gamer1411 :
Still,it is not worth money
Money is an individual decision..... this "not worth it" mindset is a leftover from reviewers who have reviewed memory when it first comes out when the differences are $100 or more. I'd agree at that point many will find the investment hard to justify. Then as production lines improve their yields over time and price drops to small differences or even $0, we see these same articles quoted several times a week here on THG where peeps claim it's not worth it even when they the price difference is $0 ! ..... had the same "discussion" last week despite the fact that the 2133 modules were cheaper than the the 1600. Any performance difference becomes logical once you get to a certain price point. The fact that this argument persists even when the price difference is $0 should be the indicator that something is wrong with this mindset.
The 2nd set of false logic goes..... "well it's $25 more for 2400 and that's a 15% increase in RAM cost for an average 2- 5% increase in performance". It's not your RAM that goes faster, it's your whole system that goes faster. So:
On a $2,000 box, is it worth an increase in system cost of 1.25% for an average performance increase of 2 -5 %
On a $1,750 box, is it worth an increase in system cost of 1.43% for an average performance increase of 2 -5 %
On a $1,500 box, is it worth an increase in system cost of 1.66% for an average performance increase of 2 -5 %
On a $1,250 box, is it worth an increase in system cost of 2.00% for an average performance increase of 2 -5 %
The 3rd problem I have is that the instances where RAM has historically had the most effect (minimum frame rates and multiple cards) is not looked at in most reviews.
The great majority of the builds I have done this year between $1,600 and $8,800 the user chose 2400. Below that, it's usually 2133 except for a few occasions where there was no 2133 at attractive prices at the time. Now even 2666 is starting to be worthwhile considering with just a $5 premium over 2400.
It was commonly accepted that the 4770k isn't worth it over the 4670k for gamers because that 3-6% performance difference isn't worth the $100 (42%) CPU cost difference .... well what about the fact that it is a 5% cost increase on a $2,000 box ? Certainly way way more of a % reward than ya get on video card upgrades. I see the same advice repeated for the 4x90k series without a thought tot he fact that we have a whole new ballgame here. Personally, looking at the 4x90k series, my view is that the logic doesn't hold. With a 4.4 Ghz Turbo Frequency for the 4790k versus 3.9 Ghz for the 4690k ... that's a 13% speed increase versus the 3% we saw on the 4x70k for a similar 42% increase in CPU cost. But is this not a less "automatic decision" when system performance goes up 13% for a 5% system cost increase on a $2,000 box .... or even 10% on a $1,000 box . Spending 5% to get 13% not logical ? Spending 10% to get 13% not logical ? Let's try the least logical "worth it" argument, GFX cards.
-780 Ti is $200 more (42%) than the 780 and gives 14% more performance, is it worth it ? .
-The 780 Ti is $180 more (36%) than the 290x and gives 8% more performance at stock speeds, is it worth it ? I guess so, nVidia has sold almost the same amount of 780 Tis (0.43% market share) than all R9 200 series cards (0.44% market share) combined.
-The 780 is 150 (45%) more than the 770 for just a 15% increase in performance, is it worth it ?
Peeps make these decisions every day without question .... looking only at component cost, the increase from a 770 to to 780 or a 780 to a 780 Ti has 1:3 return on investment and it goes by w/o question but buying RAM which has the same 1:3 ROI is automatically "not worth it" ? Can't have it both ways. And when looking at it as a % of system cost .
-On a $2,000 box, the 780 Ti nets a 14% performance increase over the 780 for a 10% increase in system cost (7:5 ROI) ... the RAM upgrade is better then 2:1)
-On a $1750 box, the 780 nest a 15% performance increase over the 770 for a 9% increase in cost (5:3), again the RAM is better than 2:1.
Getting back to the 4x90's .... is the universal wisdom is the 13% performance increase of the 4790k is not worth it at $100 ..... To my mind, if you can justify a a 780 over a 770 or a 780 Ti over a 780, it is most certainly "worth it" as they all have the same 1:3 ROI looking again only at component cost.
But what if the pricing structure of CPUs changed over time like RAM does ? What if the difference dropped to $50 ? What if the difference dropped to $25 ? Regardless of where the price difference tips the scales for you, you have to admit, that that 2 year old review looking at price differences of $100 and the reviewer saying "it's not worth it".... presents a different scenario, when that price drops to $20.....and then further to $0. No one is saying that the performance increase aren't small..... however when the price increases are even smaller, and even 0, if ya still under budget it should be the proverbial "no brainer".
I also don't understand why many reviewers will do in depth reviews on GFX cards, taking them apart to inform their readers as to what manufacturer (Hynix, Samsung, Elpida, etc) and type of memory is used and then, when looking at RAM modules, don't bother to look beyond the logo and actually peek at who manufactured the stuff. Why when testing GFX cards, some will show us minimum frame rates and performance under SLI, but then only look at average when looking at RAM ?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram