DDR3 RAM Explained 200
Das Capitolin sends us to Benchmark Reviews for an in-depth feature on DDR3 memory that begins: "These are uncertain financial times we live in today, and the rise and fall of our economy has had [a] direct [effect] on consumer spending. It has already been one full year now that DDR3 has been patiently waiting for the enthusiast community to give it proper consideration, yet [its] success is still undermined by misconceptions and high price. Benchmark Reviews has been testing DDR3 more actively than anyone. ... Sadly, it might take an article like this to open the eyes of my fellow hardware enthusiast[s] and overclocker[s], because it seems like DDR3 is the technology nobody wants [badly] enough to learn about. Pity, because overclocking is what it's all about."
not cost effective for the performance gain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not cost effective for the performance gain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not cost effective for the performance gain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:stupid (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How about a DDR2 versus DDR3 chart? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Needed (Score:4, Informative)
And the actual reason memory manufacturers have such a hard time selling memory performance is an extension of this; most purchases of memory have an implicit tradeoff: amount versus speed.
In most cases the real memory pain will come when you hit swap. That means you will almost always notice having less memory more than you'll notice having slower memory. So basically the only ones who end up having 'fast memory' on their system purchase checklist is those for whom money isn't an issue at all (ie, there is nothing else you could buy for that money that would improve your system (or life) more than faster memory). Or those who have very small applications they need to execute blazingly fast. Such as benchmarks.
Until those problems get fixed, faster RAM won't make a bit of difference to the end-user.
More accurately, faster RAM will make less of a difference than more RAM.
Re:hardhack (Score:3, Informative)
I think I'm being trolled.
Re:Not Needed (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Overclockers (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, mark it at a lower speed, and sell it as such.
Why do you think they "lock" things?
Re:stupid (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't call it a success, either. I'd wager that figure is 90%+ copies that came with new PCs. The large majority of which probably end up in a corporate setting where it was re-imaged with XP Pro (happens all the time where I work and for our clients).
Re:What about the 4GB limit in Vista 32? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you can address your additional memory using PAE though I'm not necessarily recommending you do this. I use a 64-bit Linux install and seem to be doing okay. I have had a few FLASH problems, but only an odd non-start on YouTube pages, fixed by hitting reload. It honestly doesn't bother me and has never happened during the playing of a FLASH movie, only on starting one. I expect this to be fixed soon enough and I'm much happier running the 64-bit version. Personally, I'd install the 64-bit version. [wikipedia.org]