Phen. II DDR2 vs DDR3 Direct Comparison

even with the overclocking the difference between ddr2 and ddr3 is minimal.. but thats also caused by the fact that the chip is running 2 IMC's.. and it was probably easier for them just to use similar IMC's one supporting ddr3 and one supporting ddr2.. once you start seeing DDR3 only phenom II's then i think there would be a huge difference in performance.. but from the looks of it that wont be happening any time soon since they want to keep support the am2+ socket..
 
I still prefer DDR2 with AMD even for people who can afford the ddr3. The prices on DDR2 are so good, for the few % more bandwidth increase you get, I dont find it to be worth either the price increase or the increased latency over ddr2-1066.

You can find nice 2x2gb cas5 gskill ddr2-1066 kits for 50-65USD. IMO you need to go with at least ddr3-1600 @cas8 or better to be worth using over ddr2-1066@c5, which ranges from slightly under to over double the price of ddr2.
 
AM3+ will most likely drop DDR2 memory, which means AM2+ boards will be unless and cost different is $20 bucks.
 
I think they'll still support ddr2 until they completely change sockets. If it fits it'll work most likely with the sockets out now.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget you can't run 4x sticks of DDR3-1600 unless you downclock them to DDR3-1300.

I went with DDR3 since at the time there was hardly any DDR2 mATX 785G boards.
 
Generally, DDR2-1066 will need to be downclocked a bit to run quad stick as well.

Ram & box in sig, I can either run my memory at 960-1000mhz 5-5-5-15, or 800mhz 4-4-4-12. I normally just use 800mhz@c4 since I like tight timings. Tight timings are better anytime your not saturating your entire memory bus, and 99% of the programs Im running dont need that kind of bwidth.
 
Is AM3+ even coming out? I want to build a ddr2 budget rig but not sure if I should wait. Is anything coming out soon?
 
AM3+ isn't going to be out for another year at the earliest.

What I am saying that price different isn't that great, $20-$30 more gives much longer upgrade path than getting AM2+ board at this time.

In year DDR2 will cost the same or more than DDR3.
 
I don't believe AMD will drop DDR2 support until they move to the "Bulldozer" architecture. One of the big reasons to go with AMD is the fact AM2+ users can keep their current board and memory. I think they learned their lesson the hard way after the S939/AM2 switch.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
even with the overclocking the difference between ddr2 and ddr3 is minimal.. but thats also caused by the fact that the chip is running 2 IMC's.. and it was probably easier for them just to use similar IMC's one supporting ddr3 and one supporting ddr2.. once you start seeing DDR3 only phenom II's then i think there would be a huge difference in performance.. but from the looks of it that wont be happening any time soon since they want to keep support the am2+ socket..
Click to expand...

There is only one IMC built into the die. That one controller supports the two standards. The fact that Phenom II supports DDR2 isn't whats holding DDR3 performance back, it's the fact that no programs need the extra bandwith right now. Even Intel CPUs didn't show a real gain going from DDR2 to DDR3.
 
SicKlown42012 said:
There is only one IMC built into the die. That one controller supports the two standards. The fact that Phenom II supports DDR2 isn't whats holding DDR3 performance back, it's the fact that no programs need the extra bandwith right now. Even Intel CPUs didn't show a real gain going from DDR2 to DDR3.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't necessarily conclude no programs need the bandwidth from that.
25% increase in theoretical bandwidth for a ~20% increase in access time shouldn't result in a large performance jump.
 
FreiDOg said:
It wouldn't necessarily conclude no programs need the bandwidth from that.
25% increase in theoretical bandwidth for a ~20% increase in access time shouldn't result in a large performance jump.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that. While my interpretation may have been wrong, the point I was making still stands. Supporting DDR2 does not have a detrimental effect on DDR3 performance. If AMD really wanted to increase memory performance, they would up the IMC speeds up to 2.4-2.6GHz. But then their yield rates would decrease, and they can't afford that.
 
SicKlown42012 said:
I'll give you that. While my interpretation may have been wrong, the point I was making still stands. Supporting DDR2 does not have a detrimental effect on DDR3 performance. If AMD really wanted to increase memory performance, they would up the IMC speeds up to 2.4-2.6GHz. But then their yield rates would decrease, and they can't afford that.
Click to expand...

