need help choosing ram

[hmminteresting]

I'm about to start my first PC build. I'm fairly set on the kingston hyperX Beast. however I cant choose between the 2400mhz or a lower frequency this is mainly due to the confusing way the company has presented its latency figures. It seems to tell me I can choose what CAS latency I want .

I was originally going to buy 2 4GB sticks of 2400MHz frequency however if say I chose a lower frequency (which is cheaper) would there be any drawbacks to getting say 2 8GB sticks?

I'll be putting them in an MSI gaming 5 z97 motherboard. 

[SpyRosL]

Buy a 2400mhz CL10. It's the lowest in latency with only ~$10 more than a 1600mhz one. (g.skill ripjawsZ, trident X)

[SovietOnion]

Higher Mhz RAM really doesn't have much of a performance boost over 1866, when I built my rig I stuck with 1600mhz then lowered the CAS to 7-7-7, the tighter the CAS the lower the frame variability, it's actually an amazing difference with these Haswells.  

 

[SpecTre12345]

Higher Mhz RAM really doesn't have much of a performance boost over 1866, when I built my rig I stuck with 1600mhz then lowered the CAS to 7-7-7, the tighter the CAS the lower the frame variability, it's actually an amazing difference with these Haswells.  

 

 

Problem with this, is mainly two things.

 

1) 2400MHz memory costs the same as 1600MHz. You are going to spend the same amount of money on a Cas 7 or 8 kit of 1600MHz memory as you would on a Cas 10 2400MHz kit. In the end, the 2400MHz kit will still have the better latency.

 

2) Is people have done their own personal testing and have proven that higher frequency improves performance in games and in daily tasks. Problem is even though there is data that exists that proves faster memory is beneficial (even in games), people still cling to the old concept (and old benchmarks) that it isn't and it just is not correct anymore.

[SovietOnion]

Problem with this, is mainly two things.

 

1) 2400MHz memory costs the same as 1600MHz. You are going to spend the same amount of money on a Cas 7 or 8 kit of 1600MHz memory as you would on a Cas 10 2400MHz kit. In the end, the 2400MHz kit will still have the better latency.

 

2) Is people have done their own personal testing and have proven that higher frequency improves performance in games and in daily tasks. Problem is even though there is data that exists that proves faster memory is beneficial (even in games), people still cling to the old concept (and old benchmarks) that it isn't and it just is not correct anymore.

 

Interesting, because in my tests the only game I gained any FPS in due to RAM speed was Skyrim. This was testing 1600mhz 7-7-7 and 2133mhz 9-9-10 

 

Then again I know for a fact that Sandybridge reacts completely different to higher RAM speeds, when I tested my 2500k back in 2011 at an OC of 4.6 I worked my way from 1600mhz to 2400 and on average gained about 7 frames. 

[SpecTre12345]

Interesting, because in my tests the only game I gained any FPS in due to RAM speed was Skyrim. This was testing 1600mhz 7-7-7 and 2133mhz 9-9-10 

 

Then again I know for a fact that Sandybridge reacts completely different to higher RAM speeds, when I tested my 2500k back in 2011 at an OC of 4.6 I worked my way from 1600mhz to 2400 and on average gained about 7 frames. 

 

Here's some testing done by other people:

 

Corsair BF4 Memory Benchmark:

 

 

 

BF4 1333MHz vs 2133MHz

 

Testscenario:

Domination Siege of Shanghai, on the roof (see video)

Private Server 1/32 Players, "Scooby Snacks BF4 PCW/CW"http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/en/servers/show/pc/d9788992-49d3-403a-9c9d-b3f1dbce62e1/Scooby-Snacks-BF4-PCW-CW/

Video of the test scenario (short cut of the benchmark, benchmark is 180s long, video is lagging because my hard drive is not fast enough for fraps):

http://youtu.be/GGUlkTA-JII

For every RAM 2 runs.

 

 

 

Conclusion

• Less framedrops or less incursions
• FPS increase 58%, RAM MHz increase 60%
• -> in CPU-limited situation the fps increase is nearly the same as the ram MHz increase

Here are a few of my results...

