Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is dominator really worth it?

Tags:
Last response: in Memory
Share
February 28, 2007 7:26:56 PM

Hey,

Im trying to decide between 2 GB Corsair Dominator 8500 (1066Mhz)CL5

and 4 GB any decent brand like kingston, g.skill and so on 800Mhz CL4

The price is around the same lvl (in Finland) so that is not a factor to be considered.

Im running XP ATM but moving to Vista during this year. Mostly using my comp for gaming (I have a very high end system, 8800GTX, asus striker, overclocked E6600, Raptor X and so on).

Prolly using 32bit version of Vista.

Overclocking moderately ATM but maybe more in the future.

Thanks for your answers. They are very appreciated!

P.S. YES I have searched the internet and these forums but havent found final solution.

More about : dominator worth

February 28, 2007 11:10:10 PM

The Corsair Dominator sticks aren't worth it. I have been using Crusial memory in just about all the systems I have, truly good stuff.

Don't upgrade to Vista. It is damn close to the worst OS other than ME that Microsoft has released. That and i have a feeling that they will skip over Vista to some new OS in a year or so.

I'm not trying to start a debate or fight here so Vista fanboys need not post.
March 1, 2007 12:11:08 PM

Well,

I will have to upgrade to Vista, cause im a passionate gamer and I wanna play games with DX 10.

Anyways do you think 4 GB is better even with XP?
Related resources
a b } Memory
March 1, 2007 12:15:28 PM

4gb of memory will only be fully utilized if you use a 64bit OS, XP, Vista, or otherwise.
March 1, 2007 2:48:09 PM

Quote:
4gb of memory will only be fully utilized if you use a 64bit OS, XP, Vista, or otherwise.


True, but my brother's rig with Vista Home Premium uses about 750MB on boot, and 550MB idle, and that's with no anti-virus installed yet, so 2GB+ might be required anyway......
March 1, 2007 3:08:23 PM

I remember a couple years ago I bought 256 and half a year later would have needed 512. Then next system I bought 1gig and would have needed 2gigs after a while.

If I buy the dominator i might have to buy another 2GB after a year or so and end up paying 800€ (about $1000) for memory.

Isnt it better to buy lets say 4 GB Kingston 800Mhz memory right now and not to worry about upgrading later.

Whats best bang for my bucks.
March 1, 2007 3:19:38 PM

In my opinion (if it actually matters), I think the 800 CL4 is almost as fast at the 1066 CL5. The lower latency of 4-4-4-12 is a decent size advantage of whatever the dominator uses (5-5-5-15?).
March 1, 2007 3:29:14 PM

A few questions:

How much do you want to OC the E6600?

What OCing potential do you want for the RAM?

Do you have any links to sites you will be buying from so we can see what is available there?
March 1, 2007 3:34:19 PM

Quote:
Hey,

Im trying to decide between 2 GB Corsair Dominator 8500 (1066Mhz)CL5

and 4 GB any decent brand like kingston, g.skill and so on 800Mhz CL4

The price is around the same lvl (in Finland) so that is not a factor to be considered.

Im running XP ATM but moving to Vista during this year. Mostly using my comp for gaming (I have a very high end system, 8800GTX, asus striker, overclocked E6600, Raptor X and so on).

Prolly using 32bit version of Vista.

Overclocking moderately ATM but maybe more in the future.

Thanks for your answers. They are very appreciated!

P.S. YES I have searched the internet and these forums but havent found final solution.



competition between top ram companies has made "best" chip obsolete. You are only paying for a brand name.
March 1, 2007 3:36:45 PM

Im gonna OC my cpu with stock cooler in the beginning but my plan is to buy either water cooling solution or a good cooler.

Im interested having a quiet system but I understand its a compromise between power, noise and money.

Im new to OCing so im not gonna push the limits but my plan is to OC so that I will see a reasonable performance increase.

Im able to buy almost any memory brand and model here in Finland. We are missind some high end memory like corsair 8888 and others.
March 1, 2007 3:40:10 PM

Since you plan on going to Vista, I would suggest the 4 gig of ram. The lower CAS will be worth it, and in my experience, the high performance ram is only useful if you are overclocking to the limits.

Also, if you do go Vista, I think the 64 bit version is better than the 32 bit by far. Future apps and games are going to be made to work primarily in 64 bit code, though they may support 32 bit. In my opinion, the only reason to use 32 bit Vista is if your computer doesn't support 64 bit.

