Ddr2-800 Vs Ddr2-667

[shenmueguru]

I'm planning for a new build in January, and wanted to get a bit of a headstart. I remeber reading somewhere that DDR2-800 only gets 5% gains tops over DDR2-667, which translates very little in games. Is the step up worth the purchase?

Also, I'm a bit confused with RAM timings. Higher numbers denote better performance, I'm guessing? Would, for example, would THIS (DDR2-800, 5-5-5-15) set be a better buy compared to THIS (DDR2-667, 4-4-4-12).

[Reidy]

I thought that the numbers refer to the timings or something, so lower is better. I think.

[Erik]

I'm planning for a new build in January, and wanted to get a bit of a headstart. I remeber reading somewhere that DDR2-800 only gets 5% gains tops over DDR2-667, which translates very little in games. Is the step up worth the purchase?

This depends on the price difference of course.
The gain you get also depends on your FSB speed (how much data per second your CPU can read/write from the main memory per second) which could be a bottleneck making faster RAM transfer speeds useless.

Also, I'm a bit confused with RAM timings. Higher numbers denote better performance, I'm guessing?

No, low numbers = better performance.
The figures are delays measured in memory clock cycles.
Those delays happen every time you access a new part of the RAM, so they are very significant for performance.

Would, for example, would THIS (DDR2-800, 5-5-5-15) set be a better buy compared to THIS (DDR2-667, 4-4-4-12).

Good question.
The delays might look far worst at first sight, but since it's in clock cycles the delays are actually almost the same, just do the maths:

DDR2-800 has a clock speed of 400Mhz, which equates to 2.5 nano seconds per cycle.
DDR2-667 has a clock speed of 333Mhz, which equates to 3.0 nano seconds per cycle.

5*2.5 = 12.5 nano seconds
4*3.0 = 12 nano seconds

15*2.5 = 37.5 nano seconds
12*3.0 = 36 nano seconds

The increase in data transfer speed of DDR2-800 5-5-5-5-15 more than make up for it's slightly longer delays.
That is: unless your FSB is the bottleneck, in that case the DDR2-667 4-4-4-4-12 will be slightly faster.

[Incinerate_IV]

No processors right even take advantage of DDR2-800, none right now even take advantage of DDR2-667, although the new revision of Core 2 Duos is about to. Get DDR2-667 for future proofing, the DDR2-800 is just a waste of money, unless if you plan on overclocking.

[Erik]

No processors right even take advantage of DDR2-800, none right now even take advantage of DDR2-667, although the new revision of Core 2 Duos is about to. Get DDR2-667 for future proofing, the DDR2-800 is just a waste of money, unless if you plan on overclocking.

The original Core 2 processors have a 266MHz quad speed FSB, that's 8.5 GB/s which is faster than the DDR2-800's 6.4Gb/s.
So to get the ideal speed of 8.5 GB/s you would need DDR2-1066, or DDR2-533 in dual channel mode.

[fireship4]

A good brand of 667 ddr2 (like a dual channel kit from geil) will overclock to 800 - http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/0...uk/page20.html