hi, im looking to upgrade my ram in q3 (or before then if i have the money) and was just wondering which im best to get. i don't have any plans for a new motherboard, and im looking to get 4gb ocz flex xlc 1150mhz ram. would it be better to go ddr3 or will the performance boost not be that great?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
ddr2 or ddr3?
- Thread starter Teknokid
- Start date
Retsam
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 3,911
Short and sweet. No DDR3 sucks. It will be a while before it matures and be worthwhile. It seems to be somewhat lacking in performance as well. If that isnt enough, heres an idea on for first initial prices. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20070426140713.html
Stick with DDR2 for a while. From what a few articles said, DDR3 wont be mainstream untill "2009".
Stick with DDR2 for a while. From what a few articles said, DDR3 wont be mainstream untill "2009".
If I was you, I would just wait and see what happens, until theres more
reviews on the DDR3 than decide which ram is better in performance and price of
course.
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
If you're not upgrading your motherboard, do you have any choice but DDR2?
Mike Clements
Gone but not Forgotten
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,049
Eventually it will be but, since you have a Striker, I'd stick with it and DDR2 for a while till DDR3 matures. If you are looking for upgrade options, you may want to look into the 2 x 2gb kits as opposed to 4 x 1gb.
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
Is using 4x 1GB really so bad?
Retsam
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 3,911
Well there have been times in the past where taking up 4 slots can hinder overclocking somewhat. That is part of the reasoning behind it. Im not sure if thats still true so.....
Anyways, the other reason 4gb sucks is, it really isnt going to be utilized. Theres only a few programs id say, where you could possibly use it.
On top of that, if you use a 32bit OS, you cannot use more than 3gb ANYWAYS, even if you have 4gb installed. So you pay for 4gb, and youll only be able to use 3gb..... Seems kind of dumb to me. 2gb over 3gb is a fairly negligible difference if you ask me. Maybe a game loads .05 milliseconds faster.
Anyways, the other reason 4gb sucks is, it really isnt going to be utilized. Theres only a few programs id say, where you could possibly use it.
On top of that, if you use a 32bit OS, you cannot use more than 3gb ANYWAYS, even if you have 4gb installed. So you pay for 4gb, and youll only be able to use 3gb..... Seems kind of dumb to me. 2gb over 3gb is a fairly negligible difference if you ask me. Maybe a game loads .05 milliseconds faster.
perhaps i should explain more. in q3/q4 of this year i will be purchasing:
intel q6600,
Nvidia 8900gtx (if its out or another 8800gtx).
Vista home premium x64.
this pc will be aimed at playin crysis like there's no tommorow. i also do some video editing and photo editing.
btw, all the other hear is going into a lan box (e6600, corsair ram, maybe the 8800gtx)...
intel q6600,
Nvidia 8900gtx (if its out or another 8800gtx).
Vista home premium x64.
this pc will be aimed at playin crysis like there's no tommorow. i also do some video editing and photo editing.
btw, all the other hear is going into a lan box (e6600, corsair ram, maybe the 8800gtx)...
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
Well there have been times in the past where taking up 4 slots can hinder overclocking somewhat. That is part of the reasoning behind it. Im not sure if thats still true so.....
Anyways, the other reason 4gb sucks is, it really isnt going to be utilized. Theres only a few programs id say, where you could possibly use it.
On top of that, if you use a 32bit OS, you cannot use more than 3gb ANYWAYS, even if you have 4gb installed. So you pay for 4gb, and youll only be able to use 3gb..... Seems kind of dumb to me. 2gb over 3gb is a fairly negligible difference if you ask me. Maybe a game loads .05 milliseconds faster.
Hmph. I think i'll try out 2x 1GB and 2x 512MB, then. If i just want to the run the RAM at it's rated frequency (DDR2-800, that is) i shouldn't have any problems, should i?
Teknokid, you already have a really high-end rig; do you really need to build a whole new one so soon?
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
What motherboard is this on?
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
Enlefo, do you think you could post a photograph of your motherboard with those NB and SB coolers, i'm interested to see how they fit.
Stick with DDR2, DDR3 is too far out still (in computer ages) for you to worry about it. Also, DDR3 is really just better on power consumption, for the price of $1,100 on a 2GB kit (estimated prices) its still a little out there too.