I would hope that Pwnage is correct and that Vista gets replaced in a year or so by a friendlier OS. I hate the DRM and a couple other things in Vista. At the same time, I wouldn't count on a replacement. Unlike ME, which was little more that an altered Win98, Vista is a major OS change and to abandon it so quickly would be all but impossible. The only way I see to accomplish would be to somehow patch DX10 and a few other things into Win XP64 Pro. That could happen, but I doubt it.
a b } Memory
March 1, 2007 3:43:21 PM

Quote:
4gb of memory will only be fully utilized if you use a 64bit OS, XP, Vista, or otherwise.


True, but my brother's rig with Vista Home Premium uses about 750MB on boot, and 550MB idle, and that's with no anti-virus installed yet, so 2GB+ might be required anyway......Yes, 2gb is an absolute minimum IMO for Vista. And, even if you use 4gb of memory with a 32 bit OS you will still get an usable 2.8gb to 3.2gb usable so it is still a decent increase.
March 1, 2007 3:46:02 PM

Doesnt 64bit version mean that 4GB is around the same than 2GB in 32bit version?

Anyway Vista comes with both version so I could always do a reinstall since its needed for windows product family every 6-18months depending how much you install programs in your comp.

The only thing im conserned is the OC capacity of cheaper CL4 800Mhz ram.

Ofcourse 4GB is better than 2GB if other specs are the same but is it worth buy 2GB less just to get maybe some extra 5-10% performance.
March 1, 2007 4:01:57 PM

Quote:
Doesnt 64bit version mean that 4GB is around the same than 2GB in 32bit version?

Anyway Vista comes with both version so I could always do a reinstall since its needed for windows product family every 6-18months depending how much you install programs in your comp.

The only thing im conserned is the OC capacity of cheaper CL4 800Mhz ram.

Ofcourse 4GB is better than 2GB if other specs are the same but is it worth buy 2GB less just to get maybe some extra 5-10% performance.


XP has a limit of about 3 gig of useable ram. Vista does not have this limit, whether it is 32 bit or 64 bit, from all that I have read. Yes, it may be possible to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit Vista, but that would most likely mean having to reinstall everything on the disc. Its not a simple upgrade. I don't know about you, but I don't care to go through the time and trouble of a complete reisntall of everything if its avoidable.

G. Skill or OCZ ram should have overclock capabilities. I've owned high performance Corsair ram myself and have yet to find more than 1-2% performance increase. I think its probably wiser to spend the money elsewhere. Also, as Vista matures, 4 gig of ram will be the standard, similar to what 2 gig is in XP at the moment. That would mean if you got 2 gig of the Dominator, you would later have to buy 2 gig more, if the same type that you first bought was still available. If you've got enough money and you overclock to a high degree, then go ahead, but be prepared to buy a second 2 gig for a 4 gig total.
a b } Memory
March 1, 2007 4:16:18 PM

Quote:
XP has a limit of about 3 gig of useable ram. Vista does not have this limit, whether it is 32 bit or 64 bit, from all that I have read.
ANY 32bit OS, Vista, XP, or otherwise can only address 32000Mbits maximum, or 4gb x 8bit memory width. Then, the OS reserves the upper registers of memory. This reserved ram holds data that ordinarily would need to be swapped in and out of ram frequently, i.e. cache information, pci routing, agp apperture, and rom chip data from all the the devices on the motherboard and the addin cards. So, after all of that, the system has the 2.8gb to 3.2gb of leftovers to use.
March 1, 2007 4:17:48 PM

From my recent experiences, I do not think that the chip technology for 128x8 chips (2GB modules) are advanced enough to do the same major overclocking as the 64x8 chips (1 GB modules). So you have the decision of wanting to do the hardcore overclocking with the 2GB kits, or go with the bigger capacity of the 4GB kitsl....
March 1, 2007 4:21:14 PM

Quote:

...
XP has a limit of about 3 gig of useable ram
...


...unless you use the 64-bit version of XP (like I do).
March 1, 2007 4:32:43 PM

Quote:
In my opinion (if it actually matters), I think the 800 CL4 is almost as fast at the 1066 CL5. The lower latency of 4-4-4-12 is a decent size advantage of whatever the dominator uses (5-5-5-15?).


