Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Faster speeds or tighter timings? That is the question!

Tags:
  • Memory
  • Performance
  • RAM
Last response: in Memory
Share
November 8, 2006 1:45:04 AM

See my specs in the my sig below. What I did was OC my RAM and take it out of the 1:1 ratio (running a 370 FSB, therefore 1:1 RAM ratio would be 740Mhz)

I OC'ed my RAM to 925Mhz, using the 4:5 divider. It worked, and booted. Finally, after screwing around for weeks now! Anyway, I ran some benchies, and realised that there was actually a DECREASE in performance using PCMark05 (decrease of 400 points) and 3DMark06 (decrease of 100 points).

1) Can someone please shed some light on this.
2) Should I move back to the 1:1 ratio. Plz, just simple and straightforward answers.
3) What's better - higher frequencies or tighter timings? Can I trust the benchiez?

Thanks guys.

More about : faster speeds tighter timings question

November 9, 2006 11:13:35 AM

Since you have an e6600 I think it would be better for you to go with the 1:1 ratio a have tighter timings. There was a review testing core 2 duo ram a they found out that running a ram at 533MHz (1:1) with 3-3-3-10 is faster than running it at 667Mhz with 4-4-4-12 timings. I haven't seen any review testing overclocked ram though. Anyway I'd go for the 1:1 ratio and tighter timings.
November 9, 2006 12:23:46 PM

Great, thanks. Appreciate it. If you find that link to the test site, let me know. Thanks!
Related resources
November 9, 2006 1:08:45 PM

My E6600 performs better with tighter timings.
5-4-5-12 @ 800MHz performs better than
5-5-5-12 @ 840MHz
November 9, 2006 7:46:26 PM

Quote:
Great, thanks. Appreciate it. If you find that link to the test site, let me know. Thanks!


here you go:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=1&ar...
As you will see the timings are more important than the speed, If your speed difference isn't more than 200MHz and you have to raise timings you would only lose on performance. As I said 1:1 ratio and the tightest timings you can achieve. Good luck :D 
November 9, 2006 7:59:05 PM

You're a machine. Great link. Thanks man.

CONCLUSION - set you RAM to highest possible timings. Speed is irrelevant.
November 10, 2006 2:21:51 AM

Quote:
CONCLUSION - set you RAM to highest possible timings. Speed is irrelevant.

Hell no. Slack the timings and reach the desired FSB, then lower them until its not stable anymore (leave the Cas for the end). All of this at 1:1 of course.
This has been the rule for several generations of Intel plataforms now.
November 11, 2006 6:26:00 PM

Why leave the CAS until last?
November 11, 2006 9:15:16 PM

Because it can be the toughtest one to give in in case you want even timings.
November 12, 2006 12:05:55 AM

Thought cas was supposed to be the most important timing though.... would it not be a good idea to get it as low as possible first?
November 12, 2006 12:50:51 AM

Asynchronous operation will always cost: there's no way around it.
November 12, 2006 4:17:29 AM

It is, but chances are that if you managed to lower the Cas youll be able to lower all the other timings.
!