DDR667 or DDR800?

[ApolloX54]

Is there a difference when running a X2 3800+ if I have a gig of one or the other?

 

[GSTe]

One is faster than the other...?

 

[ApolloX54]

But, performance wise...?

 

[Wonderwill]

Yeah, I have the same question. How much performance will I get over 533 or 667 if I won't be overclocking at all?

 

[ApolloX54]

Yeah, I don't plan to OC either.

 

[etomasula]

The answer is yes the faster one will have more performance, how much you are asking. The answer is not noticable. I have switched my laptop from 533 to 667 and If I wasn't the one actually doing the switch I would have said that nothing changed. Personally I think it is all mental, to at least think you have the faster RAM. Same at my desktop at work, I swapped memory when the faster was available. In gaming I have seen that you will get a minimal increase like a few FPS.

 

[crackdlr]

I would have to agree with the previous poster, you wont see any difference in your games or applications - maybe a couple frames per second faster, but nothing to write home about. Tom's did a really good review on some pc10000 ddr2 (1,250mhz) corsair super ram that was like $300 a gig you can check out the link here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/05/corsair-pc10000/

long story short - it improved performance by 5% or less. So it got the thumbs down from me...
BUT - if your trying to overclock your system, you gotta get those tight timings to squeeze those last few hundred mHz outta your processor so i wouldn't reccomend 533 but maybe 677...definitely ddr2 800 ($90-115 per gig) is the sweet spot in my opinion.

 

[locky28]

Tightened timings will give you the performance increase you are looking for, rated mhz depends on FSB and so on, If your not overclocking your generally better off getting lower mhz rated memory with tighter timings.

However I've heard AM2 takes advantage of the higher mhz rating but I'm not sure if this is true.

 

[John_C]

If you are not overclocking at all, then there will be no difference. This is the equivalent of asking whether a Ferrari, a Porsche or a Ford are fastest when going 60 MPH. Faster memory, when set to go no faster, won't help.

Faster memory could have lower latencies at stock speed but even that doesn't happen automatically - you have to configure it. Even if you play with the latency speeds, the impact is very very minor. Here is a graph to show the impact within various applications.

http://techreport.com/etc/2005q4/mem-latency/index.x?pg=5

Some people claim they can tell the difference between something taking 369 seconds instead of a full 375 seconds, but the vast majority of normal humans won't unless they have a stop watch running.

So, the bottom line in my mind - save your money and don't buy speed you won't use.... unless you happen to be a ferrarri driver who likes bragging about how fast your car is even though you never exceed the speed limit and were hoping to have similar story with your computer.

 

[GSTe]

Performance increase will be negligable, perhaps a few FPS here or there, but nothing you will notice really.

 

[kickbutt]

Intel have there FSB that are limiting performance from faster RAM
Going 1:1 is usually the best (as fsb and ram match so to say)
You will get some higher performnce from faster mem with divider but it wount be much (if any)
Going with 400MHz FSB + 800Mhz (1:1) memory with CPU speed the same is MUCH faster then FSB 266 with 800MHZ (2:3) ram.
And again this is with -the same CPU speed- .

AMD IMC do handle memory much more efficent and therefor make better use of faster ram (even tough there a bit after CPU-performance wise right now)

 

[ApolloX54]

I see cause I might have to skimp on my RAM and go with DDR667 for a budget build to make room for more stuff and it seems that the difference won't be as bad as expected...