Seriously, a RAM question..
I see endless reports on RAM, one version is better than the other, one overclocks more than the other, etc, etc. I would like to know this:
Is there really going to be any real NOTICABLE difference between most RAM of any given type if the system running it is left alone, stock? Example:
In DDR 400 ram, what are the chances that i would notice anything by purchasing a $280 set of corsair xms or just buying the same in value ram?
My thoughts are that there would be little to no difference, unless you are one of those people who love to compare apples to apples. I know there are people who seemingly spend their entire lives running benchmark programs just to prove they can do more with what they bought than the average person. I just wanted to know, because its hard to get any real-world advice or help on choosing memory because everyone almost automatically assumes you want to overclock it, and hook it up to a flux capacitor and tap into the damn local nuclear power plant and.........do what with it?
maybe I just dont understand. I dont want to push things to the edge, I just want everything to work well and as fast and normal as I can get it without being retarded.
I think of it as comparing bullets from a gun. Without a chronograph, you would never know which bullet was faster.
Sorry if it sounds like I am bitching. I just thought I would post here since this forum has the most knowledgable folks on it that may be able to answer.
Re: Seriously, a RAM question..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mïcrösöül°V³
Is there really going to be any real NOTICABLE difference between most RAM of any given type if the system running it is left alone, stock?
Without the "chronograph"* (in this case, a benchmark), probably not enough difference that you could identify the different RAM blindfolded.
IMO, for a stock system of average quality, the amount of system RAM makes more of an impact than the speed.
*How does a chronograph compare bullet speed anyhow?
Re: Seriously, a RAM question..
a chronograph measures feet per second of bullets when fired through it. Gun enthusiasts and hardcore target shooters use them to tweak their rounds so that every bullet they fire is identical to each other. Theres more to it than that, but thats neither here nor there, but I think you understand my analogy, without it, you wouldnt know which was faster. Thanks clocker. That was about what i needed to know. I just couldnt get a normal answer anywhere. Everyone wanted to say everything but what you said. I know OC'ing is a more popular thing to do these days, but I just couldnt get anyone to understand what i wanted to do. people go on about timings and "buy ocz, cuz it rawks" but its expensive, and do I really need that....etc etc lol. Just got frustrated I did.
Re: Seriously, a RAM question..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mïcrösöül°V³
I know OC'ing is a more popular thing to do these days...
I think just the opposite, actually.
Given the explosion in general goodness of all PC components lately, even a mid-range prebuilt PC's capabilities far exceeds the requirements of most users.
The attention/marketing hype directed at the "enthusiast" market is not proportional to their real number and hardcore overclocking has evolved into more of a geeksport than a response to realworld deficiencies.
I find it humorous that after spending huge amounts of money and time on Sprocket that I've recently begun implementing AMD's "Cool 'n Quiet" feature- which underclocks/volts the CPU.
So I've got a dualcore chip that runs stock at 2.4GHz and will run comfortably at near 3GHz and I intentionally cripple it down to 1.1GHz.
Most of the time, without checking my temp readouts, I can't even tell.
Weird, that.:blink:
