what is more important in RAMs , the maximum transfer rate or the capacity of RAM ?
what will be more effective ( fast) :
small capacity and high maximum transfer rate or
big capacity and low maximum transfer rate ?
if by maximum transfer rate you mean the MHz of bandwidth they are rated at (say 1600 mhz or 1333 mhz), then the higher that is the faster the ram is.
But really, above 1333 Mhz the speed difference doesn't translate in very noticeable performance gains, nor it does matter a lot for 99% of the applications or games you run.
In general, once you go past 8 GB of capacity and 1333 Mhz of speed, you won't notice unless you are running very specific programs or VMs.
These are 2 pairs of shoes. Nowadays you should have at least 4GB of RAM - more is better if you have a 64bit OS. A higher speed RAM is preferable but it should also have a reasonable latency - especially the CAS latency.
If you have an APU (combined Graphic chip+ CPU) that shares system ram >
In all tests that I have read faster RAM = better for system graphics/gaming esp.
Some motherboard bios' are too 'undeveloped' on AMD+FM2 to run higher speed Ram such as 2400 etc and don't boot (As @ Nov 2012)
Check out newer 'updated' reviews/user feedback to see if others have been successful running 'overclocked' ram-speeds for your motherboard.
Up to 2GB of total system ram is reserved for APU/Graphics so on 64bit OS buy minimum 8GB. 1866 ram speed is the 'norm' for guaranteed FM-2/Trinity chip combo running 100%!
32bit O/S cannot see more than 4GB
Last edited by neo101; 17 Nov 2012 at 05:03.
CAS latency (CL) for the memory is certainly important and performance wise, it can be confusing.
The DDR3 SDRAM 1333 with CL of 6ns might be faster during normal computer use than DDR3 SDRAM 1600 that has a CL of 9ns. Despite the fact that the cycle time is shorter with the 1600.
The numbers, 1300 and 1600, indicate MT/s (million transfers per seconds) and they are rated as 666 and 800 MHz respectively...
2 pairs of shoes ? you mean same importance ?
if you looked at the latency aspect , there is also the power consumption aspect ..
i think DDR , DDR2 and DDR3 have an ascending values of latency , but at the same time a descending values of voltage .... can we absolutely determine the better so ?
DDR3 is by far faster and more advanced memory. RAM is so cheap these days, it really makes no sense to not get at least 8GB as it can be found for less than $50. Without getting into complicated math, a good "standard" is DDR3 1600MHz CL-9. That will give really good overall performance. Generally, the faster frequency the RAM (1600, 1866, etc) the higher the CL, although you can get higher performance kits in those frequencies with lower CL. It can get really confusing. 99% of people will be more than fine with 8GB 1600MHz CL-9, it is common, and fairly inexpensive. Get a good brand like Corsair Vengeance, G.Skill Ripjaw or Mushkin.
Kelly
a bit of housekeeping first. Whatever is within [ QUOTE] and [ /QUOTE] (remove the spaces after the "[" for it to work, I had to add those spaces for the sake of showing you) will be displayed in the quote box, like this
, if you want to quote text, select it and click on the icon tthat looks like thisquoted text
DDR3 is better and more modern, DDR2 is no more used. All mobos now can only use DDR3. DDR2 rams cannot physically fit in DDR3 slots. a pic showing the differencesDDR200_100MHZ_1,600MB/s_PC-1600
second example
DDR3-1333_666MHz_10,666MB/s_PC3-10600
I was talking of DDR3 rams in my post above.
That's due to processor. The ram can feed it data as fast as it wants, but the processor isn't just looking at data going by, it is doing calculations on it, and won't start working on the new data until the old data is processed. As better processors hit the market, you will start to notice the difference, for now there is little beyond a certain point.that is new for me , beyond 8GB and 1333MHz is not needed and not felt .
As neo101 points out, integrated graphic processors (the component operating the screen) do work better with faster ram, and that's because they are faster than a CPU in processing the data that the ram feeds to them.
As for the ram size limit it is a human limit. Most humans cannot realistically use so much programs at the same time to fill more than 8 gb of ram. I mean ok some manage to, but it's something ridiculous like having 10 documents, 24 PDFs, 200 browser tabs open while playing a music video in HD (just to listen at the music) and playing BF3 at the same time.
Some applications differ, like say servers, where having 64 gb or even more ram isn't uncommon.
Higher both until you reach the highest transfer rate the CPU you want to use them with does show some improvement in benchmarks.but do we look for higher transfer rate or higher capacity or higher both ?
Quote