Ballistix 8500 or 6400 for my new PC?

Craig321

Craig321

Craig321

Soldato
Joined
2 May 2004
Posts
19,950
Hi,

Basically I ordered some Crucial Ballistix RAM to go with my new PC (8800GTX, E6600, P35-DS4). Today I received all the other parts, so I'm just with out RAM right now.

They expected stock for the RAM is the 17th of July, it cost £86 which is a bargain for that 8500 RAM.

Basically I really really really want to build my PC ASAP, but with the RAM on order I'll need to wait until at least the 20th, if not longer. Their stock is not guaranteed on the 17th... it has already been delayed once.

I have been told that higher memory speed on conroes means more speed, so I'd benefit from 8500 more than 6400, right?

Initially I don't plan to overclock, but I would like to have the option of a nice, easy overclock if I did go for it.

So my options are to either wait painfully with all my components but memory for the 8500 RAM to arrive, spend an extra £40 and get the RAM from another retailer, or go for the 6400 RAM for the same price as I paid for the 8500 RAM. Which would be more worth it?

Thanks,
Craig.
 
Last edited:
Memory prices are only actually a bargain if they can supply the memory to you.
There are plenty of deals to be had out there and the places selling Ballistix at a slightly higher price will get stuff to you a lot quicker.

Nobody needs 8500 RAM at the moment unless you are going for some extreme overclocking and then we're really talking extreme.
With DDR2 and Intel systems you really don't need to run the memory at anything other than sync with the FSB.
So an unclocked 1333MHz FSB Core2Duo system only needs DDR2-667 memory - so both the 6400 & 8500 is above required specification for the processors yet to be released.

Minimal/sensible overclocking would certainly make DDR2-800 a sensible choice.
 
stoofa said:
Memory prices are only actually a bargain if they can supply the memory to you.
There are plenty of deals to be had out there and the places selling Ballistix at a slightly higher price will get stuff to you a lot quicker.

Nobody needs 8500 RAM at the moment unless you are going for some extreme overclocking and then we're really talking extreme.
With DDR2 and Intel systems you really don't need to run the memory at anything other than sync with the FSB.
So an unclocked 1333MHz FSB Core2Duo system only needs DDR2-667 memory - so both the 6400 & 8500 is above required specification for the processors yet to be released.

Minimal/sensible overclocking would certainly make DDR2-800 a sensible choice.
Click to expand...

could you not run 1:1 with a 1066fsb processor with pc8500 ram?
 
Thanks guys, still wondering a bit though.

Most new motherboards have the option to set your RAM to proper 8500 speeds, so surely my PC would be faster with 1066mhz RAM rather than 800Mhz RAM?

Craig.
 
Basically what I'm trying to ask is this:

Lets forget about overclocking for a minute. Would there be a speed difference between 6400 and 8500, bearing in mind that I can most likely set 1066mhz speeds on my motherboard.

Thanks,
Craig.
 
Not that you'd notice no i have just gone from
geil value 6400@800mhz 5-5-5-18 to ballistix 6400@800mhz 4-4-4-12
cannot see any noticeable difference but then i got this ram to overclock further.
 
Reality Bites said:
could you not run 1:1 with a 1066fsb processor with pc8500 ram?
Click to expand...

Indeed you can - it would run below specification.
In a none overclocked environment with a 1066fsb Intel processor your RAM is basically running at 533MHz.
So you could be running:

DDR2-533
DDR2-667
DDR2-800
DDR2-1066

All four types would run at the same overall speed and you wouldn't notice any difference at all.
Now you could increase the memory ratio's however as I mentioned in another thread you really don't gain anything from doing this except your benchmarks look impressive.
It's like driving your car full speed down a 2 lane motorway and then doing the same down a 4 lane motorway.
 
stoofa said:
Indeed you can - it would run below specification.
In a none overclocked environment with a 1066fsb Intel processor your RAM is basically running at 533MHz.
So you could be running:

DDR2-533
DDR2-667
DDR2-800
DDR2-1066

All four types would run at the same overall speed and you wouldn't notice any difference at all.
Now you could increase the memory ratio's however as I mentioned in another thread you really don't gain anything from doing this except your benchmarks look impressive.
It's like driving your car full speed down a 2 lane motorway and then doing the same down a 4 lane motorway.
Click to expand...



How do the ratios work? Im curious about this stuff to.

Currently i was going to buy 1066Mhz, could i set the rations so that all of the 1066 is being used or almost all of it?

I plan on clocking my q6600 to 3Ghz, although its going to be GO so i might put it up to 3.2 hopfuly!

Im confused as to how all this ram works. And if you dont need 1066, why do people overclock it to 1200?
 
This is my understanding as:

If you want to get your Q6600 to 3.2 say then that would mean

9 (q6600 mutiplier) x 355 = 3200

So, you will need memmory that does or overclocks to 355 x 2 (710mhz) which is an overclocked 5300 or below clock for a 6400 (800mhz)

I also understand that the processors are only upward locked so, if you had 6400 memory (800mz which equates to 400fsb) you could run your processor at:

8 x 400 which would still give you 3.2ghz but as the fsb is faster, the whole system should be quicker.
 
Im not too up on the ratios either.

why would he have to underclock 6400 memory with his Q6600 at 3.2ghz?

Im running my Q6600 at 2.7ghz ... 9 x 300

6400 memory is at 900mhz (450)
 
Last edited:
Because running your memory at anything other than in sync doesn't really improve performance on your Intel system.
Sure if you play benchmarks then go for it, otherwise you really aren't going to see any difference.
So, you're running your processor at 9 x 300
Wanting memory that runs at 600

So any memory:

DDR2-667
DDR2-800
DDR2-1066

All 3 would be running quite within specification with as you can see DDR2-1066 being overkill.
Now if you start playing with memory ratio's then you will benefit from the higher speed/bandwidth memory.
But you really don't need to as that extra bandwidth doesn't really help performance.
 
Cob said:
The PC8500 seems to be the better of the two. Some of it is reaching 1200mhz 5-5-5-15.
Click to expand...

My pc5300 does that at 5-4-4-12 :D

I've had it at 1400mhz @ 5-5-6-15 2.3v....

But i just dont see the point in unlinking the ram, i run it at 900mhz (1:1) daily at 4-3-3-10 2.1v
 
I was going to start a new thread but this seems like a good thread to ask for advice.

I'm currently planning an upgrade and hope to have 4GB RAM in my new system. I don't plan to overclock this new PC so with a Core 2 Duo E6600 would I be better going for:

1. Crucial 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 PC2-4200C4 Dual Channel Kit (CT2KIT25664AA53E)

or

2. 2 X Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 PC2-5300C3 667MHz Dual Channel Kit

By the way OcUK has this Crucial RAM at cracking prices compared with the manufacturer's own store.
 
Go with the 6400 will be a better resell value imo
alit of people no matter you tell them or see wont believe the 5300 is exactly the same as the 6400.Id rather have 6400 and sell for £50 in 6 months
than have 5300 and sell for £15-£20.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom