Intel vs. AMD

I knew that. Your new memory hasn't caused you any problems has it?

 

This set hasn't yet.

 

Mort81,

Yeah! I had yours within the quotes and a . after mine. All fixed! Thanks for letting me know!

I agree with the bad batch theory because no one got a bad set when they RMA'd. Corsair must have known of the problem because they had some info posted at the bottom of one of the pages dealing with replacements under warranty!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Perhaps, although I've seen some blurb from Corsair about returns on one of the websites i use for years.

 

It's got nothing to do with the memory, it's the chipset on the motherboard.

You need to check what chipset the board is running and see if 4 or 2 sticks will be better.
Normally 2 sticks is faster, as having 4 will mean you will have to use 2T instead of 1T and the latencies increase, so not sure where you're getting your info.

 

Bigdk,
Intel will run 1T timing with 4 sticks.
Amd will revert to 2T timing with 4 sticks.

 

BigDK,

I've always been of the understanding that for 2GB DDR400, 4x512 is better, something about how the memory controller works the memory. I've heard this from many people both you and I respect on this forum. I know it certainly seemed true for SDRAM and RamBus. The biggest single improvement on my Dell 420 Workstation (other than going from Dual P3 733/256s to Dual P3 1GHz/512 CPUs) was to take out the 2 1GHz sticks of Rambus and replace them with 4 512MB sticks of Rambus. It ran about 85% of the speed of my 3.0/800 P4. That's why I keep it. It's a very fast machine with a full serverboard and 10,000rpm scsi drives. If the video could have been updated (AGPx4) I probably wouldn't have even built the P4. It was way faster than any other P3 I ever saw. It should have been for it's 2002 $4997 price tag (including 19" CRT Monitor, keyboard and mouse)! I tried copying a DVD with Shrink and it did it faster than my original Dell 3000 that had a 2.8/533 in it. Under 20 minutes vs 33 min. for the 2.8 P4! That's the reason I bought the P4!

Maybe I just misunderstood what they were explaining. I'll try and find the post if I can as it's been a while. I've done some looking on the net but the reports are conflicting. Some say 4x512 runs more stable and others say the same thing for 2x1GB. Not much help!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

8500gt

bit better performance than a 7600gs but with dx10.

from what i have seen nvidia is going to be classing them as;
gtx
gt
gts
gs

but as you all know rumors are just that till proven true(or not?).

 

If the pricing is right the nVidia 8 series is going to be a solid competitor on all levels.

 

Which is annoying because it literally means looking up which type of RAM suits the board rather than "any DDR2". However, other than my faulty set, I've not had any or heard of many compat. issues with Corsair.

 

PackMan777,

Wow!!! It's mostly just comments about the subject I've gleaned from posts in this forum and DVD Hounds. It wasn't one specific post. Frankly it's been several months since the subject's come up I don't even begin to know where to look or in which thread. I just didn't think very much about it at the time as there was no discussion but just a recomendation to someone to do it that way.

Intels must be a bit different when it comes to 1T, 2T as I have 4x512 in mine and it runs 1T. I know on the A64 4000+, if I install all 4 sticks it runs at 2T. If I change it to 1T in the setup, it changes itself back to 2T!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Many boards will work with much of the RAM offerings from different manufacturers. For those running at stock, they'll not usually see an improvement with the performance RAM. From my experience, more RAM is important on a stock system than speed. However when one gets into OCing, the speed of the performance RAM starts to count. It's always been part of the chase for the better build to find the RAM best suited for the build. Usually for the performance offerings a builder doesn't need to check over 3 or 4 manufacturers. The builder however needs to know what he's looking for.


@theonejrs
I guess your memory is either too good or lacking. Since 05 (maybe earlier) the speed of the larger RAM sticks has improved to where 512MB isn't better as far as speed. Sometimes it comes to a financial issue. There it's compare 2 512MB sticks to 1 1GB stick. If within reason it pays to use the larger RAM if you intend to expand later. Many of the older boards support up to 4GB RAM with 4 slots. The advantages and disadvantages are obvious. My P4 and 939 builds usually had 2x1GB of RAM, the performance ones with XMS Corsair or OCZ.

One thing a builder should consider nowadays is Vista ready. Whether we like it or not, the change is coming about. It's either embrace it and see what Vista has to offer or hold out with XP or Linux. Me, I'll stick with XP till I need Vista and give MS a chance to get some of the bugs out. But back to the point. Vista is a memory hog and requires some Vista ready components. A builder should note the heavy memory requirements and hardware needs when building a Vista ready system so the customer can make the transition in OS, if desired. Loading slots with 512MB RAM limits a lot of boards to what many recommend as minumum for Vista. I've noticed in most cases the Vista ready components are usually more upscale parts which means a better PC for the XP or Vista OS.

Now that you admit it was just impressions you got and nothing anyone in particular said, you can use the newly gained information for future reference. When talking about performance the 512MB sticks no longer have an advantage over 1GB unless a manufacturer sneaked out some super fast 512MB sticks while we weren't looking. "512MB better than 1GB" is just some of the old tech leftovers from back when. I noticed a while back that Corsair and Asus got together to build a highend mobo. The recommended RAM was 2x1GB XMS Corsair. Both companies supported the others product for that build. I suspect Asus would have put 512MB sticks in if they'd been needed to improve performance.

 

As I said its chipset dependent, so it really comes into play with whatever board you're using.

Generally it would be better to go with 2x1GB rather than 4x512MB because you have greater expansion capabilities in the future, lower depreciation from initial purchase price, as the 1Gb sticks will sell a lot easier.

Lower power consumption on the board, as you're only running 2 sticks.

I also don't think the issue is so bad on Intel platforms, as it is or certainly was on AMD based systems using Nforce etc...

Chances are that any new build system (if using latest parts) won't really be effected by the issue, it then comes down to how much memory you think you'll need in the future.

trying to get the latest benchmarks to show the differences is not easy, there's plenty of older stuff that shows what I said, but nothing which is new enough to post.

I'm not sure what system spec in question was, but I certainly didn't intend to start major row here, I was just pointing out what I thought the case was up to now, I wouldn't have said anything if I thought it could turn into a witch hunt.

People should be able to make statements, and have them challenged without it becoming nasty, otherwise no one will every feel like posting anything for fear of the pack.

I may well be wrong (so what) if I am then fine, at least I'll learn and so will everyone else that reads the thread.


I am unable to test the situation myself, as I only have 1GB sticks, so I can use either 2x1GB or 4X1GB but not 4x512MB which would be an accurate test.

I suppose that at least this issue of memory handling is directly related to Intel vs AMD as it is handled differently on the two platforms, which is were the thread should be directed, rather than the usual wanderings that keep happening.

It would be good if we can get some useful answers to this question, for our own reference and for those that end up looking at this.

 

No row and no one has gotten nasty yet that I've noticed. I think the subject if fairly well covered and you did a good job of summing it up. 512MB RAM is okay when called for, but it holds no inherent advantages nowadays, in fact it has more disadvantages when compared to the larger RAM sticks.

 

Well I'm convinced! I've gone for 2x1GB ever since I had a decent motherboard, mainly because I wanted the extra memory, but I see now I made a good choice anyway.

 

Peace

 

I think we've seen so much hostile conversation in this thread everyone's afraid of causing any more... But yeah, peace

 

I'll join the communal hug for the sake of camaraderie, but I don't see the need. If a person can't question information and sources on what's supposed to be a technical thread, it should be closed. The Safety Valve might be a better location for a friendly chat session. Nothing wrong with friendly chat, but a person shouldn't be overwhelmed when another says an idea has been relegated to old tech.

 

Getting back off topic, when's AMD-ATI gonna build a good GPU with a mobo build on?