Lately I have been reading that going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 is only about a 1-2% improvement in performance. However, going from 800 to 1000 is a 25% increase. Can someone who actually "KNOWS" confirm this allegation?
March 1, 2007 4:37:36 PM

Quote:

...
XP has a limit of about 3 gig of useable ram
...


...unless you use the 64-bit version of XP (like I do).

You're right. I was refering to the common 32 bit XP. Yes, I'm aware of XP 64 Pro and its ability to use more, which is why I use it in my office computer, among other reasons.
March 1, 2007 5:30:45 PM

Quote:


The only thing im conserned is the OC capacity of cheaper CL4 800Mhz ram.



Some good OC'ers are:

Mushkin XP2-6400 4-4-3-10

Crucial Ballistix PC6400

Cellshock PC6400

Team Xtreem PC6400
March 1, 2007 5:43:33 PM

I view memory in the same way i view monitor size. More is always better. (The anally retentive need not reply to this statement ;)  )

Obviously there is limits to how much you need, but if you think you are going to need more than 2gb then the performance gains buy not running out of memory are going to be far larger than the performance gains of faster ram.

It's questionable whether you'll need more than 2GB on xp, any one single process can only utilize 2GB(0x00000000 - 0x7FFFFFFF). Can't remember what windows does with memory though to whether you can use more than that.

Anyway, expensive ram shows little benefits in comparison to running out of memory....*looks at people who buy 2 x 512 sticks thinking they are getting performance*
March 1, 2007 6:05:47 PM

Quote:
In my opinion (if it actually matters), I think the 800 CL4 is almost as fast at the 1066 CL5. The lower latency of 4-4-4-12 is a decent size advantage of whatever the dominator uses (5-5-5-15?).


Lately I have been reading that going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 is only about a 1-2% improvement in performance. However, going from 800 to 1000 is a 25% increase. Can someone who actually "KNOWS" confirm this allegation?


esstentially all 1066 is, is OC'd 800. getting 800 may yield the ability to reach 1066, it may not, i'm sure if you research certain brands and makes you will see which ones can and can't. I personally would settle on 800.

Memory speed is how fast the memory can communicate with the OS. (a really really generalized perspective)
Latency is how fast said information can be accessed on the memory modules.

This is why higher capacities have higher latencies, theres more modules to access and look through, so to me Latency is more important than speed. All about finding a happy balance you can live with.
March 1, 2007 6:28:25 PM

I remember someone saying that the memory on your video card is also counted towards the RAM cap. If you're going to buy a video card with 512MB+ on it, there's no point having a full 4GB of RAM in your system if you're running a 32bit OS.

Someone please correct me if that's wrong.
March 1, 2007 6:39:30 PM

Quote:
I remember someone saying that the memory on your video card is also counted towards the RAM cap. If you're going to buy a video card with 512MB+ on it, there's no point having a full 4GB of RAM in your system if you're running a 32bit OS.

Someone please correct me if that's wrong.


Ok, you're wrong. I remember reading that a long time ago, one of those myths that come and go and are best forgotten.
a b } Memory
March 1, 2007 7:00:37 PM

Quote:
I remember someone saying that the memory on your video card is also counted towards the RAM cap. If you're going to buy a video card with 512MB+ on it, there's no point having a full 4GB of RAM in your system if you're running a 32bit OS.

Someone please correct me if that's wrong.


Ok, you're wrong. I remember reading that a long time ago, one of those myths that come and go and are best forgotten.Not according RAM GUY:

http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=243682...
March 1, 2007 7:25:30 PM

I think the person meant if your vid card has 512 ram that is added to your system ram. Funny post however.

Quote:
4-1,0 Gig = (4096) Giga Bytes X 8 = 32,768 M-Bits
Any 32 Bit O.S. or Chipset will only see 32,000 M-Bits


It all depends on reserved memory spaces. Thats why windows is only meant to see 3gig or something. Virtual memory etc, blah, won't go on its boring.

The cache is transparent to the system memory though afaik. Thats a processor feature and nothing to do with the ram or the o/s.

I have ano idea why he rounded 32,768 down to 32,000...computers are not humans.
a b } Memory
March 1, 2007 8:02:20 PM

Quote:
I have ano idea why he rounded 32,768 down to 32,000...computers are not humans.
Because a megabyte is 1024 bits.
March 1, 2007 8:18:05 PM

Quote:
In my opinion (if it actually matters), I think the 800 CL4 is almost as fast at the 1066 CL5. The lower latency of 4-4-4-12 is a decent size advantage of whatever the dominator uses (5-5-5-15?).


