Your fantasy went too far. I just wanted to show that statement like:
A pair of DDR-800 modules accomplishes exactly jack squat on a system that doesn't operate at 1600FSB..
is a lie as all benchmarks shown.
Wow, Price vs Perf right now in PC's is nice...
- Thread starter Albuquerque
- Start date
Your fantasy went too far. I just wanted to show that statement like:
A pair of DDR-800 modules accomplishes exactly jack squat on a system that doesn't operate at 1600FSB..
is a lie as all benchmarks shown.
Really? Care to show me those benchmarks again? Because 667->800 is a 20% increase, yet all the benchmarks you provided failed to show so much as a 2% gain in all "real" applications tested.
And since that's well within the margin of error, I say bullocks.
*Is being devil's advocate*
He might be referring to the better timings and whatnot you can put on a DDR2-800 stick running at 667 MHZ compared to a normal DDR2-667 stick.
You are still missing/ignoring my whole and only point- faster ram gives better performance. Even if you theoretically breach fsb cap, which should hold it in Albuquerque's opinion.
If you want to defend this with margin of error differences although you get that results hundred times in a row and the trend does not stop at way higher clocks, maybe I can take this winrar test as a proof?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/core2duo-memory-guide_7.html
If you want to defend this with margin of error differences although you get that results hundred times in a row and the trend does not stop at way higher clocks, maybe I can take this winrar test as a proof?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/core2duo-memory-guide_7.html
You realize how bad that article makes your argument look though, Putas? One application on that page shows a improvement that is even worth looking at! How often are you unraring files that would take that much time? Hardly ever I would guess. Therefore the advantages are INCREDIBLY small... as PROVED by your own link that is suppose to "prove" the completely opposite...
You totally failed to comprehend what I am trying to prove although I explicitly wrote it in simple post you are replying to. Now how bad are you looking?
Now you're just trolling.
Funny how a thread about cost versus performance could result in someone trying to prove such abusdity as this. And how such a thread could warrant the only two times in this forum that I've had to hit the "Ignore this user" button.
Your special brand of "fantasy" will not be missed.
Funny how a thread about cost versus performance could result in someone trying to prove such abusdity as this. And how such a thread could warrant the only two times in this forum that I've had to hit the "Ignore this user" button.
Your special brand of "fantasy" will not be missed.
Hey Albuquerque the other time wasnt me was it
LOL, no.
It still surprises me how even basic math can't be acknowledged by someone who's too fanatical to pay attention. If you have a 5cm pipe that flows water between two buckets, then no matter HOW fast you pump water into Bucket A, it will not go any faster into Bucket B.
Ultimately it's their money to waste on their own systems for some "less than rounding error" amount of difference, and more than rounding error amount of power consumption and heat. But trying to convince me to tell my boss to spend another $10 on something he will never use, will never need, and will never notice the difference is delusional at best.
I guess there are people who put Z-rated racing compound tires on Kias too, because they go faster!
Funny... You've proved your point faster RAM = faster... by next to nothing. Again, you've failed to realize that 1 or 2 seconds in the vast majority of instances doesn't matter at all. The WinRAR benchmark is incredibly pointless when all other instances show besides that one that the higher clocked memory does next to nothing for you. You're failing to see the point that when the term faster is used it means something that is noticeable, tangible, not 1 or 2 second difference in 900 or seconds! And to FINALLY shut you up here is a wonderful quote from the very article you posted.
I'll never disagree with that, and in fact if you go back a page or two, you'll see me mention the exact same thing. In that same paragraph, you'd also see me saying that I too would purchase something faster (DDR2-1066 probably) because it would give me the overclocking headroom. Basically, buying ram that's "too fast" because you simply don't know where you'll end up is a perfectly valid reason to do so.
But running the memory faster than 1:1 is, for lack of any other really pertinent term, useless. Just as that website points out -- a 150% increase in memory speed combined with a 50% increase in FSB netted a 54% increase in performance.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the bottleneck truly lies...
Still surprise me you don't acknowledge there are more pipes and other equipment then that. If it was like how you imagine you could not get any increase at all.
I did not fail, since I have the same opinion from very beginning. The argue is about why it is so small difference.
For the xbit labs conclusion- I say they are wrong. Why would be the winrar test fall out of the rule?
But you don't think it is superlinear scaling, right? And hey, that was just 266 MHz FSB. Too bad I cannot find any memory benchmarks with smaller cache then 4 MB.
Doubling the number of channels would need a lot of motherboard traces.