memory or ram in this case

To all I ask. How much difference does the speed of ram make, ie ddr667
versus ddr800. also value ram versus performance ram ? I currently run Vista
Business 64 bit with 4 gigs of value ddr667 and I am considering upgrading
to ddr800 (main reason, It is frickin cheap right now!).. I also don't
really understand the different timings of the modules and which is best?

Intel core2 duo 1.86
above mentioned ram
Sapphire Toxic 4850 graphics
twin Seagate Barracuda 160gig hardrives
above mentioned op system
One Lg dvd rom
One Lg Dvd burner
Thermaltake Armor case
Dell 24" flat panel

I am also going to be upgrading my processor to a quad core Q6600 next week
so I would like to order the ram (if necessary) at the same time.

"Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>To all I ask. How much difference does the speed of ram make, ie ddr667
>versus ddr800. also value ram versus performance ram ? I currently run Vista
>Business 64 bit with 4 gigs of value ddr667 and I am considering upgrading
>to ddr800 (main reason, It is frickin cheap right now!).. I also don't
>really understand the different timings of the modules and which is best?
>
>Intel core2 duo 1.86
>above mentioned ram
>Sapphire Toxic 4850 graphics
>twin Seagate Barracuda 160gig hardrives
>above mentioned op system
>One Lg dvd rom
>One Lg Dvd burner
>Thermaltake Armor case
>Dell 24" flat panel
>
>I am also going to be upgrading my processor to a quad core Q6600 next week
>so I would like to order the ram (if necessary) at the same time.

I doubt that such a slight increase in so-called RAM speed would make
a noticable difference, but it you've go the extra cash, go for it.

If you don't, you'll just continue to fret over the decision ;-)

Running the same amount of 667 RAM at the slightly slower clock speed in
dual channel mode will yield better performance than running double that
amount of 800 speed RAM in single channel mode.
If you are dying to upgrade you will get a zillion times more bang for your
buck by tossing your bottom of the barrel CPU and getting a higher speed
dual or quad core CPU.
Most users are blissfully unaware that they will never see any speed
increase in Vista 64 because it can technically access more than 3gbs of
RAM. Few programs will ever tap that RAM, including Photoshop. Most studies
I have seen do not show significant improvements in speed under Win64 with
higher amounts of RAM compared to Win32 for the same tasks in Photoshop.
Some attribute this to motherboard hardware/driver issues (it is an open
secret that many motherboards do not work properly when the second two banks
of RAM are filled), inefficiencies inherent to Vista and the single-threaded
nature of most of the processes in programs like Photoshop--no matter how
much RAM you have all that data has to pass single file through one core of
your multi-core uber CPU.

Unless you spend a large amount of money on very low-latency memory
running at the highest frequency your mobo/processor will support, an
upgrade is not worth the cost.


--
Brian the King

To clarify I am running 4 single sticks of "value" ddr667 equaling 4gigs on
a Intel D975XBX2 motherboard and will be upgrading the processor to a Q6600
quad core.. My question was more aimed towards gaming and the fact that it
more or less takes place with the ram, I was wondering if a set of either 4
sticks equaling 4gigs of "performance" ddr800 or perhaps 4sticks equaling
8gigs of "performance" ddr800 would be much different?

"trouble" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OP2v$VZVJHA.2120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Running the same amount of 667 RAM at the slightly slower clock speed in
> dual channel mode will yield better performance than running double that
> amount of 800 speed RAM in single channel mode.
> If you are dying to upgrade you will get a zillion times more bang for
> your buck by tossing your bottom of the barrel CPU and getting a higher
> speed dual or quad core CPU.
> Most users are blissfully unaware that they will never see any speed
> increase in Vista 64 because it can technically access more than 3gbs of
> RAM. Few programs will ever tap that RAM, including Photoshop. Most
> studies I have seen do not show significant improvements in speed under
> Win64 with higher amounts of RAM compared to Win32 for the same tasks in
> Photoshop. Some attribute this to motherboard hardware/driver issues (it
> is an open secret that many motherboards do not work properly when the
> second two banks of RAM are filled), inefficiencies inherent to Vista and
> the single-threaded nature of most of the processes in programs like
> Photoshop--no matter how much RAM you have all that data has to pass
> single file through one core of your multi-core uber CPU.
>
>

Hopefully I can condense what has been said in the thread so far, and
get you the answer you are after;

You are far far better off saving any money you would have spent on
new RAM to buy a slightly better processor or a second 4850.

Even the difference between 4GB of cheap DDR2-667 and 8GB of
'performance' DDR2-800 will be a small one, completely unnoticeable in
certain applications.


'Tight Timings vs High Clock Frequencies - Tom's Hardware'
(http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...cies,1236.html)

I know a few of the graphs in that article apply directly to what we
are talking about [as far as memory frequency goes]. Skim through it,
hopefully it is of use to you.


--
Brian the King

I appreciate the responses and as I have said will be dropping in a quad
core as I know that will make a difference. As for the graphics, running
more than the Toxic 4850 that I have would actually be slower as this board
only supports one x16 slot and one x8 and x4. Besides the majority of the
games I play are race simulators like Grid, Rfactor, Gtr2 and such. This
card smokes those games quite well. I am looking forward to the quad core
though as it will free up some other bottlenecks I am sure. Thanks all!!

"Brian the King" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:8f3277704b14e181b0464f0a37815be4@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> Hopefully I can condense what has been said in the thread so far, and
> get you the answer you are after;
>
> You are far far better off saving any money you would have spent on
> new RAM to buy a slightly better processor or a second 4850.
>
> Even the difference between 4GB of cheap DDR2-667 and 8GB of
> 'performance' DDR2-800 will be a small one, completely unnoticeable in
> certain applications.
>
>
> 'Tight Timings vs High Clock Frequencies - Tom's Hardware'
> (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...cies,1236.html)
>
> I know a few of the graphs in that article apply directly to what we
> are talking about [as far as memory frequency goes]. Skim through it,
> hopefully it is of use to you.
>
>
> --
> Brian the King

"Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:A7857F4F-B87E-49B0-8893-108CDACFEA85@microsoft.com...
> To all I ask. How much difference does the speed of ram make, ie ddr667 versus
> ddr800. also value ram versus performance ram ? I currently run Vista

Be careful. If you plan on filling all RAM slots, some Intel motherboards
will not run with the fastest RAM possible. In that case, you'd need the
slower RAM to use all slots.

Tom Lake