DDR2 vs. DDR3

[ryanbatc]

I just wanted to post this here, this is a link from one of my flight simulator guru sites, and Nick did a great job comparing DDR2/3 RAM using Flight Simulator X

http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?...id=37210&page=

[CarbonFire]

Nice find ryanbatc...shows the potential of DDR3 with those higher speeds (seems like FSX is very CPU/RAM intensive)

but wake me up when DDR3 is less than 3 times the price of comparable DDR2

[juneau]

Same here. And even then. I still probably won't jump on the DDR3 bandwagon. I'd never purposefully go out to make sure i could upgrade my RAM. The performance gains in most cases cannot be noticed by the human eye.

[-IRC-MIKE]

+1

The speed of the ram, specifically, goes most unnoticed.

[ryanbatc]

the price is a huge factor, I thought I'd just throw this out there because it is fairly interesting, you get what you pay for I spose

[CarbonFire]

Note once Intel migrates to the new Nehalem chip and their new integrated chipset, DDR3 will have much greater value (by then it'll probably be a lot cheaper too). On-board memory controllers with a bridge to each core will certainly suit those higher memory speeds better than the unified FSB does today.

[darth_nevus]

i honestly don't think the hardware is yet optimized enough to actually handle the throughput of ddr3.

I very well could be wrong, but this same thing was hashed and rehashed with DDR vs DDR2. DDR2 will continue to be realisticially faster due to its lower latency until a new proc arch comes out, or DDR3 refines the process. DDR2 used to be horrbily slow. lol. even at the same speed, due to the latency. but it changed as the process was refined.

As was said, nehelam will be the key here for intel, just around the same time AMD decides to offload its memory controller. this will indeed bring about an intresting effect considering the diversion from the unified FSB. by allowing the processors to use the channels on their own, mmmmm, triple channel....


The only thing i found odd, one that i've never seen before, and maybe its just programming on MSX's side, is the computers unwillingness to display the full texture pack at its detail level. when i force a setting in most games, regardless of the impact, it gets displayed. the clock keeps running, and is independent of the video clock. can anyone explain to me why this is more seen in this article?