Is it worth getting more DDR3 RAM now?

[wNotyarD]

See, my brother has the following rig:

AMD FX-8320E Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P 1x8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 CL10 Zotac GTX 1070 Mini Kingston A400 240GB WDC Blue 1TB

I found a new 8GB stick of the same Vengeance 1600CL10 for about 200 BRL (already listing local currency) and I'm kinda willing to gift him that.
If his whole platform was to be upgraded to a new one (say 10th gen i5/Zen 2 R5 or newer) it would cost at least 8 times that value here. I wouldn't splash that cash, much less my brother would be able to do that now.
And in the event he upgrades his rig one day, his current one would probably be handed down to our parents.

So, is it worth it getting him that new 8GB for his FX rig, even now that we're bordering 2023?

 

[Jism]

Yes, but beyond 1600Mhz there's no real gain anymore. I know because i owned a FX8320 at 4.8Ghz with DDR/2400Mhz / 16GB of ram. On 2400Mhz DDR3 the only thing showing some gain was winrar (internal benchmark) and that was it. See https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-ddr3-overclocking,3209.html as they did some work on that subject too.

Beyond 1600Mhz.... no real gains.

 

[biffzinker]

I messed around with a 6300 that was fine with ADATA DDR3-1600 overclocked to 1866 without touching the voltage.

 

[Jism]

Thats really not so impressive since it's internal only 800Mhz to 933Mhz. Most memory did have that headroom.

The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up.

But the dude is running Single channel; adding another (identical) stick would benefit his gaming performance. Before someone smashes in the question "Should i get DDR3 2400" it's best to stick with DDR3 1600 or so with lowest possible timings. For boosting gaming performance it's advised to dive into the oc'ing of the L3 cache which is linked with CPU-NB if i'm correct. Your lucky to get it on 2700Mhz or so, even better at 2800Mhz. The minimum framerate really goes up with that.

Higher CPU clocks are possible but i would avoid playing with only multiplier and actually aim for FSB based OC'ing. A 300Mhz FSB at 4.8Ghz was faster then a 200Mhz 5Ghz CPU. And beyond 4.8Ghz the FX really eat power.

 

[Hofnaerrchen]

4x4GB DDR3 is $20 on ebay (used)

This is not about someone living in the US, it's about a person living in Brazil. From what I've seen on channels like LowSpecGamer regions like Brazil are quite expensive in terms of (used) computer parts.

And that's even before taking into account that incomes are lower, too.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Personally, I wouldnt bother with the upgrade. If the goal is to do it cheaply, frankly you can find complete OEM desktops with 16GB of RAM and sandy/ivy bridge for $200-250 that will blow that machine out of the water for any task, including gaming, and that the 1070 could be transplanted into along with the SSD. FX is just so slow it's really not worth dumping any additional cash into anymore.

 

[Jism]

Personally, I wouldnt bother with the upgrade. If the goal is to do it cheaply, frankly you can find complete OEM desktops with 16GB of RAM for $200-250 that will blow that machine out of the water, and that the 1070 could be transplanted into along with the SSD. FX is just so slow it's really not worth dumping any additional cash into anymore.

He's running single channel, so your missing out on roughly 40% of it's intended performance. Depending on the game your playing, the FX still holds up at 1080p.

For the cheapest route; upgrading the memory to DDR3 / 2x 8GB CL9 sticks or so is "best". And with luck you can find or score it for cheap.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

He's running single channel, so your missing out on roughly 40% of it's intended performance. Depending on the game your playing, the FX still holds up at 1080p.

For the cheapest route; upgrading the memory to DDR3 / 2x 8GB CL9 sticks or so is "best". And with luck you can find or score it for cheap.

A basic dual core i3 will run absolute rings around that FX in anything published since 2012, and given how few games run decently at all, odds are he would be better suited to replace that ancient scrap heap.

 

[eidairaman1]

The FX IMC can take two sticks of DDR3-1866 MHz. That was one of the selling points for the FX AMD advertised.

Mine Handles 2x 2400, I just used Trident values and then tightened them further

 

[Jism]

A basic dual core i3 will run absolute rings around that FX in anything published since 2012, and given how few games run decently at all, odds are he would be better suited to replace that ancient scrap heap.

Yes and no. I still say the FX holds up fine on 1080p. There's various video's that adress that. And many games where made with 8 core (Consoles) in mind (Jaguar CPU). But your basicly gimpling it's intended performance in the first place by going single and not double channel.

The cheapest route would be another ramstick or at least a identical set. Once thats done you can aim to undervolt, improve cooling and even look into overclocking. Now overclocking will get you 40% free out of the box compared to stock speeds. An FX is made for OC'ing.

 

[lightning70]

good price why not? But the FX 8320 is very old, I would invest in a system with Ryzen if I were you, but if you don't have the money, RAM is an option to upgrade.

 

[eidairaman1]

good price why not? But the FX 8320 is very old, I would invest in a system with Ryzen if I were you, but if you don't have the money, RAM is an option to upgrade.

Please review these

i3-7100 vs FX-8350 - AMD FX Benchmarks Are Definitely Flawed

You can support my work here: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ratechytDiscord link: https://discord.gg/PFb9cMstZH-Learn more about the T-Force Vulcan SSD:https:...

youtu.be

Anyways the op is getting ram so the ramblings are moot at this point, lets move along. The Solution has been found

 

[Jism]

Yep.

