ClanKiller.com
https://forums.plasmasky.com/

memory effect on performance
https://forums.plasmasky.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2898		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Satis [ Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  memory effect on performance
I ran into this article and extreme tech and found it an interesting read. It compares games and application performance based on quantity of memory (2GB/4GB), type (DDR2/DDR3) and frequency. I was actually curious about these comparisons as well so I thought I'd post it.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2 ... X1K0000532

I found it kinda funny...in one part they show Crysis performance based on frequency... the highest frequency showed a 9fps improvement over the next lowest, but the text claimed performance was flat. :roll:
Author:  Rinox [ Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:44 am ]
Post subject: 
yeah, what's up with that? I didn't get that chart anyway...the performance didn't change between 667 and 800 and then jumps up 10 FPS on the 1066? That doesn't make any sense from a logical pov.


Anyway, seems like I'll be getting a rig with 4 gig soon. 6 if I feel like it. :) None of that fancy schmanzy DDR3 1066 ram that costs an arm and a leg.
Author:  Peltz [ Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:30 am ]
Post subject: 
3 is enough for pretty much any kind of gaming. It might be cheaper to buy 4 though as the ones in pairs come cheaper. Anyway the idea is that 2gb plus the amount of ram your gpu has.
Author:  tyranus [ Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
See, this is the reason I went with 4 Gig :wink:
Author:  RB [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:45 am ]
Post subject: 
I found it impossible to work with larger soundfonts if it happen that one has to be kept on two or more sticks. It just fails to load or crashes the system. I guess it is good that I have 2x 1GB and no SF2 module larger than 700MB (~300MB used by OS + other software).
Author:  Peltz [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:54 am ]
Post subject: 
The test they ran isnt very good to base ones conclusions on. The rig was a bit too powerful and the memory specific problems fail to appear in my opinion.

The processor efficency depends on how fast it can fetch data from RAM but the rigs have enough raw power to hide this plus they used a quad cpu with 2,5ghz which by itself is quite lazy processor. A dual core 4ghz might've shown a better difference in memory speeds. Today though i dont see any reason to go beyond 800mhz RAM speed. The multicore cpu's aren't just fast enough to need more. And then theres the cas latency which is a bit of mysterie but just in case go for CL4 if want to spend some extra, CL5 is usually noticeably cheaper, atleast here.
Author:  Satis [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Back in the days of the athlon (1.2ghz era) caz latency and memory frequency made a huge difference. I build rigs with aggressive memory timings because it really did make a difference. Now... not so much I don't think. My current box is running on 800mhz RAM.

btw, if you're goingt to want more than ~3GB of RAM, you need to be running a 64 bit O/S. Which means Vista. Just keep that in mind. You can have 6GB of memory installed in Windows XP, but it'll only see and use around 3GB.

At any rate, it looks like going for decent, 800mhz RAM is probably fine unless you're looking at doing serious overclocking. With overclocking you need RAM that can scale frequency, since you'll be increasing the FSB speed. However, I don't see myself overclocking, so it's a nonissue.

What I'm really excited about is solid state drives. :twisted: Once a 128GB high performance drive drops below $400, I think I'll be acquiring one.
Author:  tyranus [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Not necessarily, the RAM frequency can be set independently from the FSB by adjusting the divider, my Q6600 is overclocked to 3Ghz, 333FSB on a x9 multiplier and the RAM is set to 800Mhz using this method. If I left the divider at stock it would be nearly 900Mhz on the RAM which would = Epic fail

But yeah, 1066Mhz would allow more headroom and a smaller divider.
Author:  Satis [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:54 am ]
Post subject: 
yea, ok, you're right...it a combination of multiplier and FSB speed. But by having a higher cap to your FSB you get more leeway with how you set your multiplier. :P
Author:  Mole [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Satis wrote:

btw, if you're goingt to want more than ~3GB of RAM, you need to be running a 64 bit O/S. Which means Vista. Just keep that in mind. You can have 6GB of memory installed in Windows XP, but it'll only see and use around 3GB.


Which is why I hate Microsoft! I purposefully bought vista for it's 64bitness.

I get it home, open it up - you have to send of another fucking £10 to get the 64bit version! This bastard cost me £140 in the first place.

The disc turns up, and guess what! It crashes durin installation and for some reason, I can only install 32bit vista.

Fucking pricks.
Author:  RB [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:29 am ]
Post subject: 
Mole wrote:
...

It sounds like M$ provides no technical support even for those who paid their copy. :D

Btw, I feel embarrassed. This is a kind of topic I can't contribute on the tech-level although I should be able to.
Author:  tyranus [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Satis wrote:
yea, ok, you're right...it a combination of multiplier and FSB speed. But by having a higher cap to your FSB you get more leeway with how you set your multiplier. :P


Agreed :)
Author:  Satis [ Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:26 am ]
Post subject: 
lol @ Mole. I feel your pain. Being in school and working for a Microsoft partner company, I get access to cheap and free software. I tried installing 64 bit Vista on my media pc back when I had to wipe it and no-go...it locked up during install twice. I then just installed XP.

Still, XP is starting to age. I can only hope that Windows 7 releases on time and isn't a total pile of crap.
Author:  Rinox [ Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Satis wrote:
I can only hope that Windows 7 releases on time and isn't a total pile of crap.



The sad thing is, you didn't actually believe that would be the case when you typed that. And neither does anyone else on this planet. :cry:
Author:  Peltz [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Update memory chart. 6gb still pointless, 12gb is ridiculous and wallet suicide.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/memory-mo ... 31549.html
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/