First of all, using one of your links as an example (yes, I do check around those sites every now and then), I derived
this, which at a rebate resulting in about $120 seems an awesome deal, beings that the average street price for a pair of those is about ~$220. The timings are none too shabby either. (note: prior to my posts here, the -$80 deal from newegg was unknown to me.) However, some users seem to be having difficulty. Whether this is their fault or the DIMMs', I'm not sure.
But since you must pick apart posts paragraph by paragraph (meaning no offense either way, surely), I feel I must indulge in the same.
=====
sixshot wrote:
It is the reason why performance in the eyes of the user is based subjectively on the person's feedback. The way you worded your side of the story seem to indicate/imply that there is concrete and visible evidence that there is a profound difference between average latency RAM and high-end/performance RAM. Thus I question the reasoning behind spending over US$200 for a 2GB kit when the absolute minimum is around $150-$160.
There is visible evidence based on the subjective experience of myself, my friends, and customers pertaining to the difference in game performance with low-end valuram vs. mid-high to high-end performance RAM. An additional five or ten frames per second (ofttimes more) might not sound like much on
paper or a bar graph, but at least 80% of the people I've worked and played with can detect marked improvement. Then again, if I demonstrate two different systems to someone and they don't notice any change, don't seem to care, or are on a budget, then of course I'll recommend the cheaper end of the hardware spectrum.
The reasoning is there.
sixshot wrote:
This is why I ponder how can simple RAM timings have such a significant impact on game performance that, by anyone's guess, can equate that to higher framerate and performance. Granted, I might have misworded by saying to get the cheapest 2GB kit one can find. However, it's worth mentioning that a variety of different memory companies were mentioned on a different thread pertaining to which brand is to be considered. It is why I have always kept
a few references around in case someone needs them.
Some games rely heavily on artifacts called generally called portals and antiportals to maintain a high performance. These are strategically placed in maps to block out what isn't visible to the 360 degree player's perspective in an effort to keep poly and texture rendering to a minimum. A disadvantage to these is that if a player steps around a corner and looks through one of these artifacts, every object it's blocking off must suddenly be rendered. This can cause a modest tick that will begin to annoy even the most casual gamer. As computer games begin to use more and more layers for texturing, the amount of information able to be stored in the memory, as well as how fast the memory is able to cycle through this information will be very important if you want to play at max detail. Again, as I posted earlier, someone looking to build a $1k system (original poster) now obviously doesn't really plan to crank UT2007 up to the max upon release. I had originally, mistakenly put together a system that would average ~$2K for parts.
I'm not at all biased against other memory manufacturers such as OCZ, Kingston or Geil, but I am in the habit of recommending brands with which I have personally had good experiences.
sixshot wrote:
But here's the difference... when I said that people can save a chunk by getting a different pair, the intention was to mention there are options. There are some of us who believes, subjectively, that high-end/performance RAM is not something worth spending $300 for. Like I said, we can go back and forth on this. And we'd get nowhere on it. I'm not here to say that it's poor buying decision to go with high speed RAM. Only to bring up alternate routes.
I agree heartily with revealing purchase options, but I originally disagreed with the suggestion to buy a 150GB Raptor hard drive rather than a pair of high-performance memory, when the end user will see better gaming with the memory investment than with the Raptor. This is a sentiment you will find in plenty of tech forums and shops.
sixshot wrote:
Again, I say that we know nothing about what the person has in mind when it comes to building a new system. Had we known, we probably would have left the matter alone and be on our way. But we incidentally instigated a debate regarding this whole ordeal about memory timings all due to our difference in setup ideals.
You know nothing until the person tells you what they want in a new system. In this thread's case, refer to post #1. I'm not going to go saying who started what debate, though.
=====
All that said, with the upcoming onset of socket AM2 systems' recommended use of DDR2-800, DDR memory will be effectively rendered obsolete within the following few quarters. Thus, if someone were needy enough to pick up an Athlon 64 system now, they might as well grab DDR memory good enough to last them through to their next computer purchase (good enough to at least not pose a bottleneck), rather than risk going to upgrade later and discovering, much to their dismay, that the improved memory they decided to wait for has actually experienced a price increase due to low availability.
And no, I'm not going to sit around and dig up nitpicking 2x1GB DIMM pair comparisons and benchmarks when they're already imminently Googlable. And no, I'm afraid that "benchies" Quake 3 on an Athlon XP with a Radeon 9600 is a poor example. Sorry, Cutthroat, but while even valid benchmarks are nice, they don't compare with individual results. You don't tell someone you just built a computer for "but...but it ran fine on Guru3d, don't mind the clipping!"
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-19 10:20:03)