Lately I have been reading that going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 is only about a 1-2% improvement in performance. However, going from 800 to 1000 is a 25% increase. Can someone who actually "KNOWS" confirm this allegation?


esstentially all 1066 is, is OC'd 800. getting 800 may yield the ability to reach 1066, it may not, i'm sure if you research certain brands and makes you will see which ones can and can't. I personally would settle on 800.

Memory speed is how fast the memory can communicate with the OS. (a really really generalized perspective)
Latency is how fast said information can be accessed on the memory modules.

This is why higher capacities have higher latencies, theres more modules to access and look through, so to me Latency is more important than speed. All about finding a happy balance you can live with.

Thanks for explaining this. So it seems than 4 gig(4 sticks) of ram will have higher latencies ?
I have (2 gig) Corsair 6400 CL4 running 400 Mhz at CL6 ! Trying hard just to get down to CL5. Just add volts and hope for the best?
March 1, 2007 8:34:29 PM

Quote:
I have ano idea why he rounded 32,768 down to 32,000...computers are not humans.
Because a megabyte is 1024 bits.

........

try 2^32 on your calculator.

1024 bits = a megabyte? huh...
March 1, 2007 8:39:57 PM

Quote:
In my opinion (if it actually matters), I think the 800 CL4 is almost as fast at the 1066 CL5. The lower latency of 4-4-4-12 is a decent size advantage of whatever the dominator uses (5-5-5-15?).


Lately I have been reading that going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 is only about a 1-2% improvement in performance. However, going from 800 to 1000 is a 25% increase. Can someone who actually "KNOWS" confirm this allegation?


esstentially all 1066 is, is OC'd 800. getting 800 may yield the ability to reach 1066, it may not, i'm sure if you research certain brands and makes you will see which ones can and can't. I personally would settle on 800.

Memory speed is how fast the memory can communicate with the OS. (a really really generalized perspective)
Latency is how fast said information can be accessed on the memory modules.

This is why higher capacities have higher latencies, theres more modules to access and look through, so to me Latency is more important than speed. All about finding a happy balance you can live with.

Thanks for explaining this. So it seems than 4 gig(4 sticks) of ram will have higher latencies ?
I have (2 gig) Corsair 6400 CL4 running 400 Mhz at CL6 ! Trying hard just to get down to CL5. Just add volts and hope for the best?

this is where things get twisted, while lower latencies are better, when you start to run your latencies lower it brings down the speed, I'm not 100% sure on why so i won't try to explain what i think i know. But this is why when you see world record overclocks you see systems running 256, 2x256, 512, or 2x512, they're able to achieve the ultra low latencies while maintaing higher clocks. Higher clocks and lower latencies certainly need more voltage though, just becareful not to go to high too quick :wink:


I remember when XP needed 1gb to run sweetly, then BF2, FEAR, and so on came out and 2gb became the new sweet spot.

With Vista 2gb is ideal, but 4gb is the sweet spot for max performance, on the memory side of things


The trick to memory is trying to find memory that will give you the amount you want, in the speed you want, with the lowest possible latencies.
March 1, 2007 8:58:02 PM

If you plan on doing any serious over clocking then I suggest you use the corsair dominator.You can always get another 2gig kit at a later date.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
2X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,442
March 1, 2007 10:18:59 PM

Quote:


Thanks for explaining this. So it seems than 4 gig(4 sticks) of ram will have higher latencies ?
I have (2 gig) Corsair 6400 CL4 running 400 Mhz at CL6 ! Trying hard just to get down to CL5. Just add volts and hope for the best?


Yeah bump up the voltage to 2.1 and see what timings you can use then...
March 1, 2007 10:22:07 PM

Quote:
If you plan on doing any serious over clocking then I suggest you use the corsair dominator.You can always get another 2gig kit at a later date.Goodluck.



The dominator does OC well as this guy stated because of the chips it uses, but as you have an E6600 you won't need to even overclock PC6400 unless you want to go beyond 3.6GHz, which I would imagine is unlikely. There is therefore, no real reason to get PC8500, but 4 GB will come in handy for Vista.
March 1, 2007 10:34:19 PM

Thanks to all for your input.

Im leaning towards getting 4GB of PC6400 CL4 memory.

Any suggestions which brands OC the best.

