Nehalem memory limitiations?!?!

[nevos2005]

OCZ 2GB DDR3 PC3-16000C9 2000MHz Platinum Enhanced Bandwidth (2x1GB) Dual Channel DDR3 (OCZ3P2000EB2GK)

2000MHz DDR3*
- CL 9-8-8-28 (CAS-TRCD-TRP-TRAS)
- Unbuffered
- Platinum Z3 XTC Heatspreader**
- Lifetime Warranty
- 1.8 Volts
- 240 Pin DIMM
- 1.85V EVP***


there is going to be a triple channel version of this memory and was wondering if this would be stable with the intel i7??

 

[jimmysmitty]

That's a good start, and the rest of the POST was great, but there's still the problem of how you're measuring "how long it takes to open the book to the right page". You see, the traditional argument is that DDR3 takes longer to open a page than DDR2. It doesn't. It takes more cycles, but because the cycles are faster, it takest the same time:

DDR3-1600 C8: 10ns
DDR2-800 C4: 10ns
DDR-400 C2: 10ns
PC-100 C1: 10ns

So, no matter how great your explanation is, it has to be "complete enough" to end this silly debate about memory getting "slower" in response time. It's disappointing that response times have stayed constant while data rates have gone up, but its not as bad as posters who only look at cycles...and not cycle times...would have us believe.

This is how I have always understood DDR. Since DDR2. When DDR2 first came out though it wasn't much faster. But now it is quite faster than DDR was, for Intel CPUs at least.

I like the gpu misunderstanding " but gpu x has a 512 bus, while even tho gpu y has "only" a 256 bus, while x's memory is GDDR3 at 1000Mhz, while y's GDDR5 is "only" 1000Mhz as well. Some people just dont get the full functionality/speeds of memory. With i7, its a different ballgame, because of the IMC, tho bothare speed and CAS are important, Im thinking the faster the cpu gets/gives access, the better overall, despite the speed of the ram

While this is true now, it used to make a big difference. I remember that a GPU with a 128bit bus compared to a 256bit bus usually performed much lower. But now since there is GDDR5 that has exceptional bandwidth, a 256bit bus can outperform a 512bit GDDR3/4 GPU. But imagine a 512bit bus with GDDR5. Would be insane memory bandwidth for a GPU.

"Disadvantages compared to DDR2
Commonly higher CAS latency
Currently (as of 2008) costs much more than equivalent DDR2 memory"

I can only disagree about the pricing. I have seen it and its nowhere near as bad as ppl say it is. Its only a few $ pre GB more right now if you compare the same brands say Corsair XMS3 vs XMS2 of the same speed, not 1066MHz DDRs low end vs 1333Mhz DDR3 high end.

Its like this video I saw of a guy recommending a Phenom 9950 and stating that a Intel CPU was 2-3x the price when at the time he did it the Q6600 was the same price as the 9950. DDR3 memory prices have dropped much faster than DDR2 did when it forst came out. In fact you can get 4GB for about $140 bucks right now compared to about a year ago 4GB of DDR2 (1066) was about $189.

As for the latrencies, as said. Since DDR3 preforms them in half the time it makes their speed equivalent.

OCZ 2GB DDR3 PC3-16000C9 2000MHz Platinum Enhanced Bandwidth (2x1GB) Dual Channel DDR3 (OCZ3P2000EB2GK)

2000MHz DDR3*
- CL 9-8-8-28 (CAS-TRCD-TRP-TRAS)
- Unbuffered
- Platinum Z3 XTC Heatspreader**
- Lifetime Warranty
- 1.8 Volts
- 240 Pin DIMM
- 1.85V EVP***


there is going to be a triple channel version of this memory and was wondering if this would be stable with the intel i7??

The Triple Channel version will probably be made to work with it yes. But this one specifically, probably not since it needs 1.8v for stable operation.

Well it seems I crated this interesting conversation. Funny thing too.

 

[nevos2005]

so basically any memory with 1.6-1.7V would be fine for the new processor?? 1.7 being the maximum allowed!!

 

[jimmysmitty]

And ddr2 doesn't cost much more then ddr3 within the same size and performance range? It's not as bad as people say it is? Does ddr2 even perform at this level? NO! It's actually WORSE! Were you on drugs when reading the prices for these? Did you even compare the prices at all?! Wow, do I need to even comment on this? Nope. Enough said for now.

Ok then. Lets read this:

Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1333 $169.00

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145218

Corsair XMS2 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 1066 $169.00

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145214

(They only have 1066 for Corsair and the Dominator series. Only difference is the fins on the heat spreader)

Lets go with another one too just for kicks

Same as above only lower price for some reason $118.00 and comes with a nifty fan

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145197

Now even compared to $118 for 4GB of DDR2 $169 is not the "INSANELY" overpriced people say it is. Now sure I could have gone with a cheap version of Kinsington 4GB but why would I compare high end vs low end? Thats like comparing a GTX280 to a HD2600. Stupid and pointless.

