x48 + DDR2 or x48 + DDR3 for e8400

[Toastman]

So I'm looking to build a new gaming rig from scratch. In the interest of going "latest and greatest", I figure I'll go with a x48 chipset-based board, but I'm swaying on DDR2 or DDR3, primarily due to price. Is the extra performance that can be wrung out of the DDR3 worth it? Am I shooting myself in the foot if I go DDR2 for the e8400 (it uses a 1333mhz FSB, and DDR3 can match the bus speed, and as we all know, syncronous RAM and CPU busses == performance happiness)?

The two boards I'm eye-balling are the Asus P5E3 Premium for DDR3, and the Asus Rampage Formula for x48 + DDR2. The price gap between the P5E3 Premium + 4 gigs of high-performance DDR3 and the Rampage Formula + 4 gigs of high-performance DDR2 is approx $500, which is a lot -- in fact enough to fund another graphics card!

Thx for any feedback!

 

[Sylvanas]

4GB DDR2 + Rampage formula will be more than sufficient. DDR3 is nowhere near worth it at the moment, it offers little benefit over DDR2, and there is absolutely no reason to go with it over DDR2 at its current price.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Yeah, right now DDR3 seems like a ripoff. It's similar to the early days of DDR2, when the best DDR2 basically matched low-latency DDR but for a lot more money. At least DDR3 shares the same form factor. But right now Sylvanas is right. You can always upgrade later. Treat your self to a phat video card (or 2) instead. Sounds like you know what you're doing.

 

[Toastman]

Thx for the responses! Sounds like I'm better off putting that $500 elsewhere. I did read the DDR2 vs DDR3 article, and like everyone I've been less than impressed w/DDR3, however, I can't help but wonder if it changes the playing field any now that we have 1333mhz FSB processors in the wild. I recall from the days of DDR333 vs DDR400 that systems actually performed better with the memory speed set lower at 333 than at 400 due to CPU busses at the time using a 333mhz FSB, and with both memory and CPU bus operating at the same frequency, it reduced latency.

Wow, that was a massive run-on sentence!

 

[Renegade5399]

These guys are 100% correct. DDR2 is the way to go. I have a Rampage Formula and love it.

 

[Fallen Kell]

Someone did a review just recently on this (maybe anandtech, I don't remember and am too lazy to go find it). Anyway, the difference was less then 10% between DDR2 and DDR3, and that was only using DDR2 1066MHz. There is 1200MHz stuff out there as well, which probably blows away the DDR3 they were testing against. The increased latencies make DDR3 not worth it until the clock speed ramps up above 1600 or even 1800. Once we finally start getting those speeds on DDR3, it isn't worth it, and even then once we get those speeds, if the cost is still $800 for 2GB, well, screw that.

 

[sauria]

I just ordered a Rampage Formula for my e8400.

 

[Toastman]

Thx for all the feedback guys! I figure I'll go with the Rampage Formula + DDR2 and put the money elsewhere.

FYI, Fallen Kell,

That article was here on Anandtech. It's worth noting both the DDR2 and DDR3 performance testing was done with 1066mhz FSB processors and 1066mhz DDR2 memory. As time has proven many times in the past, low latency trumps bandwidth and even sheer speed every time in real world performance, and a big factor in reducing latency is running the memory at the same speed as the CPU bus. Now that the current crop of CPUs and DDR3 memory can operate at the same speed, that should give a latency advantage to DDR3. I have yet to see any performance comparison of DDR2 vs DDR3 with DDR3 tested with a 1333mhz FSB processor, which pretty much means there hasn't been a comparison on a level playing field.