• 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.

Skipping DDR2

J

Jakalwarrior

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
3,189
Anyone else waited so late in the game they have finally just decided to skip DDR2 and see what DDR3 brings to the table?
 
Absolutely. Just upped my 939, nice increase, so I'm gonna wait and see what AM3 will bring to the table.
 
Not here, as cheap as DDR2 is, I'm going to AM2 and then drop a Kuma in it later.
 
Wait and see. If DDR3 is good value in Q3, then I'll bite. if not, DDR2 it is. Right now DDR3 is prohibitively expensive. Fast DDR2 looks great at the moment
 
I'm going to add to my DDR2 & hopefully drop in a quad core cpu later on.
 
I definitely plan on skipping right past DDR2. If I upgraded from my s939 right now, I would have to upgrade CPU, motherboard, and RAM. If I'm gonna have to upgrade everything anyway, why make such a small jump?
 
i'm blowing right by it for sure, i got my opteron 165 rig with DDR500 ram a little over a year ago. not anywhere near worth it up upgrade to DDR2.

now if i was still using my old athlon xp 1600+ system...that would be a different story:D
 
You guys will blow pass it and back to it when you will realize that you will be paying more money for less real world performance.
 
spectrumbx said:
You guys will blow pass it and back to it when you will realize that you will be paying more money for less real world performance.
Click to expand...

ever cosider that some people don't upgrade every 6 months? probably not. i use the same system for 3 years minimum.
 
I have DDR2 in my laptop D:

but I have no intentions any time soon to get DDR2 in a desktop, I just upgraded my 3000+ to a 3800x2 and its nice. I just don't use my computer as much anymore, so I'm in no hurry. But that doesn't mean i'm going to 'wait' for ddr3, if a situation comes up where I upgrade for whatever reason, then so be it.
 
Im skippin fo sho. the only upgrade im doing this year is to a nice dx10 gpu that I will carry over to my AM3 upgrade next year.
 
Yep, I decided to wait for DDR3 as well. Hopefully it has some nice timings DDR-style! Good luck to all who are waiting it out.
 
I've had this rig for a little over a year, at the end of the year I think I'll switch out the Motherboard, CPU and RAM for a DDR2 Bearlake and a 45nm Quad. I keep the same system for at least two years anyways so the memory in my system doesn't really matter.

I think a jump from single to quad will be nice...
 
That would all depend on what price and performance DDR3 brings to the table. For the time being, my current system is doing just fine for my needs.
 
InorganicMatter: Yeah I know it won't have tight timings like DDR, but one can always dream, and dream on I shall! Hopefully it will have similar (or not much higher) timings than DDR2, but then again it probably won't happen. :rolleyes:
 
DDR2's matured nicely (and starting to get cheap!). DDR3 is almost certainly going to go through the same phase DDR2 did - big marketing numbers, big price tags, and not clocked fast enough to keep up.

InorganicMatter said:
Dream on. Bandwidth and latency are directly proportional (and painfully so).
Click to expand...

Damn you physics, damn you! :rolleyes:
 
I'm guessing it won't be until Q2/Q3 2008 before DDR3 prices start to drop to something similiar to what DDR2 is now (maybe even longer). Unless money isn't a problem, it's really pointless to skip DDR2 for how expensive DDR3 is - not to mention the minor performance boost and limited availability for a while to come.
 
THRESHIN said:
ever cosider that some people don't upgrade every 6 months? probably not. i use the same system for 3 years minimum.
Click to expand...

exactly. I can't believe some people switch as often as they do. I would find it more annoying than anything else. I have an x2 3800 I've had since they launched, and I might move up to an fx60/opteron 185 before I'm done with this box. Not playing games really increases system longevity...that, and most people aren't really utilizing the systems they are buying anyway.
 
EternityZX9 said:
I'm guessing it won't be until Q2/Q3 2008 before DDR3 prices start to drop to something similiar to what DDR2 is now (maybe even longer). Unless money isn't a problem, it's really pointless to skip DDR2 for how expensive DDR3 is - not to mention the minor performance boost and limited availability for a while to come.
Click to expand...

On that same note I'm over 7k bandwidth with DDR1. When I adjust settings to go from 5k to 7k the difference is so tiny you can only tell its not within the normal standard deviation range on 3dmark01 or superpi.
 
yeah..... but one thing we are forgetting is VISTA....


that monster needs 4 gigs to be uber.... how much will 4 Gigs of DDR3 be compared to DDR2
 
POPEGOLD said:
yeah..... but one thing we are forgetting is VISTA....


that monster needs 4 gigs to be uber.... how much will 4 Gigs of DDR3 be compared to DDR2
Click to expand...

No it does not. :confused: 1GB is plenty enough to run Vista....kind of like 512MB was the minimum for a good XP system.

As for speed, it really doesn't matter much for stuff like an OS. Capacity is always better than speed with memory.
 
ALL4AMD said:
same here i have been using my socket A setup since jan 04 :eek:
Click to expand...

Yep, same here. nForce 2 + DDR 400 + Barton FTW!

InorganicMatter said:
No it does not. :confused: 1GB is plenty enough to run Vista....kind of like 512MB was the minimum for a good XP system.

