tighter timings or higher clock

From general questions to the harder advanced user topics you will find them here!

tighter timings or higher clock

Postby martini161 » Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:47 am

i have been messing around with my memory somemore, and i was just wondering, what would be faster: 5-4-4-10 at 900 mhz, or 6-6-6-20 at 1066?
User avatar
martini161
Mr Awesome
Mr Awesome
 
Posts: 3292
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Re: tighter timings or higher clock

Postby kenc51 » Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:32 am

martini161 wrote:i have been messing around with my memory somemore, and i was just wondering, what would be faster: 5-4-4-10 at 900 mhz, or 6-6-6-20 at 1066?



900
______________________________________________________________________________________
Rig:
Dell Laptop | 2GB | Core2 1.6GHz | OCZ Vertex 60GB | x1400 | Arch Linux x86-64

______________________________________________________________________________________
The Arch Way
User avatar
kenc51
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin, Republic of Ireland

Re: tighter timings or higher clock

Postby Bio-Hazard » Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:46 am

Bench the rig and see which one does better........... :mrgreen:

It works both ways sometimes depending on if you can get high enough to offset the looser timings......... :shock:
User avatar
Bio-Hazard
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Back Woods