Ram

[hotwire64]

what would be the better performance 16gb of PC4200 or 8gb pc6400?

 

[cheepstuff]

8 gigs of pc2 6400

 

[theAnimal]

what would be the better performance 16gb of PC4200 or 8gb pc6400?

If you have software that can make use of 16GB, then 16GB would be better.

 

[cheepstuff]

If you have software that can make use of 16GB, then 16GB would be better.

if you have the support for 8 gb, then you already have support for 16. a 32-bit OS is capable of regestering 3.3GB of ram. a 64-bit( the next step up) has a ceiling so trumendously far out there that we probably wont reach it for years. if this is for a server, 16 gigs will work. if this is a desktop a good 4gigs of serious gaming ram would be much faster and cheeper.

 

[theAnimal]

if you have the support for 8 gb, then you already have support for 16. a 32-bit OS is capable of regestering 3.3GB of ram. a 64-bit( the next step up) has a ceiling so trumendously far out there that we probably wont reach it for years. if this is for a server, 16 gigs will work. if this is a desktop a good 4gigs of serious gaming ram would be much faster and cheeper.

If you have software that can make use of 16GB, then 16GB of slower RAM is better than 8GB of faster RAM. Serious gaming RAM is not much faster, it is very slightly faster.

 

[cheepstuff]

If you have software that can make use of 16GB, then 16GB of slower RAM is better than 8GB of faster RAM. Serious gaming RAM is not much faster, it is very slightly faster.

i don't know, gaming with 4GB of DDR3 2000 PC16000 on a desktop IS MUCH faster than 16GB of pc 4200. if a gamer was given the choice between 6GB of pc16000 and 100GB of pc4200, the prudent gamer would go after the faster stuff. extra memory capacity can only help you when the current amount cant suffice for all the programs being run. on a desktop, there are few to no situations when a computer needs a full 6GB. the server, on the other hand, could use the extra ram.

 

[theAnimal]

i don't know, gaming with 4GB of DDR3 2000 PC16000 on a desktop IS MUCH faster than 16GB of pc 4200. if a gamer was given the choice between 6GB of pc16000 and 100GB of pc4200, the prudent gamer would go after the faster stuff. extra memory capacity can only help you when the current amount cant suffice for all the programs being run. on a desktop, there are few to no situations when a computer needs a full 6GB. the server, on the other hand, could use the extra ram.

The OP did not mention gaming, nor will DDR3 2000 make a noticeable difference over DDR2 533 in gaming or pretty much anything other than memory benchmarks.

 

[cheepstuff]

The OP did not mention gaming, nor will DDR3 2000 make a noticeable difference over DDR2 533 in gaming or pretty much anything other than memory benchmarks.

thats the thing, nothing was ever mentioned about its purpose, i was replying to your comment about the difference between high capacity ram and gaming ram. you wont notice a difference between ram like DDR2 800 and DDR2 1066. but when gaming, there is doubt that the game will be sluggish with 533. where as the bottleneck will go away when you stick some faster stuff in, assuming the rest of the system isn't the problem.

 

[theAnimal]

thats the thing, nothing was ever mentioned about its purpose, i was replying to your comment about the difference between high capacity ram and gaming ram. you wont notice a difference between ram like DDR2 800 and DDR2 1066. but when gaming, there is doubt that the game will be sluggish with 533. where as the bottleneck will go away when you stick some faster stuff in, assuming the rest of the system isn't the problem.

If you were gaming with 1066 RAM and it was swapped for 533 you would not be able to notice the difference, assuming everything else remained identical.

 

[cheepstuff]

thats a huge gap. you would definately be bottlenecked by 533 when playing games. you should even notice a difference loading into windows. it would take a lot longer. when you have ram that slow the bios has to ajust the ram:fsb ratio causing all types of lag for the CPU.

 

[theAnimal]

thats a huge gap. you would definately be bottlenecked by 533 when playing games. you should even notice a difference loading into windows. it would take a lot longer. when you have ram that slow the bios has to ajust the ram:fsb ratio causing all types of lag for the CPU.

Having a ratio that's not 1:1 will not cause lag.

i was replying to your comment about the difference between high capacity ram and gaming ram. you wont notice a difference between ram like DDR2 800 and DDR2 1066. but when gaming, there is doubt that the game will be sluggish with 533. where as the bottleneck will go away when you stick some faster stuff in, assuming the rest of the system isn't the problem.

