Which would be faster?

[Drizzy]

Well, I'm putting together a computer but I'm on a budget so here are the 2 scenarios I could go with:

1. Barton 2500+ OC'ed @ 3200+
Abit NF7-S Mobo
High End PC3200 RAM 512 MB @ 2-2-2-11

2. Barton 2500+ OC'ed @ 2600+
Abit NF7-S Mobo
Low End PC3200 RAM 1 GB @ 2.5-4-4-8

The top one is overclocked much higher (3200+) but I could only afford 512 MB of the expensive RAM with tighter timings.
The bottom is overclocked a little (2600+ due to cheaper RAM) but with a full 1 GB of RAM with looser timings.

All other components being the same... which would be faster for gaming? Any ideas?

 

[Sheriff]

1 and you can add additinal RAM later if so desired.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Even low end PC3200 RAM is enough to overclock the XP2500+ to 3200+

 

[Special1Sauce]

1.

 

[InlineFive]

1 is the obvious choice. You can add more later if you need it.

 

[Sheriff]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Even low end PC3200 RAM is enough to overclock the XP2500+ to 3200+

Low end what I guess is the ?, Cas3 on generic PCB, no thanks and the Barton will have the final decision of the OC.

 

[Gagabiji]

#1 all the way.

 

[Drizzy]

The low end that I am looking at is the GEIL Value Series Golden Dragon Ram for $37 per 256 card... Think this will OC to 3200+? Also, if you have 4 cards in all 4 slots does that still run dual channel?

 

[WobbleWobble]

Originally posted by: Sheriff

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Even low end PC3200 RAM is enough to overclock the XP2500+ to 3200+

Low end what I guess is the ?, Cas3 on generic PCB, no thanks and the Barton will have the final decision of the OC.

Not necessarily, name-brands such Kingston do have their value lines.

 

[Sheriff]

Heh my Kingston Value has BH6 Winbond chips (220+FSB) and many of Samsungs I install that are DDR 2700 n travel @ 220+FSB but what does the poster or buyer get? Reaeach and promises are a necessity I guess

 

[WobbleWobble]

If his 2500+ can do 220+ FSB (and assuming multiplier locked) or higher, I'll consider him very lucky.

If he's on a budget, I'd recommend 1GB of the Kingston ValueRAM or something similar. I'd rather have 1GB of lower-end namebrand RAM than 512MB of tight timing RAM.

 

[Sheriff]

Yep and even a 2500 traveling @ 200FSB which = 3200 is a satisfactory feat

 

[Drizzy]

Which Kingston value ram has BH6 chips? Those OC quite well dont they?

 

[Drizzy]

Anyone Know about this GEIL Value Golden Dragon RAM I'm looking at?

 

[Sheriff]

Drizzy, it's the luck of the Draw as any Vakue or Generic chip can only be held responsible for it's advertised ratings. My best gamble has been with Samsungs at OCing BTA it's a chance

 

[Sheriff]

 

[Drizzy]

So it seems that most would agree on setup #1? Less RAM but with faster timings and higher OC'ed? Hrmm I didnt think that would make up for the 512 MB less of RAM... interesting...

 

[Matthias99]

Frankly, it really depends on what you're doing. For general-purpose computing, and most gaming, setup #1 will be better because of the faster CPU and better memory throughput. For extremely memory-intensive applications (video editing, for example), or multitasking (where you need all the RAM you can get), system #2 may be better. You can't just evaulate it in isolation.

 

[dguy6789]

if your going to do ANY gaming at all, 2 would be faster. I have seen it first hand, my friend has a biostar nforce 2, rad 9000 pro 128, 512MB and an athlon xp 2400. We were playing games, such as C&C generals zero hour, and ut2004 demo. Whenever we exited or alt tabbed, the system would be real sluggish as it is swapping with harddrive and ram. But i gave him my old pc3200 ram which im not using, and we booted up. The games ran smoother and we could alt tab in games just as fast as if we were alt tabbin internet explorer windows. The games were blazingly smooth even on a 9000 pro(well not at too high fps, but it would be a constant fps that didnt drop due to system swapping). I highly recomend #2 as i have seen the difference first hand and I am astonished at the difference.

 

[yhelothar]

depends on how much you multitask
#1 would go over 1000 times slower than #2 for me because I multitask a lot, and I usually have around 20-30 things open
virtual memory is over 1000 times slower than physical ram.. so when I run out of ram, I get a 5 second freeze when I open IE.. when I upgraded to 1GB ram, my IE windows opened instantly.

 

[Drizzy]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Frankly, it really depends on what you're doing. For general-purpose computing, and most gaming, setup #1 will be better because of the faster CPU and better memory throughput. For extremely memory-intensive applications (video editing, for example), or multitasking (where you need all the RAM you can get), system #2 may be better. You can't just evaulate it in isolation.

Yeah I realize it is a hard thing to determine (which is why I tried to get some other opinions). Here is what I do on my computer (ranked in order of most use):

1. Playing FPS games
2. Photoshop
3. Flash and Dreamweaver
4. Word, Excel, etc...
5. Email and Web browsing.

The problem is that I play games but I also use some apps that need more RAM.... that is where my problem lies... I generally dont multi task a lot.. usually when I'm playing games that is all I'm doing (LAN, etc..) Keep the info coming and if anyone has any links or articles with more info I'd love to read em!

 

[Drizzy]

Oh I just read that my mobo only has 3 memory slots... well, that might change things... 512 mb option would be with 2X256 which would leave only 1 slot for expansion...