As i wrote; alot of games are designed these days with a 8 thread cpu in mind. That is the PS4 with the 8 core jaguar, even slower then a FX but well optimized to fully use those cores or threads in this game. Because of that it performs quite better then the time the FX where released, in times where games where heavily single core thread reliant.

esp when you OC it; there's 40% of performance for free if you know what you do. And the first thing is getting the performance as intended, with running a Dual channel (128bit and not 64 bit as of now) in the first place. After that you can tweak the cooling, undervolt or even OC the CPU and get the most out of it since they multiplier-lock free.

I mean ive had a 8320; ive spent countless of hours in finetuning it as i could. I ended up with a 4.8Ghz frequency, a 300Mhz FSB and DDR3 at 2400Mhz with tightest timings i could find. The CPU-NB is indirectly responsible for the L3 Cache speed, try to boot this up as high as you can (and be stable) and your minimum framerate really goes up. Result? It was simply on par with a 1700x, however with a absurd power requirement. Esp when you go beyond 4.8Ghz. Thats where it really gets toasty and even a push pull 240mm rad is'nt enough anymore.

They fun CPU's to play with. I mean you coud'nt get any better value as of the FX back in the days. I upgraded it later with a 2700x and it was night and day difference. In all aspects the 2700x blew it out of the waters.

 

[eidairaman1]

Yep.

As i wrote; alot of games are designed these days with a 8 thread cpu in mind. That is the PS4 with the 8 core jaguar, even slower then a FX but well optimized to fully use those cores or threads in this game. Because of that it performs quite better then the time the FX where released, in times where games where heavily single core thread reliant.

esp when you OC it; there's 40% of performance for free if you know what you do. And the first thing is getting the performance as intended, with running a Dual channel (128bit and not 64 bit as of now) in the first place. After that you can tweak the cooling, undervolt or even OC the CPU and get the most out of it since they multiplier-lock free.

I mean ive had a 8320; ive spent countless of hours in finetuning it as i could. I ended up with a 4.8Ghz frequency, a 300Mhz FSB and DDR3 at 2400Mhz with tightest timings i could find. The CPU-NB is indirectly responsible for the L3 Cache speed, try to boot this up as high as you can (and be stable) and your minimum framerate really goes up. Result? It was simply on par with a 1700x, however with a absurd power requirement. Esp when you go beyond 4.8Ghz. Thats where it really gets toasty and even a push pull 240mm rad is'nt enough anymore.

They fun CPU's to play with. I mean you coud'nt get any better value as of the FX back in the days. I upgraded it later with a 2700x and it was night and day difference. In all aspects the 2700x blew it out of the waters.

200x25 Here

 

[Jism]

300Mhz FSB is faster on a FX day and night. It simple increases the internal bandwidth to all devices with roughly 50%.

Ive had my system back then running at even 340Mhz but thats really at the edge. 300Mhz seemed to be 24/7 stable.

 

[Shrek]

One stick of faster 8GB might be more worthwhile than slower 16GB; better still 2 fast sticks of 4GB

 

[Jism]

It's running on single channel. How is one stick (ever) going to be faster then a proper dual channel 1600Mhz kit? Your cutting off 40% of it's performance with that.

 

[Shrek]

As I understand it dual channel DDR3 does not get one much better performance

Real Life
RAM Performance Benchmark: Single-Channel vs. Dual-Channel - Does It Matter? | GamersNexus - Gaming PC Builds & Hardware Benchmarks
3-5%

 

[Jism]

What makes you say that? Dual channel always favors, single channel. Esp with multicore dual channel memory is faster.

 

[eidairaman1]

300Mhz FSB is faster on a FX day and night. It simple increases the internal bandwidth to all devices with roughly 50%.

Ive had my system back then running at even 340Mhz but thats really at the edge. 300Mhz seemed to be 24/7 stable.

I set out to do it with multiplier only and i succeeded

 

[Shrek]

What makes you say that? Dual channel always favors, single channel. Esp with multicore dual channel memory is faster.

Not denying it improves matters, but wondering by how much

Real Life
RAM Performance Benchmark: Single-Channel vs. Dual-Channel - Does It Matter? | GamersNexus - Gaming PC Builds & Hardware Benchmarks
3-5%

 

[Jism]

Take a AMD Fx into account please. Not a intel.

 

[Shrek]

Good point

 

[Icon Charlie]

Heh. The Short answer is Yes by all means get the upgrade. As state before not all of us can afford the bleeding edge of technology. Something that people tend to forget.

 

[wNotyarD]

As state before not all of us can afford the bleeding edge of technology.

Precisely. One thing is my own build (listed in my profile). While not bleeding edge I do think it is a very fine piece of tech and I'm proud of it. But the cash I spent on it I wouldn't for anyone who's not myself or my wife.

 

[eidairaman1]

Precisely. One thing is my own build (listed in my profile). While not bleeding edge I do think it is a very fine piece of tech and I'm proud of it. But the cash I spent on it I wouldn't for anyone who's not myself or my wife.

The 8320 rig inspite using 10+ yo tech is a decent rig still.

Anyways here is something that just appeared.

[FS][US] - SOLD ON FB - Budget Gaming Build Starter Pack

AMD Ryzen 2600 = $70 shipped MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon = $60 shipped Patriot Viper 16 GB (2x8) 3000 MHz CL16 RAM = $25 shipped Bundle it all together for $135

www.techpowerup.com