PC upgrade advice.

[Saras]

that depends, since the system we're talking about is pre-ddr3 then i doubt you can recycle ddr2, no?

and no, ram speed does add quite a bit of worth even up do DDR3 2400mhz has some noticeable effect.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_4.html#sect0

Considering that the result of doubling the memory bandwidth amounts to a 4.4% increase in an application that is known for being memory hungry, that's not exactly an image that helps in conveying your point. As it stands today, DDR3 2400 is useful, but for IGP'us, perhaps server/workstation systems, I'm not sure. But what concerns the general consumer, ram speed amounts to little else than e-cock length. Even if it's a stupid solution what concerns its cost.

Also, the main ram used nowadays is 1600/1866, not 1333. And if you take 1866 as your base, the higher speeds are negligible from a cost/performance perspective. At least for DDR3, DDR4 might change that DDR4-4000 might very well be noticeable, but that's still to be seen.

[kitamesume]

you're forgetting the point that a mere 40$ increase in price gives you 4% performance increase, for users who really do needs the speed they find it worth it for even shaving a single second off a hundred second wait time.

[Saras]

you're forgetting the point that a mere 40$ increase in price gives you 4% performance increase, for users who really do needs the speed they find it worth it for even shaving a single second off a hundred second wait time.

Those users have systems with quad-channel ram.

[kitamesume]

you're forgetting the point that a mere 40$ increase in price gives you 4% performance increase, for users who really do needs the speed they find it worth it for even shaving a single second off a hundred second wait time.

Those users have systems with quad-channel ram.

true but certainly doesn't apply to everyone, for budget minded users who're after that performance for as little as possible i doubt they'd shell 200% more for ~20% increase.
as for the ram kit, if the system is already 500$ in all by just adding less than 10% of that you get 4% performance increase, you do the math of which is a worth more deal.

as for us regular users.

We must admit that gaming applications differ somewhat in this respect. Memory subsystem performance has a larger effect on them. By preferring high-bandwidth DDR3 SDRAM for your Ivy Bridge platform, you can get an additional 5-10% in terms of frame rate. You don’t always achieve this even by installing a faster CPU!

price difference:
[$57.99]Team Elite 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600)
[$69.99]Team Xtreem LV 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200)

[OnDeed]

that depends, since the system we're talking about is pre-ddr3 then i doubt you can recycle ddr2, no?

and no, ram speed does add quite a bit of worth even up do DDR3 2400mhz has some noticeable effect.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_4.html#sect0

heh, I don't call that a noticeable improvement lol. You could probably invest the money elsewhere and improve the performance more?

Also note that at 2400 MHz, the memory could effectively have lower latencies, because the length of 1 cycle shortens. In many many cases, apparent gains from bandwidth are actually caused by this. In other words, you would get these improvements if you had tighter timings on the low (say, 1333 MHz) frequency.

[kitamesume]

i forgot which article i've read but upping Mhz over tighter timings gains rather lower latency.
not to mention that tighter dimms are expensive and rather cost inefficient than faster dimms (you gain lower latency yet miniscule bandwidth, whats the point then).
[$64.99](7-7-7-21) G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333
[$69.99](10-12-12-31) Team Xtreem LV 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400

nvm its the same article.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_3.html#sect0

The diagrams illustrate what we’ve written above. Increasing the memory clock rate by 266 MHz turns out to be more effective than lowering each timing by 3 or 4 cycles. DDR3-1867 with 9-9-9-27 timings turns out to have a better effective latency than DDR3-1600 with aggressive timings of 7-7-7-21. As for effective bandwidth, DDR3-1600 can’t match the higher-clocked alternative under any circumstances.

and yeah that is quite noticable, 4% for 12$ is quite something, where else can you gain 4% more performance for 12$?
[$57.99]Team Elite 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600)
[$69.99]Team Xtreem LV 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200)
as for percentages, 500$ for a whole package means 12$ more is merely 2.4%, you paid tiny yet gained more profit o.o ain't that a sweet deal?
also which part can you up performance for only 12$? i'd want to be in that secret too.

