I'm currently running Corsair DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) 4-4-4-12 in my email
box, 6 gigs (2,2,1,1 all 4 memory slots filled) Corsair DDR2 1066 (PC2
8500) 5-5-5-18 in my game box and my older Epox socket 939 mobo is
running Mushkin DDR 400 (PC 3200) 2-2-2-7. How bout we price 6 gigs of
low latency DDR3 2000 and compare that to 6 gigs normal latency DDR3
1333 and think about cost/performance value compared to DDR2.
You know, that 2 gigs of Mushkin memory cost me $230 back in the day
because it had such a low latency. What a waste of money that was but
heck I was still a hardware whore with more cash than sense. It felt
cool buying it but I doubt it made any real world performance difference
but live and learn is what I always say. Cheers!
James Boswell wrote:
On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:12:030, Stan Zaske wrote:
DDR3 is currently too slow and has too high a latency to demonstrate
a clear performance advantage over DDR2 and it was the same exact
situation during the transition from DDR to DDR2 several years ago as
I'm sure you must remember. It was severely hyped and when the
benchmarking began it was a huge disappointment to hardware
enthusiasts hoping for something great. I know I was disappointed
after all the BS.
are you sure on the latency front? since the real world latency of
8-8-8 timing DDR3-1600 is the effectively the same as DDR2-800
4-4-4... and there's even 7-8-7 timing DDR2-2000 available right at
the top end, thats real world latencies lower than DDR2 has _ever_ had
unless I'm very much mistaken ?
-JB
