Faster memory ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Natéag
  • Start date Start date
N

Natéag

Are there real advantages to upgrading from 800MHZ memory
to 1066 ? I use my computer for common tasks such as
txt edit (Wordpad or above); CD-DVD burning, email,
Internet Explorer.

I just changed my graphics card from a 8600 to a 9880 Nvidia board,
and the computer has become much more faster.

Thanks for any advice.
 
Natéag said:
Are there real advantages to upgrading from 800MHZ memory
to 1066 ? I use my computer for common tasks such as
txt edit (Wordpad or above); CD-DVD burning, email,
Internet Explorer.

I just changed my graphics card from a 8600 to a 9880 Nvidia board,
and the computer has become much more faster.

Thanks for any advice.
Click to expand...

If there is any improvement it is either small or nonexistent. Even though
they keep increasing the clock speed, the latency also goes up. Ten steps
forward, nine steps back, sometimes ten steps back if latency is high
enough.

Most of the performance you see is CPU and cache.

For more advanced 3D games the performance bottleneck is the video card, not
the CPU or memory.

You want insane 3D game performance, get 2x Geforce 295s running in SLI
mode, that's about like 6-10 times a 9800 in throughput, it might actuyally
be higher. I don't know the exact amount and I'm guessing somewhat. But
it's total sick. 1600x1200 resolution, 32-bit color, all graphics
enhancements on, still tops 60fps.
 
Tae Song said:
If there is any improvement it is either small or nonexistent. Even
though they keep increasing the clock speed, the latency also goes up.
Ten steps forward, nine steps back, sometimes ten steps back if latency is
high enough.

Most of the performance you see is CPU and cache.

For more advanced 3D games the performance bottleneck is the video card,
not the CPU or memory.

You want insane 3D game performance, get 2x Geforce 295s running in SLI
mode, that's about like 6-10 times a 9800 in throughput, it might
actuyally be higher. I don't know the exact amount and I'm guessing
somewhat. But it's total sick. 1600x1200 resolution, 32-bit color, all
graphics enhancements on, still tops 60fps.
Click to expand...


That settles it. I will keep my present memory.
I may some day change my CPU though.
By the way, I meant 9800, not 9880.
Thanks.
 
Geez wouldn't 1920x1200 or better yet 2560x1600 on a 100 dollar sapphire
toxic 4850 be even faster? and it is a single card requiring a whole lot
less power
 
Sorry to burst your bubble: for the tasks you name the speed of your video
card is utterly and totally irrelevant.
Unless you play 3d video games any video card that can deal with the aero
interface, and your 8600 was far more than capable of doing so with speed to
spare, will perform identically for the tasks you mention which have nothing
to do with the graphics card.
Objective testing to date shows little speed improvement in those state of
the art machines with DDR3 running even at overclocked speeds compared to
maximally clocked DDR2 because existing memory bandwidth far exceeds any
limits most users will encounter, particularly compared to things like hard
drives. AMD has published data on this and they are selling DDR3 compatible
CPUs of identical performance (the same chip!) as DDR2 chips.
If you already have almost any quad core CPU, 4 gbs of RAM and a 64 bit OS
and want to speed up your computer for everyday tasks (excluding 3d gaming)
it is time to pony up for a solid state hard drive.
I would if I could.
In fact, I would get two.
 
lets see here...hmmm got the quad core, got the 4 gigs,,, and the 64bit so
yes sir I've got to get some of those solid states myself. and if I was made
of money I would be getting 10.. the reason being...Hell why not?
 
Back
Top