Value RAM = performance hit?

[jbubrisk]

If I get value ram for a gaming system, will there be a big performance hit versus getting better ram? How much of a difference does it really make? Thanks!

 

[drum]

there will be zero performance hit.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: drum
there will be zero performance hit.

What he said. With some reservations, it's true for 754 and 939, probably AM2 as well, but for any/all intel systems then the faster the RAM the better.

 

[jbubrisk]

Interesting...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
but for any/all intel systems then the faster the RAM the better.

Doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Powermoloch]

There will be no change in performance...

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: drum
there will be zero performance hit.

What he said. With some reservations, it's true for 754 and 939, probably AM2 as well, but for any/all intel systems then the faster the RAM the better.

Faster in timings or in speed? If you have ValueRAM that is the same speed, but doesn't have the same timings, there should be maybe a 5% difference in any real application. Now if you're talking actual speed, like DDR2-533 versus DDR2-800 then yeah, there will be more of a differential, although, depending on your needs, its typically much better to spend more on getting a faster processor or video card, or more RAM.

I always found it amusing when someone would be wanting a budget gaming system, and they'd have some performance memory that cost $75-100 more than the ValueRAM of the same speed, but then would be going with an upper mid-range card that was about that same price difference away from a lower high end card which would give them significantly better performance. On top of this, half the time they'd be saying they weren't going to overclock the CPU either (which in the past was why performance RAM was necessary, until they allowed you to run asynchronously).

In short, for right now (I don't know for sure about Conroe), performance RAM is not worth the price premium it incurs, regardless of platform. Unless you've maxed out your video card and CPU (and probably other parts as well), the money would be better spent on them. So, get the ValueRAm and save your money for something more worthwhile, say a better monitor or a sound card or something.

 

[themisfit610]

Yeah. lower latencies make VERY little difference. It's so overhyped by the hardware sites that get big bucks from the RAM companies.

The only thing that faster RAM does is help you overclock and maintain a 1:1 ratio, which is ideal.

I always use Corsair Value Select for my customer systems.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: themisfit610
Yeah. lower latencies make VERY little difference. It's so overhyped by the hardware sites that get big bucks from the RAM companies.

The only thing that faster RAM does is help you overclock and maintain a 1:1 ratio, which is ideal.
I always use Corsair Value Select for my customer systems.

Actually lower latencies DO make a significant difference. Its higher bandwidth that makes an insignificant difference in performance.

And divider ratio has ZERO impact on performance assuming cpu, memory speed is the same.

 

[Ichigo]

Show me a benchmark on an A64 system where 2-2-2-5 beats 2.5-3-3-7 by any significant amount. Go, try and find one.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
but for any/all intel systems then the faster the RAM the better.

Doesn't sound right to me.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but i was under the impression that the intel offerings were very RAM intensive, and that they benifited from increased bandwidth etc. while AMD does not.

 

[Running]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
but for any/all intel systems then the faster the RAM the better.

Doesn't sound right to me.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but i was under the impression that the intel offerings were very RAM intensive, and that they benifited from increased bandwidth etc. while AMD does not.

i think all processors are benefitted from increased bandwidth, im not sure what you mean by intels offering are very ram intensive. but at the original question, no perf difference unless you oc

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Running

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
but for any/all intel systems then the faster the RAM the better.

Doesn't sound right to me.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but i was under the impression that the intel offerings were very RAM intensive, and that they benifited from increased bandwidth etc. while AMD does not.

i think all processors are benefitted from increased bandwidth, im not sure what you mean by intels offering are very ram intensive. but at the original question, no perf difference unless you oc

No, A64s don't care about extra bandwidth at all. (or any performance gains are minute)

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: Running

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
but for any/all intel systems then the faster the RAM the better.

Doesn't sound right to me.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but i was under the impression that the intel offerings were very RAM intensive, and that they benifited from increased bandwidth etc. while AMD does not.

i think all processors are benefitted from increased bandwidth, im not sure what you mean by intels offering are very ram intensive. but at the original question, no perf difference unless you oc

No, A64s don't care about extra bandwidth at all. (or any performance gains are minute)

I was under the impression, that yes, Intel cpu's are very bandwidth hungry, but not in regards to timings, but memory speed and dual channel. However, and again, as I understood, this is limited to the front side bus of the cpu. So running an 800mhz FSB Pentium with 400mhz DDR (or DDR2) in dual channel would give the same performance as 667mhz DDR (or DDR2) in dual channel. This is all assuming stock speeds, not OC'ing.

 

[aaqubit]

regardless of timing reduction/clock increase, the difference between the best ram and value ram is practically at most 5%, or in most cases, 0-2%.

Save the money and spend it on another component to get much better returns, or put it back in your wallet


edit: I saw a review in the past with those numbers...I'm not making them up. I forgot the site, though you can search Yahoo if you want.

 

[FreedomGUNDAM]

I'm running Corsair ValueSelect on most of my machines. I didn't find where the "performance" memory provided enough of value to justify their high cost especially if you are not overclocking.

If you are overclocking, I think the some of the performance memory will let you overclock to a higher FSB than the value series memories.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Unless you can find a good deal, forget about LL memory. There are instances where you can get 2GB of value RAM for the price of 1GB LL RAM, which is a no brainer to choose.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I was under the impression, that yes, Intel cpu's are very bandwidth hungry, but not in regards to timings, but memory speed and dual channel. However, and again, as I understood, this is limited to the front side bus of the cpu. So running an 800mhz FSB Pentium with 400mhz DDR (or DDR2) in dual channel would give the same performance as 667mhz DDR (or DDR2) in dual channel. This is all assuming stock speeds, not OC'ing.

That makes sense. Ignore me people