Help settle an argument (RAM)

timmothy

timmothy

timmothy

Associate
Joined
27 Sep 2008
Posts
1,366
We are having an argument here and i need some help to settle it.

Is it better to have 4gb of 800mhz ddr2 RAM or better to have 2gb 1600mhz ddr3.

I mean as in loading times in games and in how it will help running games.
 
timmothy said:
We are having an argument here and i need some help to settle it.

Is it better to have 4gb of 800mhz ddr2 RAM or better to have 2gb 1600mhz ddr3.

I mean as in loading times in games and in how it will help running games.
Click to expand...

Obviously 4GB DDR2 is better, but you can get 4GB of DDR3 for £28!
 
Frequency means very little. It matters not what the frequency is nor the size of the ram modules alone. What matters is the frequency AND the latency of the sticks. Not just the one parameter or the other, so the argument you are having is pointless in that form. :)

A bit of an explanation. Size or capacity of the sticks will not alter the time it takes to load a application. That is not how the ram works. Capacity will make certain programs work better, but those kinds of applications are few and far between.

Frequency is mitgated by the latency (time the ram takes to do a cycle) of the ram itself. So you could have the case where 1333 ram will be quicker than 2000MHz ram if the lower frequency is super tight and the 2000MHz ram is like cas 9.

Hope that helps
 
What system do you have because you can use both. but it your fighting 2 pc then i would say 4gb of 800 will win in a bench test (me thinks) but i would personally have 2gb of 1600 in my system over 4gb of ddr2 any speed
 
I dont mean in price, itss just my mates are saying that one of them with 2gb of ddr3 1600mhz RAM is better than my 4gb of ddr2 RAM, but i am sayng more data can be stored on mine so is quicker as it will have to be accessed less, they are saying because theirs is double the speed it has to do half the amount of work. I feel this is wrong, help me argue or argue against me.
 
id rather the 4gig, 2gig maybe a touch faster, but the 4gigs double size makes the user experience much nicer, specialy for lazy multitaskers like myself :D
 
4gb wont offer any performance increase if your system isnt using more than 2gb so your better off with faster, tighter memory over capacity.
 
timmothy said:
I dont mean in price, itss just my mates are saying that one of them with 2gb of ddr3 1600mhz RAM is better than my 4gb of ddr2 RAM, but i am sayng more data can be stored on mine so is quicker as it will have to be accessed less, they are saying because theirs is double the speed it has to do half the amount of work. I feel this is wrong, help me argue or argue against me.
Click to expand...

Yeah what they are saying is guff. Windows 7 will be usable with 2GB of RAM but once you start loading apps (especially browsers such as Chrome which create tons of separate processes that each chew a fair amount of RAM) it becomes clear its not enough. With 2GB Windows will swap to the HDD a lot and it will be REALLY slow. I'd suggest that your mate picks up one of the amazing OCZ RAM deals OCUK have at the minute ;). I used 2GB when I first got my laptop but it was absolutely horrible for games. Now on 3GB it's so much better, but I will eventually upgrade to 4GB.
 
Last edited:
Another argument Sandybridge vs phenom2

Okay my friends are still arguing with me again. Now they are saying the top of the range amd phenom 6 core is better than the top of the range i7 sandybridge, boh at stock.

This is in general use and gaming. I feel i am right but they are adamant im wrong.
 
timmothy said:
Okay my friends are still arguing with me again. Now they are saying the top of the range amd phenom 6 core is better than the top of the range i7 sandybridge, boh at stock.

This is in general use and gaming. I feel i am right but they are adamant im wrong.
Click to expand...

You're right, above 3 cores, clock speed is what counts for gaming, so the SB cpu would be faster, OC'd the SB wins by a country mile!
 
timmothy said:
Okay my friends are still arguing with me again. Now they are saying the top of the range amd phenom 6 core is better than the top of the range i7 sandybridge, boh at stock.

This is in general use and gaming. I feel i am right but they are adamant im wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is complete and utter bull! Just for an example, PC Pro did a benchmark on the i7 2600K vs AMD 1090T...the 2600K had about a 50% increase at STOCK and overclock was just phenominal. I don't say that as an Intel fanboy because I am in fact an AMD fanboy and have the 6 core AMD 1090T.

The AMD 1090T just about performs as well as the 920, both at stock...let alone the new SB offerings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom