If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DDR RAM timings
Adrian wrote:
Is there a significant difference between: "400MHz settings: 2-2-2-6-1 (CAS Latency 2)" ...and... "400MHz settings: 2-3-2-6-1 (CAS Latency 2)" ? I'm assuming the first is more expensive - I wouldn't say its worth $30 more - unless you're talking about 1Gb sticks, maybe. I've a *really* vague idea on the differences but is it worth $30 of a difference per module? I'd say not. I'm unsure on the difference between the "2" and "3". ~ Adrian ~ --- "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I'm assuming the first is more expensive - I wouldn't say its worth $30
more - unless you're talking about 1Gb sticks, maybe. Yes, I meant to add, that the first one (22261) is $130 and the second (23261) is $100. I just don't see why paying an extra $30 is worth the gamble on it actually running at 2-2-2-6-1 on my motherboard. Both are 512MB modules. Thanks. ~ Adrian ~ --- "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Heh, this is actually a fun thread first thing in the morning.
Tell me about it, I've been researching this for five hours. :-) From what I have read you are looking at a 3-4% difference in performance, only you can decide if the cost justifies the boost. For that insignificant amount of gain, no, I wouldn't say it's worth it. Then again, your Mobo might not even use this setting, some appear to be futzing with the timings to get dual channel stable on a wider variety of 400 mhz parts. Good point, I wondered the same thing. I really have to say it's guess-work whether my motherboard will run at 2-2-2-6-1. I may spend the fortune on the fast RAM and find out it doesn't run, then end up losing 15% in restocking fees if I decide to return it. Take with as many grains of salt as deemed neccessary... Absolutely. Thanks. ~ Adrian ~ --- "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a link to an article at Anandtech about memory and the new 875/865
chipsets. Maybe you can draw a conclusion from the http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.html?i=1828 "Adrian" wrote in message ... Heh, this is actually a fun thread first thing in the morning. Tell me about it, I've been researching this for five hours. :-) From what I have read you are looking at a 3-4% difference in performance, only you can decide if the cost justifies the boost. For that insignificant amount of gain, no, I wouldn't say it's worth it. Then again, your Mobo might not even use this setting, some appear to be futzing with the timings to get dual channel stable on a wider variety of 400 mhz parts. Good point, I wondered the same thing. I really have to say it's guess-work whether my motherboard will run at 2-2-2-6-1. I may spend the fortune on the fast RAM and find out it doesn't run, then end up losing 15% in restocking fees if I decide to return it. Take with as many grains of salt as deemed neccessary... Absolutely. Thanks. ~ Adrian ~ --- "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Manda Luyong" wrote in message
. .. Here's a link to an article at Anandtech about memory and the new 875/865 chipsets. Maybe you can draw a conclusion from the http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.html?i=1828 Thanks, I'll take a look. ~ Adrian ~ --- "The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Telcontar" wrote in message ... Adrian wrote: Is there a significant difference between: "400MHz settings: 2-2-2-6-1 (CAS Latency 2)" ...and... "400MHz settings: 2-3-2-6-1 (CAS Latency 2)" ? I've a *really* vague idea on the differences but is it worth $30 of a difference per module? I'd say not. I'm unsure on the difference between the "2" and "3". ~ Adrian ~ Heh, this is actually a fun thread first thing in the morning. From what I have read you are looking at a 3-4% difference in performance, only you can decide if the cost justifies the boost. Then again, your Mobo might not even use this setting, some appear to be futzing with the timings to get dual channel stable on a wider variety of 400 mhz parts. Good point, but we need to clarify something. Actually, one would indeed see a 3-4% gain, but that would be going from, say, 3-3-3-6-1 to 2-2-2-5-1. Going from 2-2-2-6-1 to 2-3-2-6-1 may not even be measurable to any appreciable degree of accuracy. Secondly, the performance increase would reflect only *memory* benchmark performance, not overall system performance (as measured, for example, via PCMark 2002's memory test). The overall system performance would be even less. Only you can decide if that's worth $30. If both modules are made by the same manufacturer, then I would say not. If, OTOH, one is made by Kingston and the other by Corsair (for example), then the debate turns from one of raw speed to one of superior overall *quality*... and that *is* something for which I would pay more. As for myself, I'd much rather get a slightly less capable CPU so that I could afford a very high quality power supply and memory. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Good point, but we need to clarify something. Actually, one would indeed
see a 3-4% gain, but that would be going from, say, 3-3-3-6-1 to 2-2-2-5-1. Going from 2-2-2-6-1 to 2-3-2-6-1 may not even be measurable to any appreciable degree of accuracy. Secondly, the performance increase would reflect only *memory* benchmark performance, not overall system performance (as measured, for example, via PCMark 2002's memory test). The overall system performance would be even less. I see. Only you can decide if that's worth $30. If both modules are made by the same manufacturer, then I would say not. If, OTOH, one is made by Kingston and the other by Corsair (for example), then the debate turns from one of raw speed to one of superior overall *quality*... and that *is* something for which I would pay more. Both are made by Kingston, HyperX modules. I have the choice of picking the 2-2-2-6-1 module for $130, or, the 2-3-2-6-1 for $100. I think the difference wouldn't even be noticeable, myself. I'm just wondering, on my 875PBZ whether picking the fastest module (2-2-2-6-1) would end up in it being recognized as a 2-3-2-2-1 anyway? If so, then I've spent extra money for nothing. As for myself, I'd much rather get a slightly less capable CPU so that I could afford a very high quality power supply and memory. Agreed. ~ Adrian ~ --- "The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The only thing that extra $30 would buy you is bragging rights.
Absolutely. Not being an extrovert, I'd sooner have the extra $$$ in my pocket and use the money wisely on something else. You'd never even be aware of the difference in day-to-day usage. Yes, you're right. I highly doubt I'd notice the difference either. I think if you sat down with a benchmark tool and analyzed the numbers with the different modules of RAM, you'd see a difference. My present HyperX PC2700 RAM runs at 2-2-2-5-1, but I'm hard pressed to see any real difference between that and the 3-3-3-7-? of my previous sticks. OK, thanks. You've helped me make up my mind. I just didn't know if there would be a mindblowing difference or not. And as I said, if I did get the pricey RAM, my motherboard may not even like it. ~ Adrian ~ --- "The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Adrian" wrote in message ...
The only thing that extra $30 would buy you is bragging rights. Absolutely. Not being an extrovert, I'd sooner have the extra $$$ in my pocket and use the money wisely on something else. You'd never even be aware of the difference in day-to-day usage. Yes, you're right. I highly doubt I'd notice the difference either. I think if you sat down with a benchmark tool and analyzed the numbers with the different modules of RAM, you'd see a difference. My present HyperX PC2700 RAM runs at 2-2-2-5-1, but I'm hard pressed to see any real difference between that and the 3-3-3-7-? of my previous sticks. OK, thanks. You've helped me make up my mind. I just didn't know if there would be a mindblowing difference or not. And as I said, if I did get the pricey RAM, my motherboard may not even like it. ~ Adrian ~ Certain *faster* memory settings may actually slow the system down. You *may* see better results at 2-2-2-6-1 or 2-3-3-7-1. Here is some info http://www.mushkin.com/mushkin/pop-up/latencies.htm Mainly I'm referring to "Any tRAS setting lower tRCD + CAS + 2 cycles will allow the memory controller to close the page "in your face!" over and again and that will cause a performance hit because of a truncated transfer that needs to be repeated. Along with those hassles comes the self-explanatory risk for data corruption. That one is not a real problem as long as the system is kept running but in case it is shut down and the memory content is written back to the hard disk drive, the consequences can be catastrophic. For the drive, that is. " Eric |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAS Timings De-Mystified, and other JEDEC Zins of DDR cRAMming...(Server Problems) | Aaron Dinkin | General | 0 | December 30th 03 02:29 AM |
RAM timings | M Arino | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | October 24th 03 01:51 AM |
NF7-S: Tweaking DDR - Timings, Vdimm etc (TwinMOS TwiSTER PC3500) | Wayne Youngman | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | September 4th 03 09:27 PM |
DDR Timings | gARY | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | September 3rd 03 11:09 PM |
Memory timings for best speed | Lee | Overclocking | 0 | July 2nd 03 11:14 PM |