 

System:

- 3930K @ 4.5Ghz (usually 4.8)

- Rampage 4 Extreme

- 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3 2133 9-11-10-27

- EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB @ 1326/7460

- Samsung 830 256GB SSD (OS/Sys/Apps)

- WD Blue 320GB (Music/Video)

- HGST 7K500 320GB (Apps)

- WD RE3 1TB (Games)

- Creative Titanium HD

- LG/Hitachi Slim DVD-R/W

- NZXT HALE90 850W PSU

- TRIPP-LITE ISO-BAR-4 ULTRA Line Conditioner/Surge Suppressor/Voltage Regulator

 

I used the above system for the below tests, with all clocks identical with just the RAM changing. The system is watercooled so no drops in Kepler Boost or anything like that.

 

*TESTS*

 

(RAM SPEED + TIMINGS - AVERAGE FPS - MINIMUM FPS - MAXIMUM FPS)

All tests done in 1080p using a Dell P2212Hb connected via DL-DVI-D, all game settings set at maximum unless otherwise noted.

 

HALF-LIFE 2 EPISODE 2 (CPU @ 3.4Ghz, GPU @ Stock FTW Speeds)

1600 6-7-7-19 - 198.5 - 131.8 - 233

1600 9-9-9-24 - 191.3 - 124.9 - 219

1866 8-8-8-24 - 204.1 - 137.7 - 242

2133 9-11-10-27 - 217 - 147.1 - 259

2133 9-10-9-26 - 226 - 154.3 - 266

2360 9-12-10-29 - 231 - 159.7 - 283

 

Half-Life 2 and it's countless derivatives (mods, etc) all seem to be CPU Bound at this point, as I see a perfectly linear relationship between a CPU's speed and FPS.

 

 

FAR CRY 3 (CPU @ 4.5Ghz, GPU @ 1326/7460)

1600 6-7-7-19 - 52.2 - 26.1 - 93

1600 9-9-9-24 - 50.8 - 24 - 86

1866 8-8-8-24 - 54.1 - 27.9 - 96

2133 9-11-10-27 - 57.4 - 31.1 - 105

2133 9-10-9-26 - 58.7 - 33 - 107

2360 9-12-10-29 - 60.2 - 35.5 - 108

 

The biggest thing with FC3 is the increase in smoothness. The slower memory feels choppy at times, such as when you get into a firefight. The faster memory never has this problem. Also, with 2133 and above, I get zero texture "pop in", yet it's present with lower memory speeds.

 

 

I did recordings of 9 games, 11 benchmarks, and timed start up/shutdown/opening (Firefox with 25tabs/Photoshop/Paint.Net/Chrome with 25tabs,and a half dozen other things), and a few other things.

 

There is not a single instance in which the 1600 9-9-9-24 didn't come in dead last. The differences ranged from "benchmark-noticeable" to "Wow that's a huge improvement".

 

 

I simply don't recommend getting 1600 when the option for faster memory is there, especially if you have an IVB platform. The tests above are X79, and I have done the same tests on a 3770K + GA-Z77X-UP7, 3770K + Maximus 5 Extreme, 3570K + Extreme6 (for Ivy), a 2700K + Maximus 4 Extreme-Z, 2600K + G3.Sniper3, 2500K + Extreme9 (for Sandy), a Phenom II X4 980BE + ASRock 990FX Fatal1ty, 1100T + Crosshair V Formula-Z, 960T + 990FX Sabertooth R2.0, 1090 + M5A99X, 965BE + Gigabyte 990FX UD5(UD7, can't remember), and 8350 + Crosshair V Formula, 8130 + Sabertooth, 6100 + Extreme6, 4100 + Extreme3.

 

These have been over the course of 16mo, and variables change, not all systems had all tests run (most only had 2-3 games and a few benchmarks), and it's not a controlled experiment. Still, the results are only compared against the results from the same system, so they are perfectly valid.

 

Every single system wanted the fastest memory possible, although the Phenom II systems had to be controlled for timings by ensuring that the actual latency in ns was better than the prior test (which means most of the Phenom II tests are more about timings for a given speed than speed itself, although 1800 7-8-7-26 was always the fastest, beating 1600 6-7-6-19 by 9.3% on average).

 

 

 

Heaven Benchmark

 

DDR3 1600

Min 11 FPS

Avg 54.7 FPS

Max 117.5 FPS

 

 

DDR3 2133

Min 28.6

Avg 55 FPS

Max 117.7 FPS

 

 

 

And here's a kind benchmark from someone a part of this forum (comparing 800MHz memory and 1600MHz memory [20% increase in performance]; imagine the results if it was 800MHz compared to say 2400MHz [would be a 40% increase in performance based on these results]):

 

 

[hmminteresting]

Reading everything I have to say the only reason the question came to mind was because of linus' video on RAM types, at the end of the the day however the price difference isnt so great and ive done a fair share of research that shows that although not a great improvement, the 2400MHz memory does have some more stability when in game compared to lower frequecny. So i think ill just stick with the 2 4GB sticks I chose.

[SpyRosL]

Reading everything I have to say the only reason the question came to mind was because of linus' video on RAM types, at the end of the the day however the price difference isnt so great and ive done a fair share of research that shows that although not a great improvement, the 2400MHz memory does have some more stability when in game compared to lower frequecny. So i think ill just stick with the 2 4GB sticks I chose.

The video is outdated. Back then it didn't matter but these days are pretty much over. I'd love Linus to re-visit this video because it's not true anymore.

[Faa]

1) DDR2 800MHz doesnt run at CL9, they run around CL5 so divide that 20% by 2. I used the same timings for each clock.
2) BF3 & BF4 have a fps cap of 200
3)

4) As being proved; In a CPU bound scenario with bandwidth thats theoretically doubled you're never getting 60% as I perfectly proved above it's at best 20% better IF the timings are the same. Using the correct timings, the difference will be minor and 1866 starts going above CL9 which will counter the extra bandwidth so it kinda equals out.

Kinda funny that he uses my evidence I used to prove him earlier wrong and now he uses it as proof.

[SpecTre12345]

1) DDR2 800MHz doesnt run at CL9, they run around CL5 so divide that 20% by 2. I used the same timings for each clock.

2) BF3 & BF4 have a fps cap of 200

3)

4) As being proved; In a CPU bound scenario with bandwidth thats theoretically doubled you're never getting 60% as I perfectly proved above it's at best 20% better IF the timings are the same. Using the correct timings, the difference will be minor and 1866 starts going above CL9 which will counter the extra bandwidth so it kinda equals out.

Kinda funny that he uses my evidence I used to prove him earlier wrong and now he uses it as proof.

 

You're ignoring your relative increase in fps from increase in frequency of your memory. The benchmark proves faster memory is beneficial. You capped out at 1600MHz, if you kept going up to 2400MHz the performance gap would be even greater. You're just simply using your own research against yourself at this point; all it does is prove yourself wrong.

[Faa]

You're ignoring your relative increase in fps from increase in frequency of your memory. The benchmark proves faster memory is beneficial. You capped out at 1600MHz, if you kept going up to 2400MHz the performance gap would be even greater. You're just simply using your own research against yourself at this point; all it does is prove yourself wrong.

2-3 fps beneficial? Your benchmarks proved nothing, show me a few that aren't using the stupid "lets walk around and run fraps" inaccurate tests. Whats the point in running around if you can be massively cpu bound when standing still that way the accuracy skyrockets nearly to 100%. Dropping some Corsair tests (who actually sells RAM) and from a random user from OCN who doesnt have a clue how to get accurate results doesnt prove you right at all.

Here's where you found that: http://www.overclock.net/t/1438222/battlefield-4-ram-memory-benchmark/0_100

A 7950 at ultra in BF4 sitting above 120 fps all the time? Going above 200 fps when there's a fps cap in the game that can't be disabled? If you think his flaws prove you right, you might reconsider doing some more research behind bottlenecking & ram.

There's only a minor amount of bottlenecking from the memory you can reduce, the performance gain is noticeable from the gpu load but if you're doing memory intensive things memory speed can be extremely benefitial but this isn't the case with games because lower timings are far more beneficial than clock speeds.

However, if 2400 is priced the same as 1600MHz I'd rather recommend people to get 2400MHz since everyone is a numberwhore but I wouldn't jump in a thread and tell people lies that you'd get a 60% gain in fps.

[SpecTre12345]

2-3 fps beneficial? Your benchmarks proved nothing, show me a few that aren't using the stupid "lets walk around and run fraps" inaccurate tests. Whats the point in running around if you can be massively cpu bound when standing still that way the accuracy skyrockets nearly to 100%. Dropping some Corsair tests (who actually sells RAM) and from a random user from OCN who doesnt have a clue how to get accurate results doesnt prove you right at all.

Here's where you found that: http://www.overclock.net/t/1438222/battlefield-4-ram-memory-benchmark/0_100

A 7950 at ultra in BF4 sitting above 120 fps all the time? Going above 200 fps when there's a fps cap in the game that can't be disabled? If you think his flaws prove you right, you might reconsider doing some more research behind bottlenecking & ram.

