abandoned thread no suggestion

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


I'm sorry but that's just not how it works. Judging by that theory, DDR2 800Mhz CAS 5 RAM would be 800/5 = 160. That would make DDR2 800Mhz CAS 5 noticeably faster than DDR3 1333Mhz CAS 9.

 



He isn't going to want that kind of sound card for a DAW. He will want an audio interface (which is basically a professional sound card.)
 


you forgot that this is DDR3 not DDR2, this is an example, this also works with DDR2 but DDR3 has a serperate speed from DDR2 which is why DDR2 is not DDR3 are you getting my DDR?
 

No, you forgot. Why don't you update your formula then?
 


I didnt forget DDR3 is different from DDR2, the same process of the formula works for DDR2 too.

DDR2 has its own speed but can still be calculated by the same process. the timings are cycles and the CAS is how fast it does the cycle pretty much.

So for DDR2, 800/5 =160 while 667/5= 133.4, by doing it this way the higher the end number the faster it is for DDR2, of course you categorize with sub sections like DDR2 and DDR3 which i dont think you and your friend there understands. the formula works with both subsection but has a different multiplier (which is another reason why DDR2 is not DDR3)
 
No, that doesn't explain anything. What jmsellars is trying to say is your formula doesn't work.

If it were like you say "the timings are cycles and the CAS is how fast it does the cycle pretty much" then 800/5 =160 is clearly better than 1333/9=148. Unless you can explain the "modifiers" DDR2 and DDR3 have and why.
 



I'm sorry if my thought process was different then, i thought you guys would already have knowledge of the difference from DDR2 and DDR3 already.
 
Not a lot of point in arguing about that, I'm sure the OP gets the point by now.

One suggestion, I would buy a basic GPU. AMD HD 4250 is nowhere near Intel HD 4000. The AMD one is absolutely ancient. It should be fine for watching 320/480P video and basic browsing etc but anything beyond that would probably be too much. Intel HD 4000 could easily cope with 1080P and even the majority of games (on the lowest settings @ 720P). Even a basic card like the HD 6570 is actually better than HD 4000.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161409