1066 - 800 = 266 = not noticeable
800 - 533 = 266 = not noticeable
1066 - 533 = 533 = 2 x not noticeable

 

[cheepstuff]

Having a ratio that's not 1:1 will not cause lag.

having 533 will cause lag because the BIOS will have to inadvertantly OC the RAM to keep it at a 1:1 ratio. the bios will ( in the case of many CPUs ) have to reduce th multiplier to 3:4 or 1:2 because the FSB is to high. i will give you an example:
my cpu current is an E8500, stock speed = 3.16GHz(333 x 9.0)
if you look at the ram, the rated speed is 266MHz max ( 533 effective because it is DDR2)
would you look at that, the FSB is 333MHz while the maximum rated for the ram is a mere 266MHz. the BIOS must swoop in and save the day... but how?? ?? it goes in and fixes a 5:4 FSB:RAM ratio to keep everything at stock. other CPUs may have lower FSBs but many stay above 266MHz.

THAT is where the lag comes from. unless you can lead me to credible a review that proves 533 is as fast as 1066 in games then i will change my view within reason.

 

[theAnimal]

having 533 will cause lag because the BIOS will have to inadvertantly OC the RAM to keep it at a 1:1 ratio. the bios will ( in the case of many CPUs ) have to reduce th multiplier to 3:4 or 1:2 because the FSB is to high. i will give you an example:
my cpu current is an E8500, stock speed = 3.16GHz(333 x 9.0)
if you look at the ram, the rated speed is 266MHz max ( 533 effective because it is DDR2)
would you look at that, the FSB is 333MHz while the maximum rated for the ram is a mere 266MHz. the BIOS must swoop in and save the day... but how?? ?? it goes in and fixes a 5:4 FSB:RAM ratio to keep everything at stock. other CPUs may have lower FSBs but many stay above 266MHz.

THAT is where the lag comes from. unless you can lead me to credible a review that proves 533 is as fast as 1066 in games then i will change my view within reason.

You cannot run the RAM slower than the FSB.

Here is a comparison of DDR3 800 and DDR3 1333 (last column) which shows a minimal unnoticeable difference at the identical CPU frequency.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2989&p=7

 

[cheepstuff]

that wasn't a 533 review, that was a comparison between the bandwidth of DDR2 and DDR3 ram.

You cannot run the RAM slower than the FSB.

thats the point. 533 cannot run as fast as the FSB in many cases. that is why the bios puts the FSB:RAM ratio in place. hence the lag i was talking about. the lag is caused because the 4:5 (in my example) ratio cause the ram to run at 80% of the FSB speed. Because it is not equal to the FSB speed, the processor will have to wait longer to get the information it needs to run. thats what i call LAG.

 

[theAnimal]

that wasn't a 533 review, that was a comparison between the bandwidth of DDR2 and DDR3 ram.


thats the point. 533 cannot run as fast as the FSB in many cases. that is why the bios puts the FSB:RAM ratio in place. hence the lag i was talking about. the lag is caused because the 4:5 (in my example) ratio cause the ram to run at 80% of the FSB speed. Because it is not equal to the FSB speed, the processor will have to wait longer to get the information it needs to run. thats what i call LAG.

The difference between 1333 and 800 is the same as the difference between 1066 and 533. From the chart linked the difference in gaming is only a few percent, which would be unnoticeable.

And the RAM cannot run slower than the FSB so there will never be a 5:4 ratio.

Many processors have a FSB of 200 or 266, and with those there will be no noticeable difference. Obviously if you have to lower your CPU speed because of your RAM you will notice it, but that will be because of the lower CPU speed and not because of the slower RAM.

 

[cheepstuff]

And the RAM cannot run slower than the FSB so there will never be a 5:4 ratio.

but thats the whole point of the FSB:RAM ratio. its meant to change the speed at which they communicate to each other when one is to slow. what else is it for?

 

[theAnimal]

but thats the whole point of the FSB:RAM ratio. its meant to change the speed at which they communicate to each other when one is to slow. what else is it for?

To allow the RAM to run faster than the FSB. For example a 5:6 ratio would let you run RAM at 400(800) with a FSB of 333, or 3:4 is 533(1066) with 400 FSB.

 

[cheepstuff]

To allow the RAM to run faster than the FSB. For example a 5:6 ratio would let you run RAM at 400(800) with a FSB of 333, or 3:4 is 533(1066) with 400 FSB.

according to you, that would cause minimal performance gains. the ratio was designed to make the fsb and the ram able to comunicate even if they were at two different speeds. with that in mind, why would the designers bother making it ajustable one way and not the other?

 

[theAnimal]

according to you, that would cause minimal performance gains. the ratio was designed to make the fsb and the ram able to comunicate even if they were at two different speeds. with that in mind, why would the designers bother making it ajustable one way and not the other?

I'm not sure why it is that way.

 

[cheepstuff]

well, for now i will just agree with you because i don't feel like looking it up to confirm/deny your statement.... good talk...