There's only a minor amount of bottlenecking from the memory you can reduce, the performance gain is noticeable from the gpu load but if you're doing memory intensive things memory speed can be extremely benefitial but this isn't the case with games because lower timings are far more beneficial than clock speeds.

However, if 2400 is priced the same as 1600MHz I'd rather recommend people to get 2400MHz since everyone is a numberwhore but I wouldn't jump in a thread and tell people lies that you'd get a 60% gain in fps.

 

All I got from that is, I know how to create valid benchmarks, but everyone else doesn't. Great argument. Secondly, you are making stuff up. All you have to do is enter gametime.maxvariablefps 0 or 500 and it unlocks the FPS above 200:

 

 

There was over a 20% increase in performance from your benchmark at 800MHz to 1600MHz. You stopped at 1600MHz. If you had higher frequency memory, you could easily test what other people have proved. Which is that higher frequency memory makes an even bigger difference in such games. Stop downplaying other people's research because it disproves your close minded view that faster memory isn't beneficial. Also, did you ignore the other persons' results entirely? Or you don't bother reading? Only can look at graphs? Second time I will tell you this, change your opinions to fit the facts. Don't find the facts to validate your opinions. 

 

People on OCN create some of the most accurate personal benchmarks you can find, so much that I see you using them to prove a point. So don't come on here and say, "Oh this random guy on OCN doesn't know what he's doing, but I do." When you yourself use OCN for examples. Such a hypocritical move. 

 

2-3 fps, yeah when comparing 1066 to 1333. But try comparing 1333 to 2400. Wow, not that hard. You had 20% relative increase in performance from 400MHz increase in frequency. Do the math. 

[Faa]

All I got from that is, I know how to create valid benchmarks, but everyone else doesn't. Great argument. Secondly, you are making stuff up. All you have to do is enter gametime.maxvariablefps 0 or 500 and it unlocks the FPS above 200:

 

There was over a 20% increase in performance from your benchmark at 800MHz to 1600MHz. You stopped at 1600MHz. If you had higher frequency memory, you could easily test what other people have proved. Which is that higher frequency memory makes an even bigger difference in such games. Stop downplaying other people's research because it disproves your close minded view that faster memory isn't beneficial. Also, did you ignore the other persons' results entirely? Or you don't bother reading? Only can look at graphs? Second time I will tell you this, change your opinions to fit the facts. Don't find the facts to validate your opinions. 

 

People on OCN create some of the most accurate personal benchmarks you can find, so much that I see you using them to prove a point. So don't come on here and say, "Oh this random guy on OCN doesn't know what he's doing, but I do." When you yourself use OCN for examples. Such a hypocritical move. 

 

2-3 fps, yeah when comparing 1066 to 1333. But try comparing 1333 to 2400. Wow, not that hard. You had 20% relative increase in performance from 400MHz increase in frequency. Do the math. 

It's funny that you don't even realize that you're proving nothing besides working your BS-scale up.

So we should take your OCN results serious when;

- A 7950 runs above 120 fps in BF4 at ultra settings

- 30% loss in FPS going from low to ultra

- 60% gain in FPS when a 3930K with 2 extra cores can't even make such a difference over the 2500K

My test results were purely targetting at how much the memory clock speed ALONE can make a difference, I haven't tested 800MHz with the correct timings, in case you are going to disagree that lower timings improve your performance then there's no point we're arguing anymore. I haven't done stupid things like running around because I was extremely CPU bound already with massive GPU headroom left (could have even enabled SLI if the gpu was hitting its limit) so there was no point in doing that. There's no such thing as the memory clock speed scaling lineairly up with your FPS.

Lets get a credible source out to prove myself once more right, 3 GPU's 5870's running at 720p low settings pretty much cpu bound -> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/8

All within margin of error. Now you're just going to throw that evidence#lostthecount out and work on your bs-scale again and get this topic closed.

[SpecTre12345]

It's funny you think that, but data doesn't lie unfortunately for you.

My 670 ran above 120fps with Ultra settings in many areas of the game. 7950 overclocks better than a 670. So nothing ground breaking here.

Nothing ground breaking about changing settings from low to ultra, performance difference as expected

Nothing ground breaking about the difference in FPS between a 2500k and a 3930k in games either nothing new here

But of course the benchmark isnt valid because you didnt make it. What a suprise argument.

Theres no such thing as memory scaling fps linearly based on frequency, yet your own benchmark and others haven proven to be the case. Very interesting.