I just read the article on THG on PC6400 OC but its missing a couple of good brands.
March 1, 2007 10:37:19 PM

Quote:
In my opinion (if it actually matters), I think the 800 CL4 is almost as fast at the 1066 CL5. The lower latency of 4-4-4-12 is a decent size advantage of whatever the dominator uses (5-5-5-15?).


Lately I have been reading that going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 is only about a 1-2% improvement in performance. However, going from 800 to 1000 is a 25% increase. Can someone who actually "KNOWS" confirm this allegation?


esstentially all 1066 is, is OC'd 800. getting 800 may yield the ability to reach 1066, it may not, i'm sure if you research certain brands and makes you will see which ones can and can't. I personally would settle on 800.

Memory speed is how fast the memory can communicate with the OS. (a really really generalized perspective)
Latency is how fast said information can be accessed on the memory modules.

This is why higher capacities have higher latencies, theres more modules to access and look through, so to me Latency is more important than speed. All about finding a happy balance you can live with.

Thanks for explaining this. So it seems than 4 gig(4 sticks) of ram will have higher latencies ?
I have (2 gig) Corsair 6400 CL4 running 400 Mhz at CL6 ! Trying hard just to get down to CL5. Just add volts and hope for the best?

this is where things get twisted, while lower latencies are better, when you start to run your latencies lower it brings down the speed, I'm not 100% sure on why so i won't try to explain what i think i know. But this is why when you see world record overclocks you see systems running 256, 2x256, 512, or 2x512, they're able to achieve the ultra low latencies while maintaing higher clocks. Higher clocks and lower latencies certainly need more voltage though, just becareful not to go to high too quick :wink:


I remember when XP needed 1gb to run sweetly, then BF2, FEAR, and so on came out and 2gb became the new sweet spot.

With Vista 2gb is ideal, but 4gb is the sweet spot for max performance, on the memory side of things


The trick to memory is trying to find memory that will give you the amount you want, in the speed you want, with the lowest possible latencies.

thanks for the info. I assume I can slowly raise the volts without destroying something? Such as the system will be unstable before the RAM starts smoking?
March 1, 2007 11:38:32 PM

Quote:
Thanks to all for your input.

Im leaning towards getting 4GB of PC6400 CL4 memory.

Any suggestions which brands OC the best.

I just read the article on THG on PC6400 OC but its missing a couple of good brands.


Any of these I mentioned earlier:

Mushkin XP2-6400 4-4-3-10

Crucial Ballistix PC6400

Cellshock PC6400

Team Xtreem PC6400

And these:

http://www.memory-configurator.co.uk/products/description/2Gb_G_Skill_DDR2_PC2_6400-4_4_3_5-HK_Series_Dual_Channel_kit/index.html

http://www.memory-configurator.co.uk/products/descripti...
March 1, 2007 11:40:26 PM

Quote:

thanks for the info. I assume I can slowly raise the volts without destroying something? Such as the system will be unstable before the RAM starts smoking?


Yeah, 2.1v is perfectly safe and should give you the correct timings. If you need to raise it further then I wouldn't exceed 2.3/2.4v.
March 1, 2007 11:55:23 PM

Quote:
I remember someone saying that the memory on your video card is also counted towards the RAM cap. If you're going to buy a video card with 512MB+ on it, there's no point having a full 4GB of RAM in your system if you're running a 32bit OS.

Someone please correct me if that's wrong.


Ok, you're wrong. I remember reading that a long time ago, one of those myths that come and go and are best forgotten.Not according RAM GUY:

http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=243682...

What the Ram Guy is refering to would be true if the load of the graphics card was born by the cpu, as it is with integrated graphics. In the case of a separate video card, the card has its own GPU, or graphics processor unit, which handles the load of the the 128, 256, or 512 memory that the card has. Thus, the memory on the video card does not affect the memory that the main cpu addresses. This is also partly why the speed of games (fps) goes up when changing from integrated graphics to a separate video card with its own processor.
March 4, 2007 11:02:55 AM

Found an internting article about Vista with 2GB vs 4GB memory.

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&tas...

It seems like 4GB gives you 2-19% performance gain over 2GB depending on a game.

Thats much more than the performance difference between PC6400 and PC8500 or CL4 and CL5.

And rememer these were games published in the last year or so!!! What about future games?? I bet they need even more memory and see a noticable performance gain when moving from 2GB to 4GB of RAM.
March 4, 2007 11:37:31 AM

Yeah, get the 4GB, I know I have....
!