Which...

M

MrE

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
847
Reaction score
0
Memory setup will give me the best performance:

OS: XP SP3

2GB DDR2-800, 4-4-4-12
..or..
4GB DDR2-667, 5-5-5-15

?
 
If you have XP 32 bit your machine will only see around 3,4GB of RAM. If you have XP 64 bit then get a real OS. I would only recomend 4GB of RAM (or more) if you are going to run a 64 bit OS.

Win XP Pro 32 bit with 2GB ram should fly quite nicely tho. :D
 
Yes thanks I know all that, appreciate it, bt I'm actually looking for an answer to my Q..
 
timing makes about 1% difference

obviously 4 gig will give you better performance if you turn off the page file because with 4 gig mem you dont need a page file even though ppl will tell you do
 
MrE said:
Memory setup will give me the best performance:

OS: XP SP3

2GB DDR2-800, 4-4-4-12
..or..
4GB DDR2-667, 5-5-5-15

?
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm not sure. I've messed around with RAM timings once or twice but only recently have I really gotten it right.

ATM, my 2GB DDR2 is running at 850Mhz with 5-5-4-12-1-1-19 (tCL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-Command Per Clock-tRRD-tRC) timings.

I guess more RAM equals better performance but I think that if your timings are spot on your performance is even better.
 
Ok from a forum at Anandtech:
referring to: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/toms-ultimate-ram-speed-tests,review-30648.html

"For those who haven't yet read it and can't be arsed to, the author throws about 20 benchmarks at anything from DDR2-677 to DDR3-1333 using a mixture of the older P4 Extreme CPU and a newer E8400. The point proven is that performance between the best and worst (cheapest and most expensive) of these models vary on average by 6%, at most. Following that conclusion the cheapest pair of stable DDR2-800 modules is pretty much the perfect fit for anyone but the wildly enthusiastic power-clocker who wants to throw mountains of money at no apparent performance gain (...puts on flame coat)."

So answer to my Q, timings and frequency mean virtually bugger all, cos all memory at or above 667 will perform almost exactly the same, save for OC'ing potential, which itself is pointless due to afore-mentioned reason.

4GB at 667 5-5-5-15 it is!
 
MrE, we've already had this discussion..... do you or do you not want super duper PC of rockingness? :p

Seriously tho. If I keep my CPU (E6400) running at 3.4Ghz and change my RAM from 800Mhz, with all timings on AUTO, to 850Mhz, timings as above, I get a boost of about 500-600 3DM08 points.

Does it really matter? Probably not (:p), but it gets me over that 12K mark which makes me :)
 
lol mr E you ways astound me sometimes

ddr 667 is basically the same price on my suppliers lists as ddr 800

why u want to buy 667 is amazing to me considering there is such a small difference in price

why u need to researth whether timings make a difference is beyond me

its pretty obvious they make zero difference or companies would be fighting for who can go the lowest which they are not

go buy your 4 gig of ddr 667 then roflmao

personally i would buy ddr 800 as most ppl will tell you it overclocks better than 667
 
I think MrE alreay has a bunch of 667, so for roughly the same price he can get 2gigs of 800 or 2 MORE gigs of 667...
 
would still go with 4 gig of ddr 800

if buy transend or something a lil bit cheap you can get 2 x 2 gig which i heard is faster than 4 x 1 gig
 
Many people say the same thing.... 800MHz is **FASTER** than 667MHz. Period. I'd rather have 2GB 800 than 4GB 667. Your sig said something about having a multi Core-CPU... thus your FSB should be at least 800. 667MHz RAM slows your FSB to 667, so rather go for the 800MHz. Remember that "a computer is only as fast as the slowest component". In this case it is your 667MHz RAM.
 
killadoob said:
lol mr E you ways astound me sometimes

ddr 667 is basically the same price on my suppliers lists as ddr 800

why u want to buy 667 is amazing to me considering there is such a small difference in price

why u need to researth whether timings make a difference is beyond me

its pretty obvious they make zero difference or companies would be fighting for who can go the lowest which they are not

go buy your 4 gig of ddr 667 then roflmao

personally i would buy ddr 800 as most ppl will tell you it overclocks better than 667
Click to expand...

Wow, u really are a dick. Your EQ is seeeriously low, which is sad, I feel for you. Wow I don't know what I did to offend you, but it seems you don't need a reason to make ****ty comments. You often make comments that are off track due to the fact that in your eager rush to write something you don't actually read the post correctly.
Take a look at the same Corsair 800 pack, it is considerably more.

"why u need to researth whether timings make a difference is beyond me"
Ook, sorry for breathing, I wasn't aware it was the most OBVIOUS thing, according to you. My apologies sir.

"its pretty obvious they make zero difference or companies would be fighting for who can go the lowest which they are not"
Wow, you're just so much more intelligent than me, I'm afraid I just couldn't connect the dots.

"go buy your 4 gig of ddr 667 then roflmao"
Gee thanks, you condescending and ****ty attitude really makes me feel welcome, such a great atmosphere you provide. You work with children? You should.

If you actually paid ANY attention, you would have read that between 667 - 800 and even 1066 or woteva, there is virtually NO performance increase above 1-2%.

Anyway, moving on, I won't spend any further time on you.


The P5N-E SLI has problems operating with all 4 ram slots filled with 800 ram, hence 667.
And I bought the 2GB kit for R410 delivered to me door, so whatever I am super happy with my purchase, ..and to those who helped me out with good advice and no attitude, thanks a bunch!! :)
 
Last edited:
i was laughing because you want to buy slower products for the same price, even if it is 1% slower its still slower

obviously high end ram will be more expensive that cheap 667 ram
you do get very cheap ddr 800 ram which is as cheap as 667

now had you mentioned your mobo could not do 4 gig of ddr 800 would have changed the whole story and then obviously you stay with 667 because obviously you cannot upgrade to 4 gig of ddr 800 in the future

buying 667 would not have seemed so funny had u told me you bought a board that cannot do 4 x 1 gig ddr 800
 
froot said:
Many people say the same thing.... 800MHz is **FASTER** than 667MHz. Period. I'd rather have 2GB 800 than 4GB 667. Your sig said something about having a multi Core-CPU... thus your FSB should be at least 800. 667MHz RAM slows your FSB to 667, so rather go for the 800MHz. Remember that "a computer is only as fast as the slowest component". In this case it is your 667MHz RAM.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, otherwise my CPU wouldn't run at 2.4GHz since it's using a 1,066MHz FSB even with DDR2-800 RAM ;) But I do understand what you mean, though ;)
 
WKJ?:beanie said:
I doubt it, otherwise my CPU wouldn't run at 2.4GHz since it's using a 1,066MHz FSB even with DDR2-800 RAM ;) But I do understand what you mean, though ;)
Click to expand...

It is a known fact (and being a Computer Engineer does help). However, the computer won't say that it is running at whatever FSB when you use slower RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X