Testing games that dont take advatange of higher speed memory doesnt make them any more valid than the next benchmark that does the same. Plus we dont know a lot of the minor details that would be important to a benchmark like this, where many of their results dont make sense unless there was an error with the testing. Also, did you even bother reading the Half Life 2 or Far Cry 3 benchmarks? I guess not. They probably wouldnt count because they were done by someone on OCN anyway, as expected.

The only one bsing is the person who finds the facts to verify their opinions whilst ignoring the data that proves their opinions otherwise

[Faa]

Get some proper understanding of what lineair scaling means. This is an example of lineair scaling: http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/people/p.haynes/papers/paper6/linscal.gif

[SpecTre12345]

Get some proper understanding of what lineair scaling means. This is an example of lineair scaling: http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/people/p.haynes/papers/paper6/linscal.gif

 

Linear - having a response or output that is directly proportional to the input

 

The input being increased memory frequency, the output being more FPS. You increased your memory frequency by 400MHz (input), resulting in 20% increase in fps (output). You keep going 400MHz more, the result would be the same, another 20% increase in fps. Hence, linearly. 

 

​Try a dictionary some time. 

[Faa]

Linear - having a response or output that is directly proportional to the input

 

The input being increased memory frequency, the output being more FPS. You increased your memory frequency by 400MHz (input), resulting in 20% increase in fps (output). You keep going 400MHz more, the result would be the same, another 20% increase in fps. Hence, linearly. 

 

​Try a dictionary some time. 

No. y=5x+0

Give for x;

1 you get 5

2 you get 10

3 you get 15

That's lineair scaling. Lineair scaling has little to do with a dictionary

In common usage, linearity refers to a mathematical relationship or function that can be graphically represented as a straight line, as in two quantities that are directly proportional to each other, such as voltage and current in a simple DC circuit, or the mass and weight of an object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearity

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

L2maths imo

[SpecTre12345]

No. y=5x+0

Give for x;

1 you get 5

2 you get 10

3 you get 15

That's lineair scaling. Lineair scaling has little to do with a dictionary

In common usage, linearity refers to a mathematical relationship or function that can be graphically represented as a straight line, as in two quantities that are directly proportional to each other, such as voltage and current in a simple DC circuit, or the mass and weight of an object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearity

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

L2maths imo

 

Yes, let's ignore the other definitions for linearly because that's how the English language works. The Almighty Faa, above everything. Data, facts, and even the dictionary. Dare not to prove him wrong, for he will ignore what you say and continue on his babble fest of logical fallacies. 

 

L2english

[Faa]

Yes, let's ignore the other definitions for linearly because that's how the English language works. The Almighty Faa, above everything. Data, facts, and even the dictionary. Dare not to prove him wrong, for he will ignore what you say and continue on his babble fest of logical fallacies. 

 

L2english

For godsake dude. Lineair is an adjective for the noun line. Linearis comes from latin and means line that's all. A theoretical double gain in bandwidth didnt give us a 100% gain but instead a 20% gain which means there's no lineairity. That dude said; "FPS increase by 58%, RAM increase by 60%" that's lineair scaling.

Any function in the form of f(x) = ax+b will be lineair.

 (of a circuit, etc) having an output that is directly proportional to input: linear amplifier (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear)

Same thing p=u*i bump the voltage by 20% you get a 20% higher wattage or bump the amp you get a 20% gain in wattage. That formula is practically in the form of lineair functions. My native language is dutch, lineair is a dutch adjective as well lots of words are the same.

[thebennyboy]

Yes, let's ignore the other definitions for linearly because that's how the English language works. The Almighty Faa, above everything. Data, facts, and even the dictionary. Dare not to prove him wrong, for he will ignore what you say and continue on his babble fest of logical fallacies. 

 

L2english

 Just ignore Faa, nothing more than a troll. He will keep on coming out with arguments, not worth arguing with.

[SpecTre12345]

For godsake dude. Lineair is an adjective for the noun line. Linearis comes from latin and means line that's all. A theoretical double gain in bandwidth didnt give us a 100% gain but instead a 20% gain which means there's no lineairity. That dude said; "FPS increase by 58%, RAM increase by 60%" that's lineair scaling.

Any function in the form of f(x) = ax+b will be lineair.

 (of a circuit, etc) having an output that is directly proportional to input: linear amplifier (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear)

Same thing p=u*i bump the voltage by 20% you get a 20% higher wattage or bump the amp you get a 20% gain in wattage. That formula is practically in the form of lineair functions. My native language is dutch, lineair is a dutch adjective as well lots of words are the same.