[LillyTown]

A: I hadn't read the whole thread and didn't realise he had a DDR2 relic.
B: You keep stating '4% better performance' when that's not the case.... 4% better performance in very specialised conditions is what's demonstrated. Without reading that article we don't even know what the benchmark tested, other than some operation in Photoshop. The fact is, the majority of people don't use Photoshop or play Crysis Warhead at high resolutions. Now, I'll admit I was off by stating 1333 to be the standard though. Anyway, that $40 would almost cop a cheap SSD that could be used as a big 'cache' to store whatever media or game you're working on/playing at the time and probably make a much more noticeable difference for the average user.

[N2O]

Really?  My memory is a relic ?

I can't say I understand those charts and terms (yet).  What I do understand is you guys recommend changing my processor and/or memory first.  An i3 at least for the processor.  I'll try to remember this when I think of making an upgrade.

My PC is working great so far, so I think my problem is fixed.  For now, I'll leave it as it is.  Thanks for the input, guys.

[megido-rev.M]

If you're going to consider i3 in the future, might as well choose i5 instead.

[Saras]

Really?  My memory is a relic ?

I can't say I understand those charts and terms (yet).  What I do understand is you guys recommend changing my processor and/or memory first.  An i3 at least for the processor.  I'll try to remember this when I think of making an upgrade.

My PC is working great so far, so I think my problem is fixed.  For now, I'll leave it as it is.  Thanks for the input, guys.

If your system can deal with what you want it to do deal with, then it's fine. No need for an upgrade just yet.

Also, that's a tangent conversation of little relevance to your topic, it's best to ignore it.


And now, continuing with said tangent.

as for us regular users.

We must admit that gaming applications differ somewhat in this respect. Memory subsystem performance has a larger effect on them. By preferring high-bandwidth DDR3 SDRAM for your Ivy Bridge platform, you can get an additional 5-10% in terms of frame rate. You don’t always achieve this even by installing a faster CPU!

price difference:
[$57.99]Team Elite 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600)
[$69.99]Team Xtreem LV 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200)

1st

That's a useless graph for practical reasons. The difference in fps doesn't really matter at that point. Most gamers don't hit 60fps on the games they play, show me a graph where the ram is the deciding factor whether a game can be played or not, that would certainly show something.

There is no guarantee that said 5-10% gains in translates in low fps scenarios.

2nd

1600 is the cheapest ram, not 1333. 1333 is old, it's about time you take it out of your consideration. And when you speak about advantages do so with that.

[kitamesume]

1600 is the cheapest ram, not 1333. 1333 is old, it's about time you take it out of your consideration. And when you speak about advantages do so with that.

and who was it that recommended 1333mhz? i'm sure as hell i didn't.

if you haven't realized, i simply said theres some gains to be had for going faster DIMMS at not much more, so which idiot blew his nose with his misunderstanding?

that depends, since the system we're talking about is pre-ddr3 then i doubt you can recycle ddr2, no?

and no, ram speed does add quite a bit of worth even up do DDR3 2400mhz has some noticeable effect.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_4.html#sect0

[Tatsujin]

If you're going to consider i3 in the future, might as well choose i5 instead.

^ This. An extra 80-100 USD will make a large difference in performance and quality. CPU is the first chip that drives everything else in your system.

[Saras]

1600 is the cheapest ram, not 1333. 1333 is old, it's about time you take it out of your consideration. And when you speak about advantages do so with that.

and who was it that recommended 1333mhz? i'm sure as hell i didn't.

if you haven't realized, i simply said theres some gains to be had for going faster DIMMS at not much more, so which idiot blew his nose with his misunderstanding?

that depends, since the system we're talking about is pre-ddr3 then i doubt you can recycle ddr2, no?

and no, ram speed does add quite a bit of worth even up do DDR3 2400mhz has some noticeable effect.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_4.html#sect0

I didn't say that you recommended it. However, you're using it as the base from which the advantages of faster ram is calculated, you're also using it as the base for the price difference. And what concerns the gains, they are only relevant to a very select group on very select operations. It's not an overall improvement.

