spec check on ram b4 i buy

[teppic]

Its obvious you been looking at wrong benches then, especially ones that show dual sided dimms beating single sided.

Even the number 1 overclocker in the UK would say get the faster RAM to get better efficency, and don't try and tell me you know better than him.

I've shown lots of benchmarks that fully back up exactly what I'm saying, you've shown none.

You don't know anything about me; you've already said you think you know more than me simply because of your post count. 8pack goes for the highest possible overclocks, which isn't the same thing.

 

[stulid]

You don't know anything about me; you've already said you think you know more than me simply because of your post count. 8pack goes for the highest possible overclocks, which isn't the same thing.

No he doesn't, otherwise his systems would have higher clocked CPU's

Yes you are, especially when you consider the memory speed too

Don't get me wrong, we could go higher on the clock speed and sacrifice memory performance but that's not the way that 8Pack works. The whole idea behind 8Pack, the reason that he breaks all the records that he does, is that he finds the most efficient configuration possible.

Overall, his 4.9-5.0GHz with 2933MHz tuned memory configuration would beat any 5.4GHz, 1866MHz set up that I could get stable.

Exactly what Scotti has said. 8Pack could easily offer These Systems with Speeds beyond 5GHz but by sacrificing overall Performance as memory would run slackened Timings.

8Pack is Mr Efficiency!

Heres some Ivybridge RAM testing showing how faster RAM can affect fps in farcry2 and crysis warhead - http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_4.html#sect0

Some nice gains in crysis warhead.

All you have shown in this thread is how HynixMFR gets beaten by dual sided dimms.

 

[teppic]

That shows an unusually high difference in Far Cry 2 (still nothing you could see outside of benchmarks), which is suspect, but older games at lower resolutions are most likely to show any difference. The benchmarks on tomshardware, anandtech, techspot, techpowerup, hexus, and all the others show no real difference consistently. As you can see in the benchmarks above, 1600MHz RAM technically outperformed 2400MHz RAM in Just Cause 2 and Batman Arkham City benchmarks.

People spending thousands on a machine will likely want to see 2666MHz+ in their RAM speed than 1600MHz. The fact that it doesn't make any noticeable difference at all in almost all cases isn't the point for lots of people.

 

[stulid]

So because you dont agree with it, it is suspect. Right.

Faster RAM = better fps and with game engines getting more and more demanding this will only get more noticeable.

 

[teppic]

So because you dont agree with it, it is suspect. Right.

Faster RAM = better fps and with game engines getting more and more demanding this will only get more noticeable.

No. It's suspect because it goes against what all the other sites are saying, not what I'm saying. Far Cry 2 and Shogun 2 are the only games I've ever seen that give any real difference. There's a very good reason it's hard to find memory benchmarks.

There's no evidence to suggest that newer games will need faster RAM. And I've provided examples that show existing ones can technically fall in performance with higher clocked RAM due to looser latencies.

Yet another example of a recent game:

http://www.vortez.net/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=16242

 

[stulid]

You haven't shown me anything apart from single sided Hynix MFR getting beaten by dual sided dims.