DDR3, if money is no object can we justify it ?

[mnemonix]

From what I can tell, 1800 is the point at which DDR3 just about equals or outperforms the best of DDR2.

Although cost is most often used as the reason for not going to DDR3, it seems that if money is no object in pursuit of the fastest rig, we still need another speed bump to justify it in terms of raw performance ?

Future proofing might be an argument, but at this point will there be sufficiently better DDR3 motherboards and faster ram in the future to make a whole new rig necessary to stay comfortably ahead of the curve anyway? Thoughts ?

 

[Rroff]

I'm not really sure theres a need yet for DDR3... maybe when we get 8 core CPUs and start hitting 2000FSB... DDR2 is quite capable of staying 1:1 @ CL4 or worse case CL5 with most core 2 CPUs and providing all the bandwidth you need... on say an E6600 clocked to 3gig you will see little to no framerate difference in games between some PC2-5300 @ CL5 and PC2-8500 @ CL4 and no discernable difference in performance in windows.

 

[Finguz]

Currently DDR3 = overpriced and pointless imho, but soon things will change However, if you have loads of money and a need to spend it, go for it

 

[Tute]

When DDR2 can go >1000MHz, there's not really much use for DDR3. At least not until 400MHz FSBs start becoming mainstream and we see newer, more overclockable chipsets anyway.

 

[smsmasters]

When FSBs reach 1000MHz then DDR3 at 2000MHZ speeds will be useful.