Of couse, I agree with the large point that there's no reason think support for DDR2 is hindering DDR3 performance.
It's probably not until DDR3 1600 that you would see some across the board benefits to DDR3. At that point 8-8-8 timings are going to have about the same latency as DDR2 1006 5-5-5 and have a sizable increase in bandwidth. Much like DDR2 400/533 were not a compelling reason to forgo DDR.
 
I went with DDR3 with my new build. I'm just expecting it to get better, I guess.
 
bbdud3 said:
I went with DDR3 with my new build. I'm just expecting it to get better, I guess.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you're building a rig from scratch, DDR3 in the only way to go. Now that prices have dropped, there's no good reason not to. I'm only using DDR2 because at the time I built this computer, the top Phenom II was the 940BE which was a AM2+ only cpu. But, it's more than enough to hold me over till either the 6 core Phenom comes out(if it can reliably hit 3.6GHz +) or when Bulldozer shows up.
 
lt_shiro said:
AM3+ isn't going to be out for another year at the earliest.

What I am saying that price different isn't that great, $20-$30 more gives much longer upgrade path than getting AM2+ board at this time.

In year DDR2 will cost the same or more than DDR3.
Click to expand...

a) DDR3 is only 20-30 bucks more per 4gb pack if you are getting slower cheaper ddr3 like 1333. IMO, to even be worth using over 50 dollar cas5 1066, you need to go with something faster like ddr3-1600. And at those speeds, the ddr3 is close to or more than double the cost of the same amt of ddr2-1066, especially when your looking at ddr3 with decent timings and good speed.

If your gonna use trashy cas9 ddr3-1333, speed wise, your probably straight up better using some ddr2-1066 with nice tight timings, in everything but a few useless synthetic mem benchmarks!

SicKlown42012 said:
Honestly, if you're building a rig from scratch, DDR3 in the only way to go. Now that prices have dropped, there's no good reason not to. I'm only using DDR2 because at the time I built this computer, the top Phenom II was the 940BE which was a AM2+ only cpu. But, it's more than enough to hold me over till either the 6 core Phenom comes out(if it can reliably hit 3.6GHz +) or when Bulldozer shows up.
Click to expand...

I still disagree a bit. Now if you plan on keeping the Memory and Motherboard for a long time, and just dropping new CPUs in down the road, then yes DDR3 and am AM3 mobo is worth the extra cost. But considering how much power an overclocked Phenom II X4 has under the hood (mine @3.6ghz runs everything I throw at it with ease, nothing I do and no amt of multitasking, including windows 7 stuff, even comes close to bogging my system down). Even multitasking on monitor 2 while gaming on the primary is easily done on my ddr2 build. Gaming comes the closest to bottlenecking a system, and Graphics cards are by far the biggest gaming bottleneck. Ddr2 vs 3 has little to no impact on fps on games running at playable settings, ie 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 with settings and features as high as you can get away with. This is what most enthusiasts are using for display size/resolution, 22-28" widescreen TN are very affordable nowadays.
Now sure the extra cpu and memory power helps running games with all settings low at 640x480 for synthetic benchmarking, but those numbers are completely useless for anything but bragging or testing hardwares theoretical power!
Anyway my point is, that by the time you need to upgrade a CPU like an AM2+/AM3 Phenom II X4 line that we are discussing here, there is going to be faster/cheaper/higher capacity DDR3 around, as well as new motherboards and chipsets with new features.

This is the reasoning I use to continue suggesting ddr2 and cheaper AM2+ mobo's. As long as you are using something with an AMD 770FX/GX or better, and nice low timing fast ddr2, by the time you need to upgrade to keep up with gaming, you will be ready for a new motherboard and memory too, and will likely have already replaced the GPU at least once.

Sorry its really late and I had trouble articulating my point heh. I still believe it is a valid one! Of course there is no harm in going with ddr3 now. But for people on a budget like me its basically a no brainer, take advantage of fast low timing high capacity ddr2 right now. WIth my budget, I could have either gone with 4gb of DDR3-1333, or 8gb of DDR2-1066. It wasnt much of a choice for me as I love killing my page file and having oodles of ram available to run 20 programs and a game all at the same time. I mean why have a powerful fast quad core made for multitasking without lots of ram needed by all those programs!
And for people with money to throw around, theres still reason to go with the cheaper ddr2. If you are loaded, chances are when you upgrade your core system next, your going to go with the fastest ram and motherboard available at the time anyway. So why not save some bucks now and go with the cheaper fast ddr2, as your gonna be replacing it in a few months/year anyway. By the time ddr2 starts to be a hindrance to your computing, there is either going to be faster memory available anyway, or prices are going to be lower on the fastest ddr3 avail today.

