can ram be bottlenecked?

in vista my ram only scored a 5.4 and my friends is a 5.7 and i got pc 6400 ram and he has 5400 so how is his better. so im jw could my cpu be bottlenecking it because it only got a 4.8 in vista and its a pentium D 820 no oc yet.

It is the timing that matters not the speed. The speed does matter, but slower better timed ram will usually take the cake. The 433 mhz OCZ 2-2-2-5 ram is better than that pc10000 crap and it is assloads cheaper too.

our timings are the same is that why?

I don't think so, unless you get some 400mhz ddr2. But if ocz made 433mhz ddr2 then i think there might be. But yes, effectively the 1000mhz is only a little better. basically the way i understand it ddr increases are a good thing but are really only there to lower multipliers.

Are you sure your timings are the same? Cause your ram should be faster if the timings are equal... Does he have more ram than you?

I'm so glad I found this thread

OK

In summary - VISTA CONS YOU OUT OF MONEY

My friend bought a new PC just before me

He has single channel ddr2 667mhz RAM CL5
I have dual channel ddr2 800mhz CL4

Vista measures (for memory) "Operations per second"

So, this means how FAST (or so I believe) your memory is.

My memory has over twice the bandwidth and has a 20% lower latency.

So, IMHO, Vista is rating the SIZE of your memory, NOT the speed. (My vista runs 20x better than his and he has superior CPU, GPU, HDD etc.

I think Vista is trying to con you into buying MORE memory. I think this is perhaps due to POOR M$ code needing shedloads of memory

Oh btw, my memory scored 5 (i think) and my friends scored about 5.4.

Specs of PCs:
Mine (at bottom of post)
My friends
E6300
2gb single channel 667mhz ddr2 cl5
GeForce 7900GS
250GB SATA300 7200rpm

What do you all think? Can anyone confirm or disprove me? I'm actually interested on this.

I think there was an article a few months back on "Vista benchmarketing"

Anyhoodle must be off to school now...

Yep.. I'm right after a few corrections mondoman made.

OK, first thing first. On a 2-2-2-5 DDR-433mhz DDR stick, each number represent a number of cycle to do certain part of the memory adressing. So to simplify, a 2-2-2-5 DDR400 stick has the same latency as DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-10 for everything elses equal. With newer chipset, I can tell that my dual-channel DDR2-833 @ 4-4-4-12 has lower latency then any DDR-400 stick. It's this simple. The difference in this case is that the former has twice the dandwidth.

Last thing, VISTA isn't this bad. I personally have both Vista Home Premium 64-bit AND WXP home edition (32-bit) on dual-boot. I use Vista about at least 90% of the time. I guess it's not so bad cause I'm no sadistic against myself, so I would simply leave it there unused until SP1 comes out if it would be so bad. The included benchmark are irrelevant, but that doesn't do a bad OS as far as I know.

Stop nit picking.

Vista's benchmark sucks just like the rest of the OS

vLite is there for a reason.

Yay it is shiny.

Vista Hones Sack.

Vista Hones SHINY sack.

Can we all just agree that

-Vista sucks
-Its benchmarketing not benchmarking
-People who RUN Vista suck
-Vista is a ripoff
-Your mum was GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEREAT in bed
-And I was right all along.

(The insides of your mums legs are as RED as a fire engine)

Latas

Graphic... 8O

Use vlite, it will fix all the things wrong with vista.

-Eh works fine for me at work...
-Then why use it or care about it?
-No... no I don' think so...
-Not if you get it for free

Who said anything about torrenting? MSDN Access ftw

MSDN lol

So anyway do we agree on the memory speed lying benchmarky thingy?

Ah ok

My mate thinks I'm totally wrong because there are too many differences in our builds.

Actually I have downloaded it and installed and used it for a while before FORMATTING IT.

Why would I run Vista?? It still has some of the same problems XP has, only it does whatever it's doing alot slower. My XP never slows down, however Vista manages to clog up my machine. Linux doens't and neither does x86 solaris. The main problem with Vista for me is the HARDWARE requirements. Nothing (bar Aero) warrants that astonishing hardware requirements. M$ say minimum 800hz and 512gb RAM.

If anyone runs Vista on that they are a complete fool

Windows 2000 would run OK-ish on that

To run Vista without always feeling annoyed you need something around 3ghz and 1 - 2 gb of RAM

Thats the sort of requirement you would see for....STALKER. It doesn't actually DO anything extra. The reason is RUNS slower is because M$ have tried to fix the problems in XP, but just can't do it efficiently.

AND

On top of that, for its main selling point, it requires a >128mb Video card.

Best thing about Vista is DX10

However Vista does reduce framerates so...hmmm

Its not really that great.

And UAC is annoying and pointless...so everyone switches it off

Its just substandard, even M$ have basically admitted its just a stepping stone to the next version of Windows.

AND

It still has the registry, Internet Explorer is still welded to the system, so it still has some fundamental flaws.

Its more secure...it just pisses me off all the time.