What's better?

C

charlie_82

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
2,993
Reaction score
1
Location
Johannesburg
4GB DDR2 800 or 6GB DDR2 667...

Reason I ask is I currently have 2x1GB DDR2 667 & I just bought 2x2GB DDR2 800. I reckon if I put in all the chips, they will all run at 667. But i'm wondering whats gonna give me better performance - the 6GB @ 667 or the 4GB @ 800?
 
charlie_82 said:
4GB DDR2 800 or 6GB DDR2 667...

Reason I ask is I currently have 2x1GB DDR2 667 & I just bought 2x2GB DDR2 800. I reckon if I put in all the chips, they will all run at 667. But i'm wondering whats gonna give me better performance - the 6GB @ 667 or the 4GB @ 800?
Click to expand...

What operating system? Windows XP/Vista 32-bt only support 4GB anyway, so 6GB would be wasted.

Also, the extra 2GB would only be of use if you're actually *using* over 4GB; if the apps you use don't use it, it's of no benefit. If you're using apps that use over 4GB of RAM (video rendering, high-end, or suchlike), sure, it'll be of use; otherwise, you'd be better off with 4GB of faster RAM.
 
Depends charlie i guess, do you use more than 4 gb memory? if you do and i highly doubt it then go with the 6gb, the different between 667 and 800 is not more than 1%.
 
Last edited:
Check how much memory you usually use, if it never reaches over 4GB it'll be a waste. Also make sure you have a 64bit OS otherwise you could just as well get 3GB
 
If you actually used more than 4gigs at any one time the six gigs would be better. The amount of ram you have makes much more of a difference tham the speed.
 
My rule of thumb for ram is quantity over quality. More ram far outways the lower latencies you might get with more expensive ram but less of it.
 
um, dude, I highly doubt you will use 4gig's or more, games will take up to 2.5gig's and os at MAX will be 1gig. and those are extreme numbers... also, with more demanding games requiring faster data transfers, the drr800 will suit the situation well :D
 
Lets wait for the_techie, it seems to be a split of opinion here.
 
Again, as said by a few:
If you are not using an operating system that can address all the RAM, then it's pointless having even 4GB.

That said, if you are using an operating system that CAN address all the RAM, then you need to have a look at your workload. If you are running applications that tend to use a lot of memory, then the extra RAM could up the threshold for requiring a swap (all the data can be stored in main memory, as opposed to being temporariliy stored on the hard drive and re-loaded into main memory as needed).

For most peoples' uses, I would say that 4GB @ 800MHz DDR would be the better choice
 
So ghost lets say he does use more than 4 gb of memory, you would think it would be better to use 4gb of ddr 800 than 6 gb of ddr 667?

If he used the 4gb memory and was using more than that, then windows will start using the pagefile, if he used the 6gb mem windows would not use the pagefile which for obvious reason the 667 memory would be better than using ddr 800.

So its not matter of split opinions really, its a matter of usage. If he uses more than 4gb then he should go with 667 if he does not he should go ddr 800. Memory is faster than hdd.
 
killadoob said:
So ghost lets say he does use more than 4 gb of memory, you would think it would be better to use 4gb of ddr 800 than 6 gb of ddr 667?

If he used the 4gb memory and was using more than that, then windows will start using the pagefile, if he used the 6gb mem windows would not use the pagefile which for obvious reason the 667 memory would be better than using ddr 800.

So its not matter of split opinions really, its a matter of usage. If he uses more than 4gb then he should go with 667 if he does not he should go ddr 800. Memory is faster than hdd.
Click to expand...

True. But in the unlikely event that more than 4GB is used, then there's a chance that more than 6GB would be used too. Which would make the point moot :p

But I agree that the performance difference between 667MHz DDR and 800MHz DDR is minimal
 
What on earth would use more than 6gb of memory lol, i get your point though but still cannot think of anything that would use 6gb of memory. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what would use 7-10gb of memory.

As you say the difference between 667 and 800 is hardly noticeable if you ask me.
I have ddr 1066 and run it at ddr 1200 and notice no difference at all :p

Infact i wasted my money buying ddr 1066 because at 1200 i can't notice the gain over my old 800 sticks. I think this whole memory speed thing is a gimmick made to sell memory :). Sure my system is 1% faster than my old ddr 800 but that came at a price of 1.2k, hardly worth it if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
What on earth would use more than 6gb of memory lol, i get your point though but still cannot think of anything that would use 6gb of memory. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what would use 7-10gb of memory.

As you say the difference between 667 and 800 is hardly noticeable if you ask me.
I have ddr 1066 and run it at ddr 1200 and notice no difference at all :p

Infact i wasted my money buying ddr 1066 because at 1200 i can't notice the gain over my old 800 sticks. I think this whole memory speed thing is a gimmick made to sell memory :). Sure my system is 1% faster than my old ddr 800 but that came at a price of 1.2k, hardly worth it if you ask me.
Click to expand...

In the same way, for most applications, 4GB usage at a time is quite high.

Can't say I've had the pleasure of directly comparing 800MHz vs 1066MHz OC 1200MHz directly, so I'll take your word for it there... But I've tried the 800MHz vs 667MHz -> Hardly any difference. Likewise 667MHz vs 533MHz
 
killadoob said:
So ghost lets say he does use more than 4 gb of memory, you would think it would be better to use 4gb of ddr 800 than 6 gb of ddr 667?

If he used the 4gb memory and was using more than that, then windows will start using the pagefile, if he used the 6gb mem windows would not use the pagefile which for obvious reason the 667 memory would be better than using ddr 800.

So its not matter of split opinions really, its a matter of usage. If he uses more than 4gb then he should go with 667 if he does not he should go ddr 800. Memory is faster than hdd.
Click to expand...

If he uses more than 4gb obviously he would rather use the 6gb 667, I'm not sure what uses that much ram though, but I doubt he would notice the 1-3% increase that 800 would give him so I would personally go for 6gb.
 
It's an easy answer, really. Do you use more than 4GB of RAM (I'm assuming you're using a 64-bit based operating system)? If so, 6GB DDR2-667 would be better than 4GB DDR2-800. If not, 4GB DDR2-800 would be better than 6GB DDR2-667.
 
Wow guys thanks for all the responses.
I'm using Vista Ultimate x64.

I do a lot of Photoshop work with rather large files. I currently only have the 2x1GB 667 installed and PS takes up, on average, 92% of my RAM. Which pretty much means that when I have these files open, my machine crawls and I can do very little else.

I guess if there isn't a huge noticeable difference between 667 & 800, I'd rather go for 6GB cos I'm quite sure PS will benefit from it.

I do game a bit but with my 8800gt, I can't imagine the difference in the RAM speeds is gonna hamper my gameplay too much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X