Why get expensive RAM when you can use a divider?

[The Pentium Guy]

I fail to see the point. The divider takes care of everything for you...

 

[Muscles]

First off you don't need "expensive" ram to keep a 1:1 ratio. Second if you're running a divider you are taking a performance hit. To me its stupid not to run in 1:1 ratio unless you're forced to because you're trying to overclock an old system and don't have the money to buy new parts.

 

[KoolDrew]

Second if you're running a divider you are taking a performance hit.

It won't won't significantly affect performance. I bet the only way you would tell the difference is in benchmarks. So there is a performance benefit from using more expensive RAM and running them 1:1, but price is the concern here. The real world benefit being very small, while the RAM being much more expensive. That is why I recommend just getting Value RAM for people building new PC's; a much better value.

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Second if you're running a divider you are taking a performance hit.

It won't won't significantly affect performance. I bet the only way you would tell the difference is in benchmarks. So there is a performance benefit from using more expensive RAM and running them 1:1, but price is the concern here. The real world benefit being very small, while the RAM being much more expensive. That is why I recommend just getting Value RAM for people building new PC's; a much better value.

Well while I do agree with you on most of your posts KoolDrew, I believe you're wrong in this case. Much more expensive you say? Couldn't be further from the truth. Here's a good example of cheap memory that works real good for overclocking and not only does it overclock nicely but it can give great timings as well (2-2-2-5).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820227213

Since memory like this is available at such a cheap price it doesn't make sense to use a divider. And I never said it significantly increased performance but it increases it nonetheless

 

[aatf510]

Some dividers make your system unstable.
For example, only two of the dividers 180/200 and 166/200 works, and all the others simply crash my system.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Second if you're running a divider you are taking a performance hit.

It won't won't significantly affect performance. I bet the only way you would tell the difference is in benchmarks. So there is a performance benefit from using more expensive RAM and running them 1:1, but price is the concern here. The real world benefit being very small, while the RAM being much more expensive. That is why I recommend just getting Value RAM for people building new PC's; a much better value.

Well while I do agree with you on most of your posts KoolDrew, I believe you're wrong in this case. Much more expensive you say? Couldn't be further from the truth. Here's a good example of cheap memory that works real good for overclocking and not only does it overclock nicely but it can give great timings as well (2-2-2-5).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820227213

Since memory like this is available at such a cheap price it doesn't make sense to use a divider. And I never said it significantly increased performance but it increases it nonetheless

You also have to use a lot of volts even to get good results with UTT RAM that only the DFi NF4 mobo can provide or by using the OCZ DDR booster, but I have heard too many problems about it.

When I was refering to the RAM being much more expsnive I was really refering to TCCD/TCC5.

You also are not guaranteed to get your RAM as high as your CPU will. CPU speed is king so running a divider to get higher CPU speed would be the best choice.

 

[The Pentium Guy]

Good point. I never really thought of this

 

[ponyo]

Zebo has done the work for you.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Naustica
Zebo has done the work for you.

:thumbsup:

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Second if you're running a divider you are taking a performance hit.

It won't won't significantly affect performance. I bet the only way you would tell the difference is in benchmarks. So there is a performance benefit from using more expensive RAM and running them 1:1, but price is the concern here. The real world benefit being very small, while the RAM being much more expensive. That is why I recommend just getting Value RAM for people building new PC's; a much better value.

Well while I do agree with you on most of your posts KoolDrew, I believe you're wrong in this case. Much more expensive you say? Couldn't be further from the truth. Here's a good example of cheap memory that works real good for overclocking and not only does it overclock nicely but it can give great timings as well (2-2-2-5).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820227213

Since memory like this is available at such a cheap price it doesn't make sense to use a divider. And I never said it significantly increased performance but it increases it nonetheless

Not everyone can use that RAM. Only the people with DFI boards. You can buy a booster, but then it is no longer considered value.

 

[The Pentium Guy]

ONLY DFI boards? Wtf

 

[Mrvile]

Um I didn't really read through the posts but here's my thoughts.

After reading Zebo's Memory Matrix I'd rather take the extra mhz over the performance hit by using a divider. The loss is so minute that the extra mhz will offset it and even be better than lower 1:1 setups.

 

[feelingshorter]

i believe this is an old topic, dividers are a good idea to save money, performance gain from running 1:1 isnt that much better, and ur right.

 

[Mrvile]

I'm surprised this hasn't been linked yet...read all of it guys:

Zebo's Memory Matrix

 

[Ze Mad Doktor]

I would generally agree that speed is king except for some experience I have with Rome: Total War. I can get my 3200+ to 2.5GHz (10x250) but with my Corsair VS I have to use a divider which puts the memory at 208. Doing this causes Rome to run much slower than running at 2.2GHz (10x220) with the memory at 220. I don't know exactly what the problem is and indeed most programs might benefit more from the MHz than it loses from the divider but this is absolutely not the case with Rome. There is an extremely noticable lag with the divider.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
I'm surprised this hasn't been linked yet...read all of it guys:

Zebo's Memory Matrix

I guess you missed Naustica's post .