An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
But, with virtually everything, you'll see a difference between 3-3-3-8 timings and 2-2-2-5.
Barely with a Pentium 4, and not very much with an Athlon64. 3-3-3-8 timings are average (gasp!) and 2-2-2-5 timings are available ONLY on 512 MB sticks (which you pay out your left nostril for).
Quote:
I don't even think I have to explain why this comment is extremely dumb.
That's okay -- I will. That comment is pretty dumb. :D
So... if I'm reading this right... the ValueSelect will BEAT the XMS at stock...? And it's cheaper?
Uhm...
The ONLY advantage I see to this so-called \"performance\" RAM is this overclocking potential... and KoolDrew seems to have overclocked ValueSelect just fine...
Wow. I guess that just shows why you have to do some searching around, and newegg isn't always the cheapeast (although I think they are most of the time)
It might not be entirely fair to go upon the 2x512MB pricing vs. 1GB. As I'm sure you know, CAS latencies are faster / more flexible on a smaller stick of the same bandwidth rate. On the same note, I believe 2 GB of 2-2-2-5 RAM on 4 PC3200 512MB sticks would give you better performance than 2 GB of 3-3-3-8 RAM on 2 1GB sticks.
..Whee.
Quote:
Yeah, that's why I said if you have 1GB already. Under 1GB, you'll see differences in size more, and over, you'll see differences in speed more.
Definitely. Though, I imagine over 1 GB you won't \"see\" differences in speed more, you'll just be able to benchmark higher. Above 1 GB of RAM isn't much of a huge performance boost, but it does help. 2 GB of RAM is about the peak amount of RAM you'll want per CPU. Anything more, and the CPU wastes time looking through too much RAM, and your performance, as a result, will take a hit.
Also, I believe 4x512 MB sticks of RAM with equal speed and equal latencies will have slightly lower performance to 2x1GB sticks. I believe also that 3 GB of RAM is, perhaps, a bit too much for a single processor. While you'll get gains in some areas (Premeire, Photoshop, 3D Studio Mzx) you won't see too much elsewhere. I've tried 3 GB in my computer, and I got shafted about 200 MB/sec on data transfer rate.
...it was nuts. But I still had 3 GB of RAM. :D
Last edited by A_Pickle on Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:39 am; edited 1 time in total
I was going to have a long reply, but I see A_Pickle already covered what I was going to say. All I am going to say is read my fricken posts! I even posted links to two topics that showed A64's are insensative to memory performance outside of \"benchmarks.\" In real-world performance the difference between \"value\" and \"performance\" RAM would not be noticable at all.
Before even continuing to argue with anybody read the information that they have provided. Most of what some of you are saying was already disporoved in the links I provided.
Quote:
On the same note, I believe 2 GB of 2-2-2-5 RAM on 4 PC3200 512MB sticks would give you better performance than 2 GB of 3-3-3-8 RAM on 2 1GB sticks.
With Rev. E A64's running 4 double-sided sticks would force you to run at 2T. I also think it is best not to use all the slots you have available. With two l;ft you have room for expansion in the future.
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
