germs
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 123 (0.02/day)
| Processor | Q9450 @ 3.6 |
|---|---|
| Motherboard | Striker 2 extreme |
| Cooling | Loud air cooling |
| Memory | 2gb x 2 ddr3 1800 8-8-8-24 |
| Video Card(s) | 9800 gx2 |
| Storage | 3x WD caviar 640 gb |
| Display(s) | 22 inch widescreen |
| Case | tj10 |
| Audio Device(s) | razer barracuda |
| Power Supply | 850W w/ single 70 amp rail |
| Software | xp x64 sp 2 |
I came across this article earlier, as I was looking for more information on DDR3:
http://www.nehalemnews.com/2008/05/e...hy-fsb-is.html
The chart:
Since 666 FSB is currently impossible, wouldn't it be better to buy 4 gigs of DDR3 800 mhz than 4 gigs for DDR3 1333 mhz for a slightly overclocked Q9450 (333 FSB 8x multiplier, will hit at least 400 mhz)?
It would seem that the 12.6 GB/s would be superior to the 10.7 GB/s. I wasn't sure if those theoretical numbers would be very close to the real values, so I did what little testing I could in Everest ultimate edition:
DDR2 333 mhz dual channeled (expected values calculated the same way the chart does):
4874 MB/s, or 4.76 GB/s. Expected value: 5.33 GB/s.
Percent difference: 12%
DDR 333 (single channel): 2451 MB/s, or 2.39 GB/s. Expected value: 2.66 GB/s.
Percent difference: 11%
Based on that data (quite possibly erroneous, as the testing methods were obviously not the best), you could expect DDR3 800, when dual channeled, to out perform DDR3 1333, which is currently impossible to dual channel? In addition, DDR3 800 would offer lower latencies, but I'm not taking that into consideration here.
So, is 4 1 gig sticks of DDR3 800 currently superior to 4 1 gig sticks of DDR3 1333 on an overclocked system? Hard to believe, because I can't find any on newegg.
http://www.nehalemnews.com/2008/05/e...hy-fsb-is.html
The chart:
Since 666 FSB is currently impossible, wouldn't it be better to buy 4 gigs of DDR3 800 mhz than 4 gigs for DDR3 1333 mhz for a slightly overclocked Q9450 (333 FSB 8x multiplier, will hit at least 400 mhz)?
It would seem that the 12.6 GB/s would be superior to the 10.7 GB/s. I wasn't sure if those theoretical numbers would be very close to the real values, so I did what little testing I could in Everest ultimate edition:
DDR2 333 mhz dual channeled (expected values calculated the same way the chart does):
4874 MB/s, or 4.76 GB/s. Expected value: 5.33 GB/s.
Percent difference: 12%
DDR 333 (single channel): 2451 MB/s, or 2.39 GB/s. Expected value: 2.66 GB/s.
Percent difference: 11%
Based on that data (quite possibly erroneous, as the testing methods were obviously not the best), you could expect DDR3 800, when dual channeled, to out perform DDR3 1333, which is currently impossible to dual channel? In addition, DDR3 800 would offer lower latencies, but I'm not taking that into consideration here.
So, is 4 1 gig sticks of DDR3 800 currently superior to 4 1 gig sticks of DDR3 1333 on an overclocked system? Hard to believe, because I can't find any on newegg.
