>>110086639
It can play Morrowind, BG, Fallout, Deus Ex... what more do you need?

64 GB DDR3 bro’s where we at

>>110086639
what an idiot that's a complete waste of time and money DDR2 is way too slow because... there exists faster RAM now so it doesn't make sense to... use slower RAM when faster one exists and... everyone else is buying it there must be a reason...

ddr3 still the king

>>110086639
grok summarize this shit for me and make a spec chart

>>110086639
Watched the whole thing. I enjoy shit like this - taking absolute garbage and piecing together a machine, overclocking the piss out of it, and seeing what it can do. Configurations that laugh in the face of official hardware requirements. Like - this is what Africans could do with the mountains of ewaste they burn to reclaim the gold, but they're genetically incapable.

>>110086937
Because the ancient CPUs you're forced to use aren't worth a damn in 2026

>>110086801
Right here, in one of my servers.

>>110086639

anon modern ssd is as fast as ddr look at nearly infinite readyboost

>>110086639
im using ddr3

>>110087487
Fuck, you might find an am2+ board that supports an 1100T. I didn't watch this shit tho

>>110089152
Your IQ is less than 65.

6.4 GB/s for ddr2, max 3.5 GB/s for ricer SSDs (likely more like 600ish MB/S).

>>110092544
nta but DDR2-1066 has 8533MB/s bandwidth. There are SSDs out there that do more than 10.000MB/s. Maybe not endlessly but were definitely getting there.

>>110092573
*in read
*sequentially

the main reason we have ram is for it's latency and random-access speed. even ddr2 still has latencies on the order of a dozen nanoseconds, while for a high end pci-5 ssd it's more like a dozen microseconds. seems pretty fast, but that's a thousand times slower

>>110092544
>max 3.5 GB/s for ricer SSDs (likely more like 600ish MB/S).
that's state of the art 5 years ago mate, you can buy ssd's today that advertise 14 GB/s. though you won't see that unless you're doing sequential reads, would still absolutely be destroyed by doing more dram-sized tiny random writes like ram does. ssd's are designed for bulk transfers so have gigantic erase blocks compared to dram

>>110092766
you know what, you're right

>>110092811
If we look at full maxed out shit then 14.9GB/s SSD vs 8.5GB/s DDR2. Except the 14.9 figure is only theoretical. You CAN get 14.1 in more scenarios, but it's more like 3.5-5.5GB/s in practice.

>>110093063
the problem is that the worst-case scenarios for an ssd is just exactly what ram is used for. it's the reason why we even have both technologies to begin with. like both technologies are about as old as each other, but they have very different strengths and weaknesses