THIS RAM? or THAT RAM?

[J-Dude]

Well, if anyone remembered helping me with figuring out a major PC facelift, that project is fast approaching sunset, as I have acquired a Windows 7 upgrade CD, Wolfdale 8400 CPU, applicable motherboard and after realizing the size needs of said MB, got a nifty, cheap yet well reviewed PC case of superior size and optimized for cooling (the sucker comes with a front AND back fan!) with even a funnel to blow the CPU's air out of the case.

I'm pretty happy so far, even just looking at it all as raw parts.


Last component though, RAM. Specifically, 8 gigabytes of 240-pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400).

Now, the plan all along was to get this item, the Corsair XMS2 DHX

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145217

Bit expensive, but supposedly the best of the best. However, I also found the better reviewed OCZ Gold

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227290

Cheaper, sure (and also, not out of stock) but reviewers also seem to take issue with how hot it runs, whereas the Corsair stuff is built with heat dissipation and performance in mind.

Here's the two compared: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...mpareItemList=N82E16820227290,N82E16820145217


Either sound good, but somehow I think it would be better to have more experienced computing opinions on this. I'm also definitely open to suggestions for RAM other than these, with the same essential build (has to be compatible after all).

Anyone willing to help me with my quandry?

 

[Sicron]

Personally, I would go for the cheaper one. Both Corsair and OCZ are good RAM brands. And other that the latency, I hardly see a difference. CAS latency and...all the other stuff isn't that important. If I remember correctly, lower you CAS with 1 will give you about 3-4% boost in framerate in games, and about 1-2% in every day programs (Photoshop etc.). Unless of course you are planning to overclock your PC, then lower CAS will be better. So in my (admitted, I am not a RAM expert) opinion, get the cheaper one.

Curious though, your RAM you have selected here runs at 800Mhz...if I remember correctly, the E8400 has a FSB that runs at 1333Mhz, shouldn't it be able to handle 1333Mhz RAM? (Not sure how it would affect performance compared to 800Mhz RAM though.

 

[J-Dude]

Huh, well, as to the 1333mhz, it looks like you're right about the Wolfdale.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_mmc=TEMC-RMA-Approvel-_-Content-_-text-_-


This is the motherboard I bought, too... It's specs seem to suggest it can handle the 1333 and more, although 800 is also compatible.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128358


Hmm, well I never really knew anything about Frontside Bus, but now might be a good time to get educated. How much of an improvement might that be? I'm gonna check...


EDIT:

Holy ****! Well, I looked up 240 pin RAM with 1333mhz, and everything that came up was DDR3. Is my MB really compatible with that stuff? I'd had no idea.

 

[Sicron]

It is a bit more expensive of course, and the latency is probably higher. Very high latency 1333Mhz DDR3 can be compared to very low latency 800Mhz DDR2. Might be interesting to check this: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/ddr2_vs_ddr3/ also features some gaming benchmarks on the later pages. Not sure if your MB can handle the DDR3 though, if it is one thing I never understood, it is MB's.

 

[J-Dude]

Well, the MB specs specifically say DDR2, but 800mhz is the highest number I can find on Newegg for DDR2 RAM. I found ONE 1100mhz, but it wasn't one of the listed types (motherboard specs call for either "1366+, 1066, 800, or 667"). All the higher ones give me DDR3. I dunno, it's all pretty confusing to me. Plus I'd like to hear input from more than one person before I make any decisions, no offense.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I agree with the assertion that OCZ and Corsair are both A++ brands. I have used them both for clients and both RAM brands have performed admirably. The motherboard manufacturer might support one and not the other, so I would also check with the Mobo manufacturers website to make sure which brand it prefers (if its both, have at you, but neither brand should be rejected outright). DDR3 is always better than DDR2, if I recall. DDR2 has a bad latency issue that is somewhat corrected with DDR3, but I'd have to research it again to be sure.

Other good RAM brands include Kingston, PNY, and Mushkin. I've also heard that Patriot, Geil and G.Skill perform well, but I don't have first hand knowledge of these modules.

 

[kam!]

for ddr2, it's best to use half the given fsb (so in your case 667MHz) and for ddr3 to use the same freq. That's because fsb is mostly given as 'quad-pumped' meaning 4x the base value, while DDR (double data rate) is given as 2x base value.
If it actually matters or not depends on your MB, some are picky with ram:fsb ratios (or don't provide enough multipliers).

Having ram and fsb synced usually provides a small performance/stability boost (I think it makes the northbridge's job easier)

personally I'd go with the OCZ sticks, have used them in 2 PCs so far and the price/performance is pretty good.

 

[Optional]

OCZ and Corsair both make good RAM, but OCZ Gold, for whatever reason, is loved by system builders all over the interbutts. However, you are wasting your money buying that much storage. If you use more than 4 gigs of RAM, then you are doing some heavy video editing while watching about 3 or 4 1080p movies. Stick to 4 gigs and save a ton of money.


I have the E8500, and it is a beautiful chip. I've OC'd it to 3.8 ghz without any issues (while simultaneously undervolting it).

 

[J-Dude]

OCZ and Corsair both make good RAM, but OCZ Gold, for whatever reason, is loved by system builders all over the interbutts. However, you are wasting your money buying that much storage. If you use more than 4 gigs of RAM, then you are doing some heavy video editing while watching about 3 or 4 1080p movies. Stick to 4 gigs and save a ton of money.


I have the E8500, and it is a beautiful chip. I've OC'd it to 3.8 ghz without any issues (while simultaneously undervolting it).

Call it future-proofing.

I do 3D animation and need the memory space to do simulations with fumefx, a powerful, hardware intensive fluid-dynamics simulator. It relies entirely on RAM, and if you try a simulation that ends up taking all your RAM, the moment the RAM runs out, Max crashes, none of your simulation progress is saved. Almost impossible to add space-warps on 2-gigs.

Besides, that's always the argument for more conservative specs, "oh, you could NEVER use that much speed/RAM/power", but what always happens is, in a few years, games, programs or what have you will FIND a way to use it. I'd rather be ready and happy *when I can run Crysis 3 on full graphics, with full water simulation and procedural in-game terrain/object destruction* (* = future speculation).