4 ms·
I think that's GDDR5 which is something different (and roughly comparable to [edit: DDR3]). Also, for this comparison, hasn't DDR3 had much higher speeds than
by Osmium 13y ago
I think that's GDDR5 which is something different (and roughly comparable to [edit: DDR3]).
Also, for this comparison, hasn't DDR3 had much higher speeds than 1066MHz for a while now anyway? isn't it up to 1866MHz? so the comparisons claimed speed improvements seem exaggerated. I'd be interested to know the real world difference this would make anyway. For logistical reasons I recently had to order a workstation with DDR3-1600 rather DDR3-1866 memory but couldn't find out how much of a real world impact this would have.
- Tuna-Fish 13y ago> I think that's GDDR5 which is something different (and roughly comparable to [edit: DDR3]). GDDR5 is based on DDR3, but I wouldn't call it comparable to it. It has a completely redesigned physical interface, with a lot of cool innovations and ideas that make it faster and better. Some of those innovations return to the main memory types with DDR4.
- mbell 13y agoYou can get up to DDR3-3000 from what I've seen but performance varies with application. The problem is that throughput isn't the only important metric, latency determined by the timing specs of the module are also very important. Higher throughput modules generally have significantly worse latency. For some applications, the throughput is far more important than latency but for many applications latency is just as important if not more important. There are a few benchmarks at different speeds / latencies here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7495/adata-xpg-v2-review-2400-c11/8 http://www.anandtech.com/show/7495/adata-xpg-v2-review-2400-...
- ck2 13y agoIf it is based on DDR3, video cards that use it are significantly faster than the same card that uses DDR3
- wlesieutre 13y agoIf you mean it's faster than the same card using GDDR3, that's because GDDR3 is based on DDR2. Fantastic naming scheme, isn't it?
- Tuna-Fish 13y agoThere are also plenty of cards that use DDR3, without the G. GDDR5-using cards are much faster than them.
- wlesieutre 13y agoHuh, wasn't aware of that. Is it mostly budget cards that aren't really intended for gaming, or do you see it in low-end gaming cards as well?
- yaantc 13y agoGDRR5 leverage the fact that the memory chips are soldered, compared to DIMM slots for DDR3. That can be use to improve the performance. Now don't ask me for more details, I'm not an expert in this area.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sp332 13y agoOfficial JEDEC specs only go up to 1066. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM#JEDEC_standard_modules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM#JEDEC_standard_modu... Other speeds are possible, but compatibility is very limited.
- shawn-furyan 13y ago> For logistical reasons I recently had to order a workstation with DDR3-1600 rather DDR3-1866 memory but couldn't find out how much of a real world impact this would have. In my experience, RAM speed is not noticeable in practical daily use. I used to have two 2GB sticks of high performance (for the time) RAM in my system overclocked, but when RAM prices fell to the point where I could get another 2x4GB budget set for <$30 I opted to go with a heterogeneous setup and miss out on overclockability. The transformatively positive impact on perceived speed achieved by going from 4GB to 12GB (because of the fact that I almost never touch swap now) completely overwhelmed the iteratively negative impact on perceived speed from dropping from 1600MHz to 1066MHz and from CL7 to CL11. I really did not perceive any increase in general sluggishness, even though I had somewhat been anticipating one. My takeaway from that experience is that for general purpose workstations, DDR3+ is now fast enough that price per GB should be preferred over advertised/benchmarked performance numbers insofar as it allows you to fit more RAM into your given budget.