Yes. Of course RAM is not unimportant. But fast RAM improves the gaming experience more than having loads of it. Most games and apps don't use/need more than 4 GB atm. You can even address more RAM to a certain app manually but most are made with that cap in mind and don't use the additional memory.
That you do indeed. Althought, DDR4 RAM is out and affordable by now. Beats DDR3 signifcantly. More RAM is useful when you do many things at the same time, but when it comes to just gaming, even 4 GB is still sufficient: http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page3.html Note that those 3 games are the only ones in their lineup of 20 games to even use more than 6 GB (with chrome running, 65 tabs loaded), and even then it doesn't make a real difference.
I would certainly dispute this. I have never seen any gaming benchmarks that prove that faster RAM makes any difference while playing a game. Whether you are using 1600 RAM, or 2400 RAM, the fps in games will be at most 1-2 fps different. So, perhaps there is a very small difference, but it is certainly negligible/trivial when you are playing at 100+ fps. (Unless you are using integrated graphics on something like an AMD APU, then RAM speed actually matters) Games just dont benefit from faster RAM... Certain games are limited by the amount of Vram that their GPU has, but that can usually be bypassed by using lower quality textures which dont eat up all of a gpus Vram. I would also certainly dispute this too. DDR4 compared to DDR3 is tough to gauge since they are dependent upon different platforms and generations of processors. So you cant directly compare DDR3 to DDR4 without also using different CPUs which are of course, more efficient. That said, I have also seen a lack of benchmarks proving that DDR4 is vastly ahead of DDR3 in performance. In fact, I have come to infer that the gap between them is currently negligible. DDR4 is currently far too hampered by atrocious Cas Latency times to provide the full benefit of the faster RAM speed. Whereas DDR3 2400 RAM can have a CL of 11, DDR4 2400 can have a CL of 17, which are both pretty common. Yet, the DDR3 has better true latency described briefly here. Really, the only major benefits DDR4 has over DDR3 is that it is compatible with Skylake processors... it requires a lower operating voltage which theoretically means you should be able to overclock the $#@% out of it, and it is more energy efficient. None of which are actual performance improvements over DDR3, unless you are really into overclocking, and actually know how to refine the timings of the RAM modules you have, which is a rather advanced skill to have as far as PC's go I think. So, clock speed for clock speed, DDR3 2400 should be faster than DDR4 2400 simply because of the latency differences. The only way I can see DDR4 outperforming DDR3 is if you get really high speed RAM, like 3000-4000. Although, those are currently incredibly expensive and down right unfeasible for most people to buy. Really only see those speeds for people who do product benchmarking, extreme enthusiasts that have money to blow, or people who take part in overclocking competitions just to gain name recognition as being able to OC a certain product the most. Cheers
Except when you count loading times as being part of the gaming experience. (Especially as hard drives, which used to be the bottleneck, become faster) Not only talking RR here but gaming in general. Certain cpu-heavy games like Fallout or GTA are very RAM intensive and in those the speed of your RAM will make a difference. Not a big one, and as you said not in terms of (noticeable) fps. But that comparison is flawed as DDR4 is already significantly cheaper than its respective (in terms of bandwidth) DDR3 counterparts. Secondly, latencies aren't everything, they almost are, but not entirely. And DDR4 is capable of much greater bandwidths than DDR3, and that does improve performance eventually. And the latency increase compared to DDR2 when DDR3 was introduced was much steeper, so I think DDR4 will catch up faster than DDR3 did back then. So if you're building or buying a new system today there's no reason not to go DDR4. Maybe I should have made this clearer (kinda thought it wasn't necessary), this won't give you a significant fps boost but it can help loading times.
hehe, didnt even think about anything else when I made my comment besides raw performance while playing the game... and the difference in fps since that is what most people are concerned with when they play. If load times, etc. are improved outside of the raw fps performance while playing... that would absolutely be a substantial improvement then... I suppose I have just never looked into any information relating to load time differences between the 2. I was simply comparing DDR3 clock speed vs DDR4 clock speed since, when run at the same speed, they will both have the exact same bandwidth. And when run at the same speed, I havent seen any info that has shown DDR4 to be faster. Of course you are correct though that the higher clocked DDR4 speeds inherently have more bandwidth... but even strictly comparing DDR3 (such as 1600 vs 2400+) games dont seem to make use of that higher speed/bandwidth in any meaningful way and performance in a game does not seem dependent upon having higher clocked RAM. True. Latency for DDR4 is already decreasing but still hasnt reached the same levels as DDR3 at the same clock speed. Of course, over the life span of DDR4, this will further improve and I've heard speculation that DDR4 may someday reach speeds of 5000 MT/s, whereas top end DDR3 capped out around 3000 MT/s. I could argue that there is still plenty of reason to go with DDR3 and the Haswell platform from Intel. Cost is still quite a bit less, at least in the US. If someone is on a budget, that is still a viable choice. Another year from now, probably not though What... you expect me to read every single word you write and comprehend it properly? Dont you know that takes effort and Im just an innocent bystander looking to pose my unwanted thoughts whenever possible? Just kidding, I was off in my own little thought processes when reading your comment. Good info as always Christian Cheers
Well, reading my earlier comments, how is anyone supposed to know what the hell I'm talking about. You're mostly right, doesn't really make a big difference for gaming performance, at least on the client side of things. Those high bandwidth dimms will be really useful for other things, servers, video/audio processing, stuff like that. Loading times also don't gain as much as it might sound, only a very specific kind of games will actually benefit from that and even then the differences are not dramatic. Measurable, noticeable, but far from life changing.