Either situation is a win for ddr2. All IMO of course. Im in the process of building my well to do boss a new rig, and even though he could afford 8gb of ddr3-1600, I decided to save him a few bucks so he feels better about dropping a ton of money on a component clearly worth the extra cash, a 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC. While the difference between ddr2 and ddr3 is quite tiny, and will have little to no impact on gaming (and pretty much no impact on anything else you do with your pc like watching movies and browsing), putting the money you saved there and by going with a slightly older/cheaper quality DDR2 motherboard towards a gigantic display will yield much more enjoyment from your box.

Just some food for thought. :) Thats the rationale I use for recommending AMD Phenom II builds over more expensive but slightly faster i5/i7 builds too. Put the money you save there towards a bombastic display, speaker system, or graphics card. Somewhere the extra money spent will have a meaningful impact on your gaming/computing experience!
 
Last edited:
You are out of touch with market prices, DDR2 1066 4 GB kits cost about $60 these days and DDR3 1600 4 GB kit is about $80-$90.

Newegg list of DDR3 1600 4 GB Kits

Newegg list of DDR2 1066 4 GB Kits.

Not all of us like overclocking with multi, HT is more useful as you can keep Cool 'n' Quiet enable and DDR3 memory gives little more head room than DDR2.

AM2+/AM3 boards general cost the same, so I don't where you are getting that AM3 boards cost more than AM2+ ones.
 
To Malakai. You're forgetting that people who tend to buy AMD are people with a set budget. They're also people who only want to upgrade one component at a time. If they go AM2+/DDR2 now, when it comes for their next upgrade, they're now going to have to replace CPU, motherboard, and RAM. I'm not trying to play down DDR2 at all. If you have a decent AM2+ mobo and decent DDR2 RAM, then I agree there is no sense in replacing them with AM3. But if they are coming from an older socket, limiting their upgrade path with an AM2+ mobo is kinda short sighted. As the poster above me pointed out, the prices have become pretty close, and the gap will only shrink as the days/weeks pass.

To It_shiro: Overclocking with the multi is a better option if you want to keep C'nQ. I should know. it's exactly what I do. The default C'nQ uses your HT x 4 to get you idle speed. IF you raise the HT, then your C'nQ speed will be raised(ex. 200X4=800: 250X4=1000). A tool that I found useful is K10Stat. It allows you complete control over the 4 power-states. That way, even if you still want to oc by means of HT, you can lower the multiplier it uses to keep speed down. I now idle at 1GHz at 0.95V. You can even adjust the NBvid to help lower temps.
 
Last edited:
SicKlown42012 said:
To Malakai. You're forgetting that people who tend to buy AMD are people with a set budget.
Click to expand...

That's a huge generalization. I don't splurge out every few months on a system upgrade, and I tend to upgrade the entire kit n' kaboodle CPU/MB/RAM at the same time.
 
When AM3+ CPUs start coming out a year down the road, those who just purchased an AM2+/AM3 board will be kicking themselves in the teeth. If you're going to get a new system, just go with DDR3. That's what I'm going to do.
 
Wow didn't realize ram jumped up that much in price. I went DDR3 because G.skill 1600 was 65$ for 4gb and seemed like a good match with the MSI 770-c45.
 
Ranari said:
When AM3+ CPUs start coming out a year down the road, those who just purchased an AM2+/AM3 board will be kicking themselves in the teeth. If you're going to get a new system, just go with DDR3. That's what I'm going to do.
Click to expand...
If AMD surprises us the way they did with ACC, the 800 series chipset coming out in the first half of 2010 may cause people with good AM3 boards to upgrade anyway. I doubt it will be a cost effective upgrade, but there may be new and unleaked so far features that bleeding edge consumers care about. Enthusiasts did upgrade from 790FX/SB600 boards to 790FX/SB750 boards after all.
 
Here is the way I went on my latest upgrade from Newegg:
ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO AM3 AMD 785G HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard -Item #: N82E16813131398 $99.99

1 Sunbeam PSU-ECO750-US-BL 750W ATX12V 2.3 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Power Supply
Item #: N82E16817709021 $74.99

1 AMD Phenom II X4 945 Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core Processor Model HDX945WFGIBOX - Retail
Item #: N82E16819103696 $169.99

1 Crucial Ballistix 3GB (3 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Desktop Memory Model BL3KIT12864BN1337 - Retail
Item #: N82E16820148263 $62.99

I went with DDR3 simply because the mobo supported it. I thought the price wasn't too bad. Since its just a work system I have no plans to overclock at the present time. Perhaps I will try a bit later on.
 
