安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
My main goal with that was to state that the ranks were more or less an "additive" thing (per channel) as far as the system is concerned. OP was pointing out the "mismatch" there, and then clearly stated they didn't understand ranks, so I wanted to provide some input (and mostly got ignored).
That being said, I wasn't aware interleaving wasn't done in the consumer space? I thought that was a big part of what was responsible for the uplift in performance of additional ranks to begin with? I guess there's more to it then, because additional ranks definitely have shown a tendency to raise performance on even consumer platforms.
But I learned something today, so thank you for the correction.
In a vacuum I agree. But to me it seemed like an entire non-issue if the configuration OP had was already stable, and had been for eight years.
I mean consider the overall picture here, which is how I'm trying to look at it, and not just the slim differences that even collectively don't justify the change.
OP has a dozen year old platform. OP has a RAM configuration that was already decent RAM, and a configuration that worked, and a configuration that was enough capacity for them. I see no issues then?
A much faster platform starts at ~$260 to $300. This is important. A platform is the three parts of the CPU, board, and RAM, so what I'm getting at is if you spend money on a current platform part and come close to half of the total cost of a new platform, you should be pausing and reconsidering your options (at least IMO). If OP was just getting $40 RAM, it's whatever, but $90 RAM, maybe doing it again, AND a future CPU upgrade? See what I'm getting at?
If OP just doesn't want a platform change and acknowledges they are sinking money into the current platform, okay, fine. That's their choice. But even then...
16 GB of decent DDR3 (1600 MHz, 9-9-9-24) is $30 to 40, or for 32 GB double it to $60 to $80 for 32 GB. So... why is OP spending around $100 after taxes and all on just 16 GB?
See where I'm coming from? There were better alternatives no matter which way you cut it.
Yes, I ultimately agree that it's OP's choice, and if they are happy with it, I agree with you and I am legitimately happy for them too. I just figured that by making the the thread, they were open to input about the overall situation, so that's what I was offering. Some rational to help make a better choice. If not, it's fine then. It's OP's money and choice.
Why is $90 to $150 the only alternative in your mind to this $30 for three months arrangement?
I have pointed out options for RAM that is equal to what you chose for $30 to $40 total (and they are new, not used). I don't know why you're being presuming $90 or $150 is anywhere near the norm for what you chose.
OP, sorry if I was a bit pushy. I will admit I may have been. The reason I may have been was to clear up any doubt on factors you brought up and were asking about, or to point out what were better options. In other words, I was only trying to help you make the best choices. Regardless of the choice you made, if you're happy then I'm happy for you, and I hope you believe me on that. Regardless, I'll let this rest.
They explained this. When they are saying 3 payments of $30 vs $90 or $150 they are specifically referring to the memory they were looking at from Corsair (either the 1600 or the 1866). They would rather pay 3x $30 over 3 months for Corsair rather than $30 for another brand which they themselves aren't familiar with, e.g. $30-$40 for a TeamGroup kit with essentially the same specs as the Corsair they are choosing to spend the $90 for the Corsair name as long as it was distributed over 3 months.
I personally agree that it isn't a good approach to shopping for tech products, just as I personally agree that I would consider the change a waste of money in my opinion; But I'm not the OP and it's on them to consider external information and make their own purchasing decisions (which I know you've acknowledged several times already).
But i wanted a higher chance of it being new and compatible and Corsair was common on the QVL. I wasnt going to go with a brand i havent used before even if it was cheaper and then it end up not working. Pretty sure i mentioned that before.
So lets just leave it at that
What was getting me hung up was how it being presented with the reason of "$30 for three months is better than $90 or $150", so it threw me through a loop and came off like maybe OP thought the norm for that stuff was in that price range and wasn't aware there were far better alternatives.
A preference is a preference. Don't justify it. Wanting it for that reason is good enough, and we all have our preferences that defy reason, myself included. If simple preferences was why you wanted it, that's fine. Sorry if I seemed pushy against that preference. That wasn't at all my intent.
I just wanted to make sure you actually were aware of your other choices because you didn't seem to acknowledge them well (or maybe I failed to grasp them with the way you stated them, either way).