can ram be bottlenecked?

Gingerade

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2007
139
0
18,680
in vista my ram only scored a 5.4 and my friends is a 5.7 and i got pc 6400 ram and he has 5400 so how is his better. so im jw could my cpu be bottlenecking it because it only got a 4.8 in vista and its a pentium D 820 no oc yet.
 

picho

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2007
44
0
18,530
Even if you have PC6400 RAM it might be running at a lower speed. You should get some utility like cpu-z to see what timings your RAM is running at.

It's pretty much impossible for your RAM to be outrunning the CPU. The only other explanation would be things that could be running in the background somehow affected the test.
 

Rabidpeanut

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2005
922
0
18,980
It is the timing that matters not the speed. The speed does matter, but slower better timed ram will usually take the cake. The 433 mhz OCZ 2-2-2-5 ram is better than that pc10000 crap and it is assloads cheaper too.
 

jackluo923

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2007
453
0
18,780
Is there even CL2 DDR2 RAM? Also, DDR2 1000mhz Cl6 has the same timing as DDR2 533 CL3. So that means DDR 1000mhz will have more memory bandwidth but the same timing compared to ddr533 CL3.
 

Rabidpeanut

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2005
922
0
18,980
If your timings are the same then i think your motherboard just is not set right or is not as good. Yours should be faster at the same timings. To work out how good ram is do this. For ram that is 2-2-2-5 it takes 2+2+2+5 microseconds to access a particular area of ram. therefore 11 micro-seconds. Now if you divide this by the frequency of the ram you get 0.025404 (11/433=0.0254), if this ram runs at 433mhz. The lower number the better the ram effectively is, there are other factors of course but this generally is a good way to see what is faster. So iow if you have a higher frequency than him at equal timings you will have a lower number and thus a better ram timing:frequency setup. Your motherboard might be the problem. But all in all it *hardly* matters at *all* how fast your ram is, you will see just about no difference in games so don't worry about it. I think the best ram i have found using this system is the second 'best' patriot ram and it is quite a bit better than the 'best' ram you get. it gets like 0.022 or something using this calculation. Check the burst length of your ram, that might be the problem.

Oh and one last thing.

UNINSTALL VISTA.

NOW.
 

Rabidpeanut

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2005
922
0
18,980
I don't think so, unless you get some 400mhz ddr2. But if ocz made 433mhz ddr2 then i think there might be. But yes, effectively the 1000mhz is only a little better. basically the way i understand it ddr increases are a good thing but are really only there to lower multipliers.
 

Gingerade

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2007
139
0
18,680
well we got same mobo to lol, i dont wanna get rid of vista either i really like it and when i see xp i just hate the interface of it.
 

jackluo923

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2007
453
0
18,780
Are you sure your timings are the same? Cause your ram should be faster if the timings are equal... Does he have more ram than you?
not really, When using a core2duo E6xxx, 533mhz Cl4 ram is usually faster than 667mhz Cl3 because of Synchronization between the Ram and FSB.
 

jonisginger

Distinguished
May 24, 2007
453
0
18,780
I'm so glad I found this thread :D

OK

In summary - VISTA CONS YOU OUT OF MONEY

My friend bought a new PC just before me

He has single channel ddr2 667mhz RAM CL5
I have dual channel ddr2 800mhz CL4

Vista measures (for memory) "Operations per second"

So, this means how FAST (or so I believe) your memory is.

My memory has over twice the bandwidth and has a 20% lower latency.

So, IMHO, Vista is rating the SIZE of your memory, NOT the speed. (My vista runs 20x better than his and he has superior CPU, GPU, HDD etc.

I think Vista is trying to con you into buying MORE memory. I think this is perhaps due to POOR M$ code needing shedloads of memory

Oh btw, my memory scored 5 (i think) and my friends scored about 5.4.

Specs of PCs:
Mine (at bottom of post)
My friends
E6300
2gb single channel 667mhz ddr2 cl5
GeForce 7900GS
250GB SATA300 7200rpm

What do you all think? Can anyone confirm or disprove me? I'm actually interested on this.

I think there was an article a few months back on "Vista benchmarketing"

Anyhoodle must be off to school now...
 

Hatman

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2004
2,024
0
19,780
Vista cons you... wtf? how many things with those 3 words are wrong..


I think you are reffering to the vista system test, if so then so what lol, how does it con you.

If you get better ram your system will work faster if you get worse ram your system will work slower. Aslnog as you really know the difference between good and bad ram that is.

Its as simple as that.
 

NightlySputnik

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2006
638
0
18,980
To work out how good ram is do this. For ram that is 2-2-2-5 it takes 2+2+2+5 microseconds to access a particular area of ram. therefore 11 micro-seconds.

OK, first thing first. On a 2-2-2-5 DDR-433mhz DDR stick, each number represent a number of cycle to do certain part of the memory adressing. So to simplify, a 2-2-2-5 DDR400 stick has the same latency as DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-10 for everything elses equal. With newer chipset, I can tell that my dual-channel DDR2-833 @ 4-4-4-12 has lower latency then any DDR-400 stick. It's this simple. The difference in this case is that the former has twice the dandwidth.

Last thing, VISTA isn't this bad. I personally have both Vista Home Premium 64-bit AND WXP home edition (32-bit) on dual-boot. I use Vista about at least 90% of the time. I guess it's not so bad cause I'm no sadistic against myself, so I would simply leave it there unused until SP1 comes out if it would be so bad. The included benchmark are irrelevant, but that doesn't do a bad OS as far as I know.
 

NightlySputnik

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2006
638
0
18,980
Well Jon, Vista definitly loves RAM for caching reason. I personally have 4GB and I never wait for any apps to launch 'cause they're already partially in memory ready to be launch. That's for regulary used apps, the system "knows" it and put thems in memory, in a waiting state ready to be fluched out as soon as that memory space is needed by other apps.

Looking at it this way, your friends computer is for sure faster at launching apps, but maybe not at running them. All it does is make your system feels/be much more responsive, not faster.

Vista isn't perfect, but I sincerly think it'll be the system to have after SP1 if Microsoft does it's home work. On my side, I didn't have the choice to get it for long term useability of my new system. I only relay on XP whenever I want to play oldies, but anything newer then 12 months worked flawlessly until now.
 

Rabidpeanut

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2005
922
0
18,980
Stop nit picking.

Vista's benchmark sucks just like the rest of the OS

vLite is there for a reason.

Yay it is shiny.

Vista Hones Sack.

Vista Hones SHINY sack.
 

jonisginger

Distinguished
May 24, 2007
453
0
18,780
Can we all just agree that

-Vista sucks
-Its benchmarketing not benchmarking
-People who RUN Vista suck
-Vista is a ripoff
-Your mum was GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEREAT in bed
-And I was right all along.

(The insides of your mums legs are as RED as a fire engine)

Latas
 

sweetpants

Distinguished
Jul 5, 2006
579
0
18,980
Can we all just agree that

-Vista sucks
-Its benchmarketing not benchmarking
-People who RUN Vista suck
-Vista is a ripoff

-Eh works fine for me at work...
-Then why use it or care about it?
-No... no I don' think so...
-Not if you get it for free
 

jonisginger

Distinguished
May 24, 2007
453
0
18,780
It may work fine but its still grossly inefficient
It is a misleading part, I wouldn't have a problem if it said Application loading time or something
Vista's only real use atm is DX10 games, or if you have a really powerful PC. Driver issues etc make it a poor choice.

Also Vista chops off FPS (decreases)

I brutally torrented mine also