Why did you get 3 sticks for a P2 box? You know a phenom 2 can only run dual channel, so if you run 3 sticks, 2 of them are paired for dual channel, and 1 of them is just running single channel.

And getting 1gb sticks is kind of silly, as that gives you a max of 4gb. 2x2gb or 4x2gb is the way to go for dual channel configurations!

If you are running 3 sticks of mem now, you are actually hurting your overall performance quite a bit. Remove one until you can get a fourth 1gb stick to make 2 dual channels.
And I would not even bother trying to run vista or 7 x64 with less than 4gb comfortably. 64 bit code uses more memory.
 
Last edited:
Malakai said:
And I would not even bother trying to run vista or 7 x64 with less than 4gb comfortably. 64 bit code uses more memory.
Click to expand...

I have 4x512 = 2GB of ram in my 939 rig and Vista x64 and Win7 x64 runs perfectly fine, thank you very much.
 
Mark Larson said:
That's a huge generalization. I don't splurge out every few months on a system upgrade, and I tend to upgrade the entire kit n' kaboodle CPU/MB/RAM at the same time.
Click to expand...
Well I can see where SicKlown42012 is coming from. The General Hardware subforum is full of people that low budgets that could only fit AMD builds. And yes, many of those same people do only upgrade one or a few component at a time due to their limited funds/budget. So yes, it is a generalization but not a huge one.
 
Malakai said:
Why did you get 3 sticks for a P2 box? You know a phenom 2 can only run dual channel, so if you run 3 sticks, 2 of them are paired for dual channel, and 1 of them is just running single channel.

And getting 1gb sticks is kind of silly, as that gives you a max of 4gb. 2x2gb or 4x2gb is the way to go for dual channel configurations!

If you are running 3 sticks of mem now, you are actually hurting your overall performance quite a bit. Remove one until you can get a fourth 1gb stick to make 2 dual channels.
And I would not even bother trying to run vista or 7 x64 with less than 4gb comfortably. 64 bit code uses more memory.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips. I got 3 gb since XP only recognizes a little over 3 gb. 4 gb seemed to be a waste for now. As for performance - it seems to be running quite well for what I'm doing but I'll yank out the 1 stick and see if it provides any type of performance boost. I am unfamiliar with all the new hardware - its been a long time since I upgraded and I've lost touch a bit with the new technologies. I don't plan on going 64 bit anytime soon so the 1gb configurations seemed like the way to go for now. I can always upgrade later.
 
The test is kind of flawed in my opinion. They are using CAS 8 ddr3 1600. Ph2 needs lower latency as opposed to higher frequency. 1600 cas 6/7 or 1333 cas6/5.
 
BigMacAttack said:
Thanks for the tips. I got 3 gb since XP only recognizes a little over 3 gb. 4 gb seemed to be a waste for now. As for performance - it seems to be running quite well for what I'm doing but I'll yank out the 1 stick and see if it provides any type of performance boost. I am unfamiliar with all the new hardware - its been a long time since I upgraded and I've lost touch a bit with the new technologies. I don't plan on going 64 bit anytime soon so the 1gb configurations seemed like the way to go for now. I can always upgrade later.
Click to expand...

More is better with Vista. Might as well leave the 3rd module in.
 
NeoGohan said:
I have 4x512 = 2GB of ram in my 939 rig and Vista x64 and Win7 x64 runs perfectly fine, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Its low. Vista and 7 can use 1gb just for OS and services alone. Thats only leaving you with 1gb for everything else your running to work with. It may work sure, but you are hitting the cache on the HDD far to often for my taste.

At 4gb you will only be using the page file rarely, at 8gb you can shut it off or leave a small one which will rarely to never be used, just to be safe.

On an old s939 rig 2gb is understandable. But if you are building a modern PhenomII system, using less than 2gb sticks is insane, especially considering how cheap a 2x2gb ddr2 kit is nowadays. You can get cas5 ddr2-1066 2x2gb kits for 50-60 shipped. Thats 100-120 USD for 8gb of ram, an absolutely fantastic value.

