[iopq]

I've had random crashes before that were one-off.

Like my desktop just froze, and then it never happened again. It only makes sense if it was a random bit-flip.

The actual RAM speed never mattered, you can't tell the difference with 150 FPS and 165 FPS (even though my screen's refresh rate is 280Hz)

[toast0]

It's pretty easy for those to be race conditions, too. Plenty of one time crashes in a fleet of thousands of machines with ECC. ECC lets you know it's almost certainly not a memory issue.

10% more fps doesn't matter at 150 fps, but it's nice when your FPS is lower. 60 -> 66 might mean you don't dip below 60 as often. 55 -> 60.5 is pretty nice too. Maybe less of a deal if you've got VRR etc.

[iopq]

What game runs at only 60 FPS because of a RAM issue? I know I only have a 3600, but if a game is running at 60 FPS it's 99% because of my GPU, not the RAM.

Most games still run at 90+ FPS, I would love to have ECC RAM to prevent a potential one-off crash or just to know that the RAM didn't report an error when it happened. I would pay money for this!

Better yet, the 3d cache CPUs don't care about RAM speed as much, according to benchmarks

[toast0]

Play games on APUs and RAM speed will make a big difference and could get you from playable to not.

[semi]

Or aim for extremely high FPS (>250+) on games that are not GPU bound - counterstrike being the typical example here.

[NavinF]

> you can't tell the difference with 150 FPS and 165 FPS

First byte latency makes cache misses significantly slower which in turn makes 99%ile latency (which is perceived as microstutter by humans) significantly higher even if it doesn't affect throughput (fps). This was well documented way back when the first DDR5 sticks came out and they performed like crap compared to overclocked B-Die DDR4.