Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question about running memory asyncronously

Tags:
  • Memory
  • CPUs
Last response: in Memory
Share
December 7, 2006 6:15:14 AM

what difference does it make to run memory asyncronously nowadays? Is it benifical to run memory faster but asyncronously? I am still using my old XP2500 with DDR400 and for this older equipment, running memory at more then 100% of the CPU FSB has been proven to actually be detrimental in that when they then have to sync up again they actually lose porformance because one is always waiting for the other. Is that no longer the case today. Can someone explain it to me.

More about : question running memory asyncronously

December 13, 2006 5:00:54 PM

Bump Cmon guys, someone eplain it to me. Dario?
December 14, 2006 6:21:41 PM

It depends on your CPU, MB, and RAM settings, the programs you run, etc. You just have to experiment. At least on C2Ds, going one "notch" higher than synch (eg DDR2-667 over DDR2-533) may hurt more than help. However, going another notch higher (eg DDR2-800) should help. Lower latencies help at any speed, since that lessens the re-synching wait.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2006 10:39:28 PM

For athlon 64/X2 the on-die memory controller works great with any supported memory speed...

For C2D as mentionned you can increase the bandwidth enough to be worth it, if you want the highest possible, usually 4:5 at the limit of your CPU is one of the best setting since some ram can now do 1300+ but not many cpu get much more then 500FSB(higher multiplier ones that is)
!