As for speed, it really doesn't matter much for stuff like an OS. Capacity is always better than speed with memory.
Click to expand...

1.5-2GB is what I'd suggest, but you can get by with 1GB, I suppose.
 
1GB is definatly plenty to run Vista... Now if you want to be able to run Vista AND have more than IE and MS Word open without issues, you'll probably want more than 1GB.
 
Angelus897 said:
Yep, same here. nForce 2 + DDR 400 + Barton FTW!
Click to expand...

I was running that a little under a year ago, and I loved it back then. Asus A7N8X and a 3200+ Barton (2.2GHz if I remember correctly). I'm still using the DDR from that same system with no problems.

RamonGTP said:
1GB is definatly plenty to run Vista... Now if you want to be able to run Vista AND have more than IE and MS Word open without issues, you'll probably want more than 1GB.
Click to expand...

Using IE is your first problem (yes, I realize it probably does use less resources than Firefox. I just never pass up a chance to hate on IE :D )
 
The way things are going, I'm going to be skipping over s939, sAM2, probably sAM2+, DDR2, and duel core :eek:

Think I'll se a jump going from a s754 Athlon 64 (90nm Venice core) @ 2.7GHz with single-channel DDR1 to a sAM3 Quad-Core @ 3.0GHz with duel-channel DDR3? :D
 
InorganicMatter said:
No it does not. :confused: 1GB is plenty enough to run Vista....kind of like 512MB was the minimum for a good XP system.

As for speed, it really doesn't matter much for stuff like an OS. Capacity is always better than speed with memory.
Click to expand...


ok ... play bf 2142 in Vista and see if your computer can load and unload it in less than an hour.

So know 1 gig is not even close to enough in vista...well to run it to where you dont have to sit and watch your HDD cache all day.... maybe you like the pretty HDD light flickering
 
POPEGOLD said:
ok ... play bf 2142 in Vista and see if your computer can load and unload it in less than an hour
Click to expand...

The overbloated resource pig known as the "Battlefield" series does not constitute a reliable benchmark, especially in Vista. ;) That stupid game was the only thing around that required 2GB for smooth gameplay when 512MB was enough for the rest of planet earth, and the game isn't even that technically impressive! It's just horrific optimization on the developer's parts - if ID Software or Epic had made that game, not only would the gameplay have been a lot funner, but it would have run twice as fast on half the resources. :p
 
i concur... BF2142 is a resource pig...

that said... I rather have more than enough RAM....

Enthusiasts-PCs always have MORE than enough ram...
 
POPEGOLD said:
ok ... play bf 2142 in Vista and see if your computer can load and unload it in less than an hour.

So know 1 gig is not even close to enough in vista...well to run it to where you dont have to sit and watch your HDD cache all day.... maybe you like the pretty HDD light flickering
Click to expand...

lol, runnign 2142 on xp with less than 1.5gb tkaes forever to unload the game, and to even get decent fps. I tried it on VIsta with my 2gb, and it still took a min or two to unload... Anything below 2gigs of ram on vista is not enough for a gamer. Vista alone takes up 700of vm just idling, to have a smooth gaming experience, prepare to have 2.
 
I played the BF2142 demo for a while on the rig in my sig (1GB DDR400) on XP. Load times were terrible, but performance in-game wasn't half-bad. Then again, I do always kill all or most of the apps in my system tray before I play any game, and I've tweaked XP quite a bit in services.msc. Makes a big difference.
 
A Shiny Demon said:
I played the BF2142 demo for a while on the rig in my sig (1GB DDR400) on XP. Load times were terrible, but performance in-game wasn't half-bad. Then again, I do always kill all or most of the apps in my system tray before I play any game, and I've tweaked XP quite a bit in services.msc. Makes a big difference.
Click to expand...


right now i play @ stock speeds since its soo hot in my room..... 1.7Ghz X 266 :eek: on my jiuhb tbred chip.

www.all4amd.com
 
THRESHIN said:
ever cosider that some people don't upgrade every 6 months? probably not. i use the same system for 3 years minimum.
Click to expand...

I also upgrade each of my systems every few years, but because I have several systems I am always building every year.

However, this thread is pointless if it is not to discuss of near-term upgrades.
 
I just made the jump to DDR 2 a week and a half ago and am happy with it.

I don't need the best that is out, and I really feel based on the games I am intending to play and the apps I intend to run. I got the computer I will be using for the next year and a half.
 
I'll probably upgrade when the quad cores come out from AMD. I was tempted with all the intel Core 2 hype, but I use my machine for gaming, primarily, so the extra cores weren't going to do much for me, and I'd have to replace MB, RAM, and CPU for an incremental change. Meh. Upping to a quad core will be a much more substantial change (and since I am starting to do software development on my home machine, it'll be of use even though there aren't many multithreaded games).

As for Vista memory requirements... pretty much just add 512MB to whatever you thought was ok in XP. My minimum recommendation for XP was always 512MB - and that's for people who use it for browsing, email, and office apps only. In Vista, for the same sort of performance, you need 1 gig. My machine at work (running vista business) starts up with nothing running and uses about 800 megs.

So, I would say that adding a gig to an XP gaming machine that runs fine now would probably continue to keep it running fine when upgraded to Vista. 512 might do it, but really, why bother getting such small sticks?

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top