[kitamesume]

now that i can agree too, indeed it only adds performance to select usages. but concerning the price difference, theres hardly any.
[$49.99](CL 11) Patriot Signature 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
[$54.99](CL 9-9-9-24) Team Dark Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
[$74.99](CL 10-12-12-31) Team Xtreem LV 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400


what ticked me most is this senseless comment.

you're forgetting the point that a mere 40$ increase in price gives you 4% performance increase, for users who really do needs the speed they find it worth it for even shaving a single second off a hundred second wait time.

Those users have systems with quad-channel ram.

edit: oh but there are other things that do get benefits from faster RAMs, even if they're small.
yep most of them are CPU bound apps that handles large amounts of files(or chunks), speaking of files superfetch does get benefits with faster rams, leading to faster task switching and such.

(click to show/hide)

[N2O]

Good grief, my PC is failing a bit often again.  This time, the BSODs disappear so fast, I can't get a snapshot of it.  I doubt it's the HD or the cables this time (it's just 1 month old).  What do you guys think I should check next?  I'm out of ideas...

[kitamesume]

theres a way to stop auto-restart during BSOD.
http://pcsupport.about.com/od/windows7/ht/automatic-restart-windows-7.htm

[N2O]

Well, thanks for that info.  Never thought BSODs can be stopped from restarting...

My PC's running fine for now.  If it happens again, which I'm afraid it will any time now, I'll at least see what the error message is.  Maybe that will give me some ideas on what to do...

[megido-rev.M]

See if the event log gives any clues.

[Tiffanys]

Forget about "upgrading" the CPU. The CPU is the core component of a computer and they use a specific socket. You can't use new tech on top of old tech.

Furthermore, don't even listen to the suggestion about an SSD. If you still have an IDE cable in your motherboard there's no way in hell you're on SATA III. You're probably still on SATA I and there's no way you're going to be getting your money's worth out of an SSD. Your entire computer would bottleneck it, including the SATA port. Not to mention at a $200-400 cost you could probably just get an entirely new PC.

My suggestion as for the BSOD - keep a camera close by and take a picture of the screen the next time it happens.

As for upgrading, if your computer is using IDE cables it's way older than 4-5 years. It'll be a waste of your money to bother trying to fix it. You may as well just build a new rig. You could do it for fairly cheap. You don't need to build the most hardcore gaming rig or anything. Some cellphones nowadays probably have more power than your desktop PC... >_<

[kitamesume]

Furthermore, don't even listen to the suggestion about an SSD. If you still have an IDE cable in your motherboard there's no way in hell you're on SATA III. You're probably still on SATA I and there's no way you're going to be getting your money's worth out of an SSD. Your entire computer would bottleneck it, including the SATA port. Not to mention at a $200-400 cost you could probably just get an entirely new PC.

SSD's random I/O can't saturate SATAI bandwidth yet, well on the mainstream SSDs at least.

SATA revision 1.0 - 1.5 Gbit/s - 150 MB/s

edit: speaking of interface hard-caps, theres already a soft-cap within the system, even if you did put a faster HDD or SSD, the system is still soft-capped by the speed limit of data transfers from other sources.
HDD to SSD would be bottlenecked by the HDD(180MB/s peak for even the fastest 7200rpm HDDs), network to SSD would be bottlenecked by the network(1gigabit or 128MB/s).
the same thing applies to the latest hardwares, the only way to mitigate the soft-cap is to have the bottlenecks removed.

at the moment the only way for the SSDs to work at their maximum throughput is via SSD-to-SSD transfers and RAM-to-SSD transfers.


but anyway, if this is the case then the only way to boost system performance is to use more ram and go with superfetch, check if you could squeeze in more rams.

superfetch caches recent accessed files, and evicts the least used cached file.
the cache itself is low-priority so if ever the ram is flagged as "needed" then the cache will evict a portion of itself to make room.
the problem with superfetch is though it doesn't keep them after reboot, so it needs to rebuild it every time you do so.

of course, a full upgrade should be more cost efficient than just partial upgrades.