For a modern present build, I strongly advise anyone and everyone to buy nothing smaller than 2gb sticks. 2x2gb DDR2-800 kits are even cheaper, you can probably equip a new pc with 4x2gb sticks of ddr2-800 for around 80 bucks.

Again not saying 2-3gb will not work, but it is not advisable AT ALL for a core system you are building right now with modernish hardware!
 
There's nothing wrong with DDR2 and only here or on other internet sites will it be "phased out" in the next year. The Pentium and Athlon systems are abundant, and some Wolfdale but less Core 2 Quad than we see here and less i7/i5. TF2, L4D, MMOs.

Things become "obsolete" without actually losing useful life. The Phenom 940, Radeon HD4870 (esp. 512), Antec 900 kind of, TN panels are derided. My brother has a 50" 720p TV from 2007 and if he had told me it was 1080p I would have believed him, he isn't upgrading.

What I really don't get is that the Ph. II 940 was basically benched despite crushing games but DDR3 is what people want with little actual gaming advantage for now. And the 8800 GTX deservedly got a reputation for continuing performance but the 940 got about four months in the sun. And if it's the refresh the 260 core 216 is a bit better than any 8800.

If an AM4 board came out with just a slow Sempron for now but "future use" it would still be slow.
 
Malakai said:
Its low. Vista and 7 can use 1gb just for OS and services alone. Thats only leaving you with 1gb for everything else your running to work with. It may work sure, but you are hitting the cache on the HDD far to often for my taste.

At 4gb you will only be using the page file rarely, at 8gb you can shut it off or leave a small one which will rarely to never be used, just to be safe.

On an old s939 rig 2gb is understandable. But if you are building a modern PhenomII system, using less than 2gb sticks is insane, especially considering how cheap a 2x2gb ddr2 kit is nowadays. You can get cas5 ddr2-1066 2x2gb kits for 50-60 shipped. Thats 100-120 USD for 8gb of ram, an absolutely fantastic value.

For a modern present build, I strongly advise anyone and everyone to buy nothing smaller than 2gb sticks. 2x2gb DDR2-800 kits are even cheaper, you can probably equip a new pc with 4x2gb sticks of ddr2-800 for around 80 bucks.

Again not saying 2-3gb will not work, but it is not advisable AT ALL for a core system you are building right now with modernish hardware!
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing about how much ram one should buy "now." I agree with everything you say related to that. Yes, its cheap. Yes, you should buy 4GB of ram because that is the sweet spot for pricing.

I was just saying that running 2GB of memory in Vista x64 (especially Win7 x64) works pretty well for most users. Unless you are doing lots of multi-tasking, there's no real reason to actually "need" 4GB. I usually just do web surfing, watch movies, and game with 2GB and it works out quite well with my 4850. I hardly see/feel any cache misses.
 
True. My only issue with sub4gb and a quad core x64 box is, why run a quad core CPU with only 2gb? As you said, 4gb+ is only needed if heavily multitasking. But having a quad core and not doing some heavy multitasking is kind of pointless :)

But yes I do acknowledge that vista x64 (and moreso win7) can get away with 2gb in most cases. Still, if I only had 2gb of ram, Id stick with 32 bit windows to save some on my memory footprint a bit :)
 
Mark Larson said:
Running XP on a new enthusiast system is even more insane ;)
Click to expand...

What you talkin bout willis? DX9 = higher FPS. and XP = more compatability for old school games. Thats why my PII rig with dual HD 4850's was running XP. I was on Vista for about 3 weeks before running back to XP cause I couldn't play some of the old games I had, and yes I tried compatability mode in Vista. Oh, lets not forget about all the issues that popped up after SP2 for Vista and certain games needing you to go thru a huge load of hoops with running as an administrator which required a buncha crap like downloading third party programs to work arround Microsofts BS.
 
Hard and Confused said:
What you talkin bout willis? DX9 = higher FPS. and XP = more compatability for old school games. Thats why my PII rig with dual HD 4850's was running XP. I was on Vista for about 3 weeks before running back to XP cause I couldn't play some of the old games I had, and yes I tried compatability mode in Vista. Oh, lets not forget about all the issues that popped up after SP2 for Vista and certain games needing you to go thru a huge load of hoops with running as an administrator which required a buncha crap like downloading third party programs to work arround Microsofts BS.
Click to expand...

Go with Win7 RTM. It runs much better than vista, and you get the nice hardware dx10 desktop and other cool new features!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top