My point stands. DDR3 is not as over priced as people claim it to be.

 

[Crashman]

Ok then. Lets read this:

Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1333 $169.00

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145218

Corsair XMS2 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 1066 $169.00

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145214

(They only have 1066 for Corsair and the Dominator series. Only difference is the fins on the heat spreader)

Lets go with another one too just for kicks

Same as above only lower price for some reason $118.00 and comes with a nifty fan

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145197

Now even compared to $118 for 4GB of DDR2 $169 is not the "INSANELY" overpriced people say it is. Now sure I could have gone with a cheap version of Kinsington 4GB but why would I compare high end vs low end? Thats like comparing a GTX280 to a HD2600. Stupid and pointless.

My point stands. DDR3 is not as over priced as people claim it to be.

Better watch it or the guy will ramble out something incomprehensible then claim you're still wrong for something you didn't even say.

 

[jimmysmitty]

^Meh. Unless he has a link to prove me wrong I don't listen. TBH one year ago I payed about $220 for 4GB of DDR2 1066. And one year later (DDR3 has only been out for about a year this month) the same amount of lower voltage DDR3 1066 is cheaper.

In my mind thats good. In some who scrape every penny thats bad. Or maybe they just hate DDR3 for some unknown reason.....

 

[WR]

Really, so why is the cas of ddr3 equal or lesser then ddr2 like other sites state? Ooooooh that's right, it's cause crashman's B U L L S H I T thinking said so. (No, simple arithmetic says the cas latency of mainstream ddr3 costs about the same or less time than the cas latency of mainstream ddr2. Crashman used simple arithmetic, not b.s.) Hey, if that's good enough for you, then by all means, take that with a smile. But the last time I checked, the benchmarks on i7 said it (it = CAS?) didn't matter because the OMG! the BANDWIDTH was enough to push everything through like I said. (No, I wrote, no matter what, CAS will always matter, even if you have a ton of bandwidth. No matter how fast you read a page, you finish reading sooner if you open the book to the right page first.) And it could (couldn't?) use all the bandwidth cause of cpu interface limits. OMG! Didn't I say this? You have eyes right? You see those benchmarks?

God forbid CRASHMAN is wrong when the president of the united states has to admit his errors. BUT NOOOOOO, crashman is BETTER then that obviously. If I rolled my eyes right now I'd never get them back, and that's bad. But, let's all get down on our knees, including the president of the UNITED STATES which has to admit his mistakes. Sorry Bush, but they are actually bigger idiots then you are unfortunately, your winning no award for that obviously. Cause CRAAAAAAAAAAAAASHMAN is NEEEEEEEEEVER wrong!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!

If I ever needed a break from literally B U L L S H I T, and no pun intended, it's right now.

And ddr2 (ddr3?) doesn't cost much more then ddr3 (ddr2?) within the same size and performance range? It's not as bad as people say it is? Does ddr2 even perform at this level? NO! (But many times YES, because currently many chips don't even need the full bandwidth of ddr2, so just match latencies and ddr2 can perform the same) It's actually WORSE! Were you on drugs when reading the prices for these? Did you even compare the prices at all?! (Some people here just compared the prices, but it is your own opinion whether that is much more or a little more.) Wow, do I need to even comment on this? Nope. Enough said for now.

1) Wiki does not prove facts; it is written by many ordinary people over different times. The wiki article about ddr3 contradicts itself, first calling the higher CAS of ddr3 a disadvantage, then stating that the higher CAS of ddr3 is still less clock time than the CAS for ddr2, meaning it is actually an advantage.

2) I have not seen Crashman write something false in this thread. I have not disagreed with him. He can be mean, but mean does not equal false.

3) Sometimes I have trouble reading your posts, habitat87. Many people also said they have trouble. It seems like there are many little errors. I suggested corrections for some of them in light red. Leaving errors in a post does not help people understand you.

 

[uguv]

3) Sometimes I have trouble reading your posts, habitat87. Many people also said they have trouble. It seems like there are many little errors. I suggested corrections for some of them in light red. Leaving errors in a post does not help people understand you.

His posts are so full of poor grammar, incorrect spelling, improper tense, and errors in logic that they are pretty much unreadable.

Perhaps if he were to follow his own advise below (edited to make it readable) he'd be able to better convey his ideas.

If you [strike]have[/strike] had learned english I [strike]won't[/strike] wouldn't have to repeat myself. You've also bashed people for no apparent reason without offering any help too, I've seen it. And that's enough damage too. (No idea what he's trying to get at with the damage part...) Enough said.

