DDR3 vs DDR4

[Arcuz]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Nowhere did I say you were being a bother or a burden. I would gladly answer any question you have. Just try not to ask the same exact question multiple times in different threads. If there is something specific that you do not understand, ask. We will gladly help if we can. 

Sorry, didn't mean to mis-understand you like that. Ill come to you if I have anything I'm confused about after the videos okay?

 

 

[Arcuz]

1 minute ago, Nena360 said:

Yes and if you want to use DDR4 instead just replace the board and RAM!

Awesome thanks!

[MageTank]

Just now, Nena360 said:

Nope XMP...

Yes more CL is bad, it does not increase at high MHz as much as it does with DDR3 so at high MHz the DDR4 sticks will always win!

That is wrong. CL is NOT the be all, end all to latency. It's the combination of raw clock speed, primary timings, tertiary timings and the biggest factor being RTL/IO-L. Round Trip Latency is the single most important factor to memory. It's impacted by clock speed, primary timings, tertiary timings and command rate. Finding RTL balance is also the single most difficult thing to do, as any value slightly off on RTL/IO-L leads to extreme instability. Also, CL doesn't increase as MHZ goes higher? What are you talking about? 

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231956

 

4266mhz CL19-26-26-46. Are you going to tell me CL19 is not higher than CL14? The gap in CL vs clock speed in DDR4 is much higher than that of DDR3. We've been over this before Nena, and you've come to me for memory advice in the past. If you do not completely understand how it works, try not to give advice on the subject as if you do. It will lead to misinformation.

[typographie]

6 minutes ago, Arcuz said:

alright thanks!

(I suppose I could tone it down with like a 960 and an 13? And maybe 8GB of ram? stuff like that. This is just for my brother so he can play with me, because I'm building myself a really nice desktop also.)

Sure. The i3-6100 is sensibly priced and would be compatible with the rest of that system. It won't hold a minimum framerate as solidly as an i5 in some games, but it does pretty well in most.

 

I don't know where you live, but U.S. prices for the GTX 960 are still around $180–200. That's dangerously close to the prices for the Radeon RX 470, RX 480, or GTX 1060 3 GB which are all substantially better cards.

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, typographie said:

Sure. The i3-6100 is sensibly priced and would be compatible with the rest of that system. It won't hold a minimum framerate as solidly as an i5 in some games, but it does pretty well in most.

 

I don't know where you live, but U.S. prices for the GTX 960 are still around $180–200. That's dangerously close to the prices for the Radeon RX 470, RX 480, or GTX 1060 3 GB which are all substantially better cards.

If 1080p is the goal I would not pick a 3GB card, it will probably be great for 900p or 720p tough!

[Arcuz]

1 minute ago, typographie said:

Sure. The i3-6100 is sensibly priced and would be compatible with the rest of that system. It won't hold a minimum framerate as solidly as an i5 in some games, but it does pretty well in most.

 

I don't know where you live, but U.S. prices for the GTX 960 are still around $180–200. That's dangerously close to the prices for the Radeon RX 470, RX 480, or GTX 1060 3 GB which are all substantially better cards.

I've seen it on NewEgg for ~$145 after MIR, is that still good? Or should I still get a different card?

[Arcuz]

3 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

If 1080p is the goal I would not pick a 3GB card, it will probably be great for 900p or 720p tough!

Its mostly gonna be for lower end games like minecraft, Heroes and Generals, G-Mod, stuff like that.

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, Arcuz said:

Its mostly gonna be for lower end games like minecraft, Heroes and Generals, G-Mod, stuff like that.

Then the cheapest of the cards!

[typographie]

9 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

If 1080p is the goal I would not pick a 3GB card, it will probably be great for 900p or 720p tough!

As an alternative to someone otherwise considering a GTX 960, I don't have any problem recommending the GTX 1060 3 GB. You're not generally expecting to max out settings in brand new games with that budget anyway, which is what VRAM usually goes toward.

 

9 minutes ago, Arcuz said:

I've seen it on NewEgg for ~$145 after MIR, is that still good? Or should I still get a different card?

For lower-demand games like the ones you listed above, I think a GTX 960 will do fine. $145 is a lot easier to justify.

[Nena Trinity]

4 minutes ago, typographie said:

As an alternative to someone otherwise considering a GTX 960, I don't have any problem recommending the GTX 1060 3 GB. You're not generally expecting to max out settings in brand new games with that budget anyway, which is what VRAM usually goes toward.

 

For lower-demand games like the ones you listed above, I think a GTX 960 will do fine. $145 is a lot easier to justify.

If he find a R9 380 that should be good to!

[MageTank]

5 minutes ago, typographie said:

As an alternative to someone otherwise considering a GTX 960, I don't have any problem recommending the GTX 1060 3 GB. You're not generally expecting to max out settings in brand new games with that budget anyway, which is what VRAM usually goes toward.

 

For lower-demand games like the ones you listed above, I think a GTX 960 will do fine. $145 is a lot easier to justify.

Let's not forget that as long as you are not using copious amounts of AA at 1080p, 3gb is still enough. Besides, it's not like the 1060 3gb is fast enough to add that much AA anyways before its raw power becomes the bottleneck. I would say the 1060's price:performance is superior, even with the 960 being $145 after rebate, but for what he wants to do, a 960 would be enough. Unless he was wanting to heavily mod minecraft, then good luck, lol.