AMD 64 and Memory

**FireAm94** · December 31st, 2004, 12:09 PM

U lost me...hehe. You saying i'm wrong about AMD not backing BTX? Doesn't look that way...but u laughed *shrug*.

Joe

**RejectionMan** · December 31st, 2004, 12:22 PM

okee dokee then.. so AMD over Inetl, get rid of this foolish upgrade attempt, and dual channel is just meh, as in its not worth the extra $$ to get a Dual channel kit of lower lower letency memory.

Im going with the Socket 939 AMD 64 as all of there road maps indicate it will be the platform of choice in the future.

Memory wise Im planning on getting 2 512mb sticks of kinsgston PC3200 with 3-3-3 timeings. based on your comments the 2 512mb sticks with 2-3-2-6 timeings is not worth the extra $80, is that correct?

As to PCIe, I am not getting that, Im not that serious of a gamer, and can't afford to upgrade both te CPU and the video card at the same time, so I must stick with the ATI 7500 AIW AGP 4X

**RejectionMan** · December 31st, 2004, 01:05 PM

well my car has made the dession for me. yet another altinator has burst into flames (litteraly, why cant it burn that car to the ground while its at it!)

No PC for me!

**FireAm94** · December 31st, 2004, 01:41 PM

Dual channel is board dependant and does not affect latency (so to speak). Lower latency makes the difference in performance much moreso than the actually speed with Athlon 64 processors...Intel chips are the opposite. Get the low latency memory...latency and single/dual channel are two separate things. I'm running Corsair XMS Pro 3200 XL...wouldn't have wasted my money if it didn't make a difference...then again...i'm overclocking. Also...had the 939 boards and chips been equally priced as they are now...I would've gone 939...if nothing else for future upgradability.

Joe