 

[jimmysmitty]

uguv you forgot this:

*The more you know!*

 

[Reynod]

You could edit your posts a bit.

That might keep them evil posters at bay.

Your lucky ... these guys are tame.

You wouldn't last 5 mins down in the dungeon ... you need good armour there ... and at least level 5 Beguilement.

You could try a spell of invisibility ... ??

Practice your spells paduan learner ...

 

[uguv]

I always been known to have the best grammar since elementary, and wrote the best papers in college almost every single time, so good in fact, that the teacher had to read my papers out loud.

I think you mean "I've always been known..."

By what your saying...

I think you mean "you're" instead of "your" there.

Haha just giving you a hard time! But seriously some of those prevous posts were pretty hard to comprehend.

 

[uguv]

I always been known to have the best grammar since elementary, and wrote the best papers in college almost every single time, so good in fact, that the teacher had to read my papers out loud.

I think you mean "I've always been known..."

By what your saying...

I think you mean "you're" instead of "your" there.

Haha just giving you a hard time! But seriously some of those prevous posts were pretty hard to comprehend.

 

[jimmysmitty]

And Jimmy, intelligence is relative. So your comment isn't really that smart, clever, logical or funny.

And about your graphics comparison, it's like comparing brands. The graphics you compared are of difference specs not brands. And you used one of the worse comparisons between the two speeds of RAM so right there you already proving the point that at the worst case, there's already quite a gap in price. Nice job on making it look worse.

I thought it was pretty damn funny. Grow a sense of humor.

And I stated why I had to choose different specs. They don't have any of the same 2x2GB sets of DDR2 1333 anymore in Corsair XMS. They were both XMS. WEither way even if I had choosen DDR3 1066 (not sure why since you can get 4GB of DDR3 1333) the price would have been lower.

Hell when I built my PC back in October of 2007 4GB of DDR2 1066 cost me $250 bucks. Now you can get 4GB of DDR3 same speed for almost $100 dollars less. So no there is no "insane" or "hefty" price difference. DDR3 is pretty well priced for only being out for 1 year compared to DDR2 that was out in 2005 and took about 3 years to get to the price point that DDR3 is at.

And no I do not mean the uber cheap crap stuff. I am talking the quality brands that are built for people like us, enthusiasts. So Corsair XMS, G.Skill or Kinsingtons high end. No need for that cheap brand without even heat spreaders that couldn't OC for your life.

 

[cjl]

Yep. Even the top end stuff isn't as bad as you might think. The MSRP on Corsair's 3x2GB DDR3 1600 CL8 1.65V Dominator is only $300. At $50/GB, that's cheaper than decent DDR2 was relatively recently.

(though granted that the DDR3 1866 Dominator is a bit more out there, at $475 for the 6 gig kit)

 

[V3NOM]

i really cbs reading long threads lol.

ok well actually i have now read a couple of posts... and something along the lines of double the RAM clock+double the CAS latency = same speed... well not imo, because if the CPU is not running 1:1 with that RAM those extra 800 cycles on the RAM are wasted. anyone here running a 3200Mhz FSB?

 

[Reynod]

+1 ... unless they are funny !!

I hope they (memory manufacturers) lower the operating voltage on the new DDR3 sticks then jimmy.

Or there might be some crying in the aisles ... from overclockers with dead cpu's ... that is what I read between the lines with this thread.

 

[uguv]

ok well actually i have now read a couple of posts... and something along the lines of double the RAM clock+double the CAS latency = same speed... well not imo, because if the CPU is not running 1:1 with that RAM those extra 800 cycles on the RAM are wasted. anyone here running a 3200Mhz FSB?

Nehalem doesn't have a FSB. Plus, I think most people using DDR3 with a core2 run it at a 2:1 ratio.

 

[nevos2005]

ok guys i need your advise!! i would love to have the intel i7 but is it true that it cannot handle 1600mhz of memory?? is it only the 965 that can handle the memory of 1600mhz?

i know it have to be at 1.65V but i just want to know that if i buy a 1600mhz triple memory, it will work and work weel with either the 90 or 940!!!

Please let me know! thanks

 

[nevos2005]

ok guys i need your advise!! i would love to have the intel i7 but is it true that it cannot handle 1600mhz of memory?? is it only the 965 that can handle the memory of 1600mhz?

i know it have to be at 1.65V but i just want to know that if i buy a 1600mhz triple memory, it will work and work weel with either the 90 or 940!!!

Please let me know! thanks

 

[Kkkk1]

After all the arguing it really comes down to real world performance. Check out the following link. It should answer all your questions. I7 really is a beast.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/1

 

[salem80]

habitat87
U have Weak argument...