 

Yes lets all trust the person who can't even spell Linearity. 

 

If you had a graph that say went all the way to 1600MHz on memory frequency (that started at 400MHz), and you discovered that by increasing the memory in increments of 400MHz that you gained 20% performance (fps). The graph would be linearly scaled based on your results.

 

Here let's make one: 

 

 

And if you kept going on the MHz, the fps would only increase more making it even more linearly based.

 

Examples:

 

 

 

Still confused on the word usage? Or you have something else you going to pull out your ass?

[Faa]

Yes lets all trust the person who can't even spell Linearity. 

 

If you had a graph that say went all the way to 1600MHz on memory frequency (that started at 400MHz), and you discovered that by increasing the memory in increments of 400MHz that you gained 20% performance (fps). The graph would be linearly scaled based on your results.

 

Here let's make one: 

 

 

 

And if you kept going on the MHz, the fps would only increase greater.

 

Examples:

 

 

 

 

 

Still confused on the word usage? Or you have something else you going to pull out your ass?

400MHz? 800MHz? I didnt even test 400MHz. I've only done between 800-1600MHz. Also your y values came out of your ass rofl. 

The 2nd graph, in 5sec it hitted 4000, in 2.5sec it hitted 2000. Same for the other one. 

 

[SpecTre12345]

400MHz? 800MHz? I didnt even test 400MHz. I've only done between 800-1600MHz. Also your y values came out of your ass rofl. 

The 2nd graph, in 5sec it hitted 4000, in 2.5sec it hitted 2000. Same for the other one. 

 

 

Stop trolling. I'm using the values based on your research, they aren't made up. 20% increase in fps based on 400MHz increase in frequency. Simple stuff. 

 

Once again you got proven wrong and you still act like you are right. Typical Faa, always gets proven wrong but cant suck it up like a grown man and accept the loss. 

 

You're just a little baby that's all.

 

Oh and for the record:

 

 

 

Obviously the value is doubled.

[Faa]

Stop trolling. I'm using the values based on your research, they aren't made up. 20% increase in fps based on 400MHz increase in frequency. Simple stuff. 

 

Once again you got proven wrong and you still act like you are right. Typical Faa, always gets proven wrong but cant suck it up like a grown man and accept the loss. 

 

You're just a little baby that's all.

After I proved you wrong about what lineair means and when you even proved yourself wrong by including a lineair function and obviously you have been proved wrong that there's no lineair scaling between bandwidth & fps you're telling me that I got proved wrong. Fabricating a graph to prove yourself right? You can't provide us such a graph without giving us what function you used and thinking that you proved yourself right like that LOL. What part of the base form f(x)=a*x don't you want to understand? Lineair functions is something thats taught here when you're 13 years old, tells enough about yourself. What don't you want to understand about: "In common usage, linearity refers to a mathematical relationship or function that can be graphically represented as a straight line, as in two quantities that are directly proportional to each other,"

When you cant prove yourself right you'd be raging like this:

 

 

[SpecTre12345]

After I proved you wrong about what lineair means and when you even proved yourself wrong by including a lineair function and obviously you have been proved wrong that there's no lineair scaling between bandwidth & fps you're telling me that I got proved wrong. Fabricating a graph to prove yourself right? You can't provide us such a graph without giving us what function you used and thinking that you proved yourself right like that LOL. What part of the base form f(x)=a*x don't you want to understand? Lineair functions is something thats taught here when you're 13 years old, tells enough about yourself. What don't you want to understand about: "In common usage, linearity refers to a mathematical relationship or function that can be graphically represented as a straight line, as in two quantities that are directly proportional to each other,"

 

 

I created a graph to prove you wrong, you were proven wrong. The graph was linearly scaled. It was in a straight line. It was proportional to each other. But apparently it's not valid even though I used perfectly applicable values that were very relative. How more delusional get you get? You are literally insane. 

 

Get over it, and stop crying like the little baby that you are. 

 

Oh you are still offended that I ripped you a part in PM, cry some more about it. Throw in some more straw man tactics to dissuade the conversation from the fact that you consistently get proven wrong and consistently wont suck it up like a man. As discussed in the PM, that was entirely not a part of this conversation and shouldn't have been a part of this thread. But you decided to include it as if you were going to use it as evidence against me. But everyone will read that PM and agree because the sad part of it is, everyone thinks you're an annoying pain in the ass troll and nothing more than that. Forever alone.