Chris McQuistion wrote: > I've done a lot of overclocking over the years and for memory, this is > my take: > > If you can get faster memory, for not much more money, and it doesn't > take much more voltage to run at that speed (which would generate more > heat and require more cooling), then it might be worth doing. If the > cost doubles and the performance only goes up a fraction, then don't bother. > > You have to consider that the memory is just part of the overall > performance equation. Even if the memory at a 50% faster bus speed, it > won't make your entire computer performance 50% faster. It might only > make it 2% faster, overall, because of other performance limiters, like > the CPU, the graphics card, the hard drive, etc. Sometimes, you go > through all this trouble to get those couple percentage points of > "real-world" performance improvements, but it takes a lot of time or > money or hassle or crashing to get those few percentage points. > > Chris
Very well said, Chris. Allow me to paint a different analogy... The neighbor and I grew up in a different time and space. I helped him a few days ago free up some disk space on his XP box. We're both gear heads at heart. He talked about getting out of the Army and his Dodge Challenger with a 440 and a six pack! (six pack = three, two barrel carburetors) 4 mpg is a tough way to go get groceries but it sure is fun :) Me, in high school I had a 1966 Mustang with a 200 I6, one barrel and an automatic - dawg! (Wasn't even that good on gas!) Howard --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
