference to worry about.

 

[Avalon]

Well, the only low latency DDR2 is currently extremely expensive.

The lower speed grades (DDR2-533 and 667) will run around $200-$225 for 2GB, but DDR2-800 is more expensive, and DDR2-1000 is exponentially more so. Some sets cost $350+, which is ridiculous considering how little memory performance affects real world performance in most general apps (not all).

You'd be better off grabbing some higher latency stuff for much cheaper, and using the extra money to upgrade some of your system components where it would result in a bigger increase in performance for the apps you use.

I'm going to be boycotting lower latency DDR2 until it comes down significantly in price. In the mean time, I'll just use overclocking to achieve similar results.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Patriot XBLK
3-3-3-9 @ DDR2-940

I think this is the best timings/bandwidth tradeoff and few will disagree with that. The memory also commands a ~$400 premium - I'm guessing it isn't that easy to mass-produce.

And IIRC, 2-2-2 timings at DDR400 also took their time to the market. 2-2-2 timings at DDR500 also took a fair bit of time, that too with some serious voltage. 3.3-3.5V for the OCZ VX/Mushkin Redline, right? Technology needs time to mature - we all know that.

Soulkeeper, your argument makes about as much sense as, "Why doesn't AMD just release a 5GHz CPU? Why can't I have 1GB L2 cache?"

I honestly don't think memory makers are 'saving' their low latency RAM for the future - it's a cut-throat world and everyone is doing their best to outdo the competition.

For instance, there isn't any measurable difference between 4-4-4-12 and 4-3-4-12. But that doesn't stop memory manufacturers from branding two identical sticks in two different packages and slapping a $30 premium on the latter - and yeah, some people do pay for it. If they had the tech for something substantially better, they would do it and laugh all the way to the bank.

Boycott current products in anticipation of something better in the future? What the hell are people going to run in their AM2/LGA775 systems while they wait for this magical DDR2-667/800/1066 2-2-2 memory you speak of?

 

[JServ]

It is my understanding that the reason memory manufactureres have memory chips with higher latencies is because of their yields on those items. Similiarly, amd or intel is going to have far less of it's chips that run stable at some high available clockrate of x ghz, so they can charge more for them because they much fewer in supply.

Debating whether lower latency chips doesn't seem to be the issue here (personally, i think the effect of low latency ram depends entirely on your system)...the point, however, is that if no one were to buy these chips with high latencies, the company would receive no revenue stream from chips that didn't meet CL3, and it would just make it even more expensive for you to buy CL3 memory.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: OBCT

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

...says the person who ignores every piece of logic thrown into this thread. Face the facts. It isn't enough of a difference to worry about.

i dissagree, and congradulations on the 100th post!

 

[theteamaqua]

u phailed..heh

 

[OBCT]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
i dissagree, and congradulations on the 100th post!

lol thanks.

 

[Zebo]

1. makes little differnec in core
2. for amd, Why arnt people buying 939 and cheap $99 Ballistix 2-2-2 1T ram I'll never know.

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
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

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=472

So does Core 2 need high speed memory to shine? The answer is a resounding no! This is different from AMD AM2 where more expensive memory is needed to get the most out of the system.

 

[StarBeamAlpha]

omg plz boycott anything less than a 750GB hard disk plz I need more GBs to store more p0rn!1 we need to be HEARD! while we are at it we should boycott the conroe cuz where is my 4GHZ? I have been waiting years until the day where I can brag to my friends about my 4GHZ computer! BOYCOTT CONROE it's only 2ghz wtf:|:|:|

 

[DrMrLordX]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=1904797

One of our own forum members explored tighter timings + lower memory clock vs looser timings + higher memory clock.

This is on AM2 too, where overall memory latency seems to affect platform performance moreso than on LGA775 w/ Conroe.

to be honest I would have liked 3-3-3-9 @ DDR2-600 but I'll take the data he gave us. Remember that overall memory latency decreases as the memory clock rises, so you can afford looser timings at higher speeds to an extent. 4-4-4-12 or 5-5-5-15 is okay if your memory clock is high enough.

 

[coldpower27]

There isn't a choice.

4-4-4-12 DDR2-533
5-5-5-15 DDR2-667
5-5-5-15 DDR2-800

Are the JEDEC defined standard latencies for DDR2. I'ts the lowest grade that can possibly exist on those frequencies, hence people will buy them.

As well in order to get 3-3-3-8 timings on the higher grade memory, additional voltage is usually required over the default 1.8V. Not to mention 3-3-3 for DDR2-800 doesn't officially exist yet in any form.

As well 3-3-3 for DDR2-667 is fairly expensive. 4-4-4-12 for DDR2-800 is a reasonable comprimise between timings nad price.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: 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 ?

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about...

First off, the reason why ram is getting cheap is because yields keep on improving. DRAM with tighter timings usually ends up having crappier yields so, of course, the bulk of the memory being sold out there will be stuff on the lower bins.

Secondly, going from 4-4-4 to 2-2-2 will most likely only yield something like a 5% performance improvement, best case scenario. If going conroe then the difference would be even less, because of Intel's aggressive latency-hiding tech/huge caches.

Third, the DDR2 spec allows for CAS latency of 3, 4 and 5. Nothing else besides this.

Fourth, I'd rather get cheaper ram than faster ram. RAM capacity is much more important for me.

 

[dexvx]

So for the money... I can have either:

4GB 5-5-5-15 @ DDR2-800
or
1GB 3-3-3-9 @ DDR2-800


hmmm

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 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.

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.

so, if i was adamant that the world is flat, everyone who disagrees would have limited intellect?

the problem is that in spite of the efforts of others to educate you and explain why you are wrong, you keep plodding on with the same (flawed) reasoning. so in this particular instance, when he calls you an idiot, he is not insulting your way of life or your mother, he is just stating fact.

perhaps instead of trying to justify your flawed reasoning, you show something other than "limited intellect" and widen your narrow point of view to consider what people are trying to explain to you.

 

[Sentry2]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: 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 ?

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about...

First off, the reason why ram is getting cheap is because yields keep on improving. DRAM with tighter timings usually ends up having crappier yields so, of course, the bulk of the memory being sold out there will be stuff on the lower bins.

Secondly, going from 4-4-4 to 2-2-2 will most likely only yield something like a 5% performance improvement, best case scenario. If going conroe then the difference would be even less, because of Intel's aggressive latency-hiding tech/huge caches.

Third, the DDR2 spec allows for CAS latency of 3, 4 and 5. Nothing else besides this.

Fourth, I'd rather get cheaper ram than faster ram. RAM capacity is much more important for me.

:thumbsup:

 

[FelixDeCat]

Im with you Soulkeeper!! Lets boycott anything less than DDR3 5000 .5 .5 .5 !!!

 

[Soulkeeper]

word