EggXpert

Hello, I am planing on buying either one of these memory card listed below. Could you please tell me which one of these would give me a better performance.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147%201052427322&bop=And&Order=PRICE&CompareItemList=N82E16820220282%2CN82E16820227230

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=Property&N=2010170147&PropertyCodeValue=524%3A29371%2C525%3A16065%2C525%3A26967%2C525%3A28354&bop=And&Order=PRICE&CompareItemList=N82E16820227266%2CN82E16820227255%2CN82E16820227285

reason for my question is, some online benchmark results shows DDR2 doing much better than the DDR3, since DDR2 has much lower latency. But couldn't find any benchmark comparing these two memory cards I am planing on buying. I am building this computer mainly for playing games. Any thoughts would be very helpful. Thanks.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 CPU
Intel X48 base Motherboard
Samsung T220 Monitor
Ati 4870 Video Card

You will get better performance out of the DDR2.

 

Here is an article you might be interested in, it compares ddr2 to ddr3 memory. In most benchmark tests the ddr2 comes out on top.

 

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/ddr2_vs_ddr3/ 

If you were to compare ddr 400  to ddr2 800 you could say the say thing as in comparison to ddr2 vs ddr3 if there is any benifit its only when you buy high frequency clocks on the memory, which at the point you putting out more money for very little if no gain in performace at all. From what I could tell theres only a 5% gain going from ddr 400 to ddr2, and less than 5% going from ddr2 to ddr3 if any gain at all. So why spend more on ram when ddr2 isnt going out of fashion anytime soon. The only benefit I can see to ddr3 is that the high clocks on the ram would allow for better ocing of you processor.

If i were you, ill go with DDR2 the performance gain is not worthy the extra money.

some articles about  ddr2 vs ddr3:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr3.html

 http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2989

 

DDR3 always costs more than DDR2 for DDR3 is the newer technology that allows for better handling of the memory on the graphics card at a much higher rate. Hmmm...if the budget is not a problem, then why not go with the better one. Here is a detailed comparison between 'em. XD http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/showpubnews.asp?num=149

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3:

Advantages compared to DDR2

• Higher bandwidth performance increase, effectively up to 1600 MHz
• Performance increase at low power (longer battery life in laptops)
• Enhanced low power features
• Improved thermal design (cooler)

Disadvantages compared to DDR2

• Commonly higher CAS latency but compensated by higher bandwidth, thereby increasing overall performance under specific applications
• Currently (as of 2008) costs much more than equivalent DDR2 memory.

I suggest you choose the ddr2. It's stable and have lower price.  The ddr3 technology is not quite consummate now, and the speed is only theoretic now. Maybe it will be perfect in the future and you can purchase one then~

DDR 2 ^^ > DDR3

Thanks a lot for all your replys

Just remember for DDR2 1200 you're going to have to run them on a fairly high voltage and probably loosen the timings as well.

.... And if you plan on overclocking DDR3 will help get that FSB speed up there higher, without the ram limiting you as much.

GmsCool:

.... And if you plan on overclocking DDR3 will help get that FSB speed up there higher, without the ram limiting you as much.

On what CPU? The CPU you chose for example runs at a high 1333 FSB (333x4) with a 8x multiplier (333x8=2.66GHz), which means that the minimum RAM speed you would need is DDR2-667 (333.3x2) to keep at 1:1 (ideal) FSB:DDR ratio. You're starting off at an FSB of 333, which means that if you bought DDR2-1066 RAM, you could overclock up to 533x8, which is 4.2GHz. You really think you're going to overclock that far?

Oh, and we can go back to the same argument if we have to, that you will get better performance with an E8400 than you will with a the 2.66ghz quad core that you chose, guaranteed. Sure you might not have as high of a 3DMark06 benchmark score, but that's only for bragging rights anyway. I'd highly suggest you get an E8400 instead of the Q9450, as I can guarantee you that every in-game benchmark you will find for any game out there will put the E8400 above the Q9450. A Q9650 will give you a mere 2-3% performance gain in gaming over the E8400, but I don't think you really have $1100 to burn on a CPU.

http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/356257.aspx

If you disagree, prove me wrong, and not by posting a 3DMark06 score. 

XtremeRevolution:

GmsCool:

.... And if you plan on overclocking DDR3 will help get that FSB speed up there higher, without the ram limiting you as much.

On what CPU? The CPU you chose for example runs at a high 1333 FSB (333x4) with a 8x multiplier (333x8=2.66GHz), which means that the minimum RAM speed you would need is DDR2-667 (333.3x2) to keep at 1:1 (ideal) FSB:DDR ratio. You're starting off at an FSB of 333, which means that if you bought DDR2-1066 RAM, you could overclock up to 533x8, which is 4.2GHz. You really think you're going to overclock that far?

Oh, and we can go back to the same argument if we have to, that you will get better performance with an E8400 than you will with a the 2.66ghz quad core that you chose, guaranteed. Sure you might not have as high of a 3DMark06 benchmark score, but that's only for bragging rights anyway. I'd highly suggest you get an E8400 instead of the Q9450, as I can guarantee you that every in-game benchmark you will find for any game out there will put the E8400 above the Q9450. A Q9650 will give you a mere 2-3% performance gain in gaming over the E8400, but I don't think you really have $1100 to burn on a CPU.

http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/356257.aspx

If you disagree, prove me wrong, and not by posting a 3DMark06 score. 

 

I took care of that DP for you.

 

I have half a mind to show 3dmarks comparing ddr2 667 to ddr2 1066, lol, or at least in Crysis.

But anyways i usually show the easiest way to oc, why make them work for it so hard when its not even built. If he buys ram that will link to the higher FSB he won't even have to play with ram, even the slightest instability at a 2100 FSB is gonna be bad news and a bsod if not a failed boot, be hard to link DDR2 1066 at 1:1 at that fsb huh?

(yea I could get a QX9770 if I wanted it, cash, lol. Just didn't feel the need)

And a Q9650 is only $559 here on the egg unless you meant the QX9650.

As far as your link (linked it for you buy the way) , thats what they said about Dual core CPU's as well, I guess its just for who's willing to take the gamble.  And setting core affinity can take you places, lol, running things like virus scans while playing games, nice, never even slows me down. (yea have to multitask a bit never enough hours in the day, lol)

I see what you mean.

Honestly I'd upgrade to a quad core processor right now if I had the cash, because I'm constantly editing videos and running 30+ applications on dual monitors. I daily max out both of my cores, but I really doubt everyone multitasks the way I do. 

For the record, for anyone else who'd like to hear my side of the dual core vs. quad core debate as far as gaming is concerned, check out this post. 

http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/permalink/371832/371751/ShowThread.aspx#371751