DDR400 versus DDR500

[claevade]

I am looking for days to find a good article about the difference between DDR400 and DDR500 in performance.

I am planning on buying a 3700+ San Diego, proper cooler, casefans, PSU, DFI Lanparty everything very proper, so it will at least OC to 2,8 GHz.

I want to make it run on 11 x 250 (MP * HTT) = 2,75GHz.

I can either buy 2GB DualRAM of Twinmos which runs CL2.5 and DDR400 (PC3200) which costs 175 EURO. Or I can buy Corsair TWINX 2GB DDR500, though that's CL3 and costs 235 EURO.

I wonder if the money is worth it, since the 1:1 principle it's really a big thing with a Athlon 64 and 60 EURO is quite some money.

I would like to know if the 250MHz. memory is going to give me some advantage, or I better take the CL2.5 of Twinmos which saves 60 EURO.

[gsxr310]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

are those your only 2 choices?

[UNDIESRULES]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

Can you even run DDR500 with an AMD? I thought DDR400 was as high as you could go until they bring in M2.

[claevade]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

are those your only 2 choices?

Yes, CL2 DDR500 is out of budget.

Can you even run DDR500 with an AMD? I thought DDR400 was as high as you could go until they bring in M2.

I know where I am talking about, don't worry. DDR500 is nothing officially supported, the RAM just allows a garenteed OC to 250MHz. HTT/FSB.

[lil_jimmy_norton]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

If the money isn't really a big problem go with the DDR500.

[whofriggincares]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

I have DDR500 and it's nice running at 250-260X11 and not having to worry about a divider or if your memory can OC. What's even better about DD500 is that you can OC that even more so if you have a good chip, you can hit 275-300 HTT with no divider.

[BoloMarkXXX]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

Also consider getting an Optron 148 CPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103595

Same chip basicly Optrons are cheaper & designed for stability so OC better I got a 3700 Sandiego wish I had got an Opty instead.

[Eddy01741]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

Also consider getting an Optron 148 CPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103595

Same chip basicly Optrons are cheaper & designed for stability so OC better I got a 3700 Sandiego wish I had got an Opty instead.

Ya, the opterons are so much cheaper than the FX series, and overclock way more. Optys are also tested before they get packaged, overall, they're just better than regular A64/FX series processors.


EDIT: Anyways, i say go with the DDR500 if u plan to overclock, if u don't, get some DDR400 ram with good CL and nice timings. DDR500 let's u overclock more, but the tight timings of DDR400 ram can offset that if u don't overclock.

[Flanker]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

Since the 1:1 principle it's really a big thing with a Athlon 64.

Who told you that. 1:1 doesn't matter AT ALL with an Athlon 64. Its Pentium 4s that suffer if you break that ratio.

Anyways, go with the DDR500 since with that you're guaranteed to get OVER 250Mhz with the memory. I'm not familiar with the other one but Its not guaranteed to do anything.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

Yes, CL2 DDR500 is out of budget.

There are no 1Gb modules rated at Cas 2, 500mhz in existence. I'd say for sure it's not in the budget.

[lil_jimmy_norton]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

Who told you that. 1:1 doesn't matter AT ALL with an Athlon 64. Its Pentium 4s that suffer if you break that ratio.

Anyways, go with the DDR500 since with that you're guaranteed to get OVER 250Mhz with the memory. I'm not familiar with the other one but Its not guaranteed to do anything.

Running a divider will not hurt, but running the ram at the fastest speed possible is always a good thing.

I'm going to be benchmarking soon when my OZC Gold DDR500 comes in to see how much diffrence there will/won't be.

[Flanker]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

True. I only have a problem with it when someone says that it hurts performance. Thats like saying that an Athlon 64 3000+ hurts performance because its not an Athlon 64 FX-57. If anything, running with a divider increases performance because then you get to overclock your processor farther. Granted that you could get better performance running 1:1, but you wouldn't be running a divider in the first place if you had the money to do that.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

True. I only have a problem with it when someone says that it hurts performance. Thats like saying that an Athlon 64 3000+ hurts performance because its not an Athlon 64 FX-57. If anything, running with a divider increases performance because then you get to overclock your processor farther. Granted that you could get better performance running 1:1, but if you wouldn't be running a divider in the first place if you had the money to do that.

Flanker and I have stated this before. This seems to be one thing we agree on.

[Espion]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

I'd go with the DDR500 and just try to push the timings down. Since you only want to run at stock speeds, adding a bit of voltage should allow you to bring those timings right down.

[whofriggincares]

Re: DDR400 versus DDR500

Why get DDR500 if he's only going to run at stock speeds? That's pointless. That's like buying a Bugatti Veyron and not going over 55mph. What's the point?