Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fail overclocker needs advice :(

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
July 13, 2010 10:29:01 PM

Hello, as i was messing arround with my ram, running 5-5-5-14 at 1066 mhz. 1.64v.
while stock is 7-8-7-24 1600 mhz. 1.5v

I heard and got told that tighter timings is more performance in games.

I was running the OC'ed and stock ones in a Far cry 2 benchmark. The stock settings won by alot. I don't know if I fail or what.

I was changing the volt to 1.64 (maximum allowed)
and then i just changed 4 values. (CL, tRCD, tRP and tRAS)

Anything that i'm doing wrong?

and yes, i am a newbie :3
a b K Overclocking
July 13, 2010 11:42:28 PM

I have been messing with this myself.. but not down to 1066. I'm not sure, but I dont think tighter timings necessarily mean better performance in games. Check out this graph:



I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate, but for the most part, all of the articles/benchmarks I've seen on the topic state that there is a negligible difference between lower timings and lower frequencies vs. higher timings paired with higher frequencies... it would be preference. Normally, if you OC, you want more headroom so a wise choice would be a higher frequency module.

Here's a few articles on higher frequency vs tighter timings, this one is especially interesting to me which is where I got the graph:
http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=160

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/26
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/tight-timings-high-...


Another note... I've posted about this before, but never got comments on it.
I have some older 1600MHz rated RAM at 9-9-9-24.
I tried lowering the timings, but it is unstable at 1600MHZ.
I have OC'd my CPU to 4.0Ghz, with a BCLK of 191 so my memory runs at 1528Mhz... THEN I tried lowering timings and it is 100% stable at 8-8-8-21
So, I took a minor hit in frequencies (- 72MHz) and lowered my timings a nice chunk.
a c 163 } Memory
a c 291 K Overclocking
July 14, 2010 2:06:40 AM

Hi.

A lower CL means a better RAM performance so my question is Why do u want change the CL from 5-5-514 to 7-8-7-24 since with the 1st configuration u get better performance?
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
July 14, 2010 2:19:56 AM

saint19 said:
Hi.

A lower CL means a better RAM performance so my question is Why do u want change the CL from 5-5-514 to 7-8-7-24 since with the 1st configuration u get better performance?


I don't think it's as simple as that... you would argue that 5-5-5-14 @ 1066MHz would perform better than 7-8-7-24 @ 1600MHz?
a b K Overclocking
July 14, 2010 2:22:50 AM

redechelon said:
I don't think it's as simple as that... you would argue that 5-5-5-14 @ 1066MHz would perform better than 7-8-7-24 @ 1600MHz?

Nope, I would argue that it doesn't make enough difference to even bother with and the default would be fine. DDR2 days are another story though.
a b K Overclocking
July 14, 2010 2:37:20 AM

RJR said:
Nope, I would argue that it doesn't make enough difference to even bother with and the default would be fine. DDR2 days are another story though.


Yeah.. Aside from high frequencies for OC flexibility (which isn't even that big of a deal), I feel like high-end RAM is a waste of money. Even in benchmarks when they compare low-end to high-end, it always ends up being 5% at the MAX. I'd rather spend $100-150 on a decent kit and put the extra money towards a better graphics solution. :wahoo:  But hey... it's definitely fun to tweak and perfect.
a b K Overclocking
July 14, 2010 2:49:31 AM

Tweaking is fun and all, but if you don't get anything tangible out of it in the end, what good is it.

Like getting a massage from a beautiful woman without a happy ending.
a b K Overclocking
July 14, 2010 3:02:52 AM

Hahah yeah, although if a beautiful woman offered me "just" a massage, I doubt I'd say no ;].
a b K Overclocking
July 14, 2010 3:05:32 AM

Hahaha, TRUE.
!