I'm will soon build a high-performance Intel rig and am considering RAM choices and their dependency on the CPU. At this time I intend to spend the money on a QX9650 because it will almost surely OC to 4GHz on air. I will also have a top-notch graphics card.

==> I'd like feedback on the idea that part of the cost of a QX (i.e. unlocked) processor will be offset by the fact that I can go with "good" but not ultra-fast DDR2 memory. This saves a lot of money now and even in the future if I expand beyond 4GB with a 64-bit OS.

Recent Tom's Hardware articles point out that overclocking a locked CPU (eg Q9450) can only be done by increasing FSB speed and therefore also RAM speed; and that DDR3-1333 is a much better choice for this than ultra-fast DDR2. So if I OC anything below a QX9650, I'll need DDR3.

In contrast, a QX9650 will not only be pretty sure of reaching 4GHz but of doing so without increasing FSB as much if at all, and therefore without needing anything better than good DDR2.

In fact about the only drawback choosing a QX9650 and DDR2 is that the RAM connectors differ, and very few mobos offer full sets of both DDR2 and DDR3 conns. So I'd be locked into DDR2.

This may be OK since tests appear to show that a DDR3 system is significantly better than a DDR2 system only if you OC a locked CPU. Other advantages are relatively minor.

Another thought is that with DDR2 it's economically and technically feasible to go with high-density 2GB sticks; this prepares me for a 64-bit OS where 8GB+ can be used. In contrast, two 2GB sticks of DDR3 are now too expensive to consider, so DDR3 would economically keep me at 4GB max as I won't want to discard expensive parts.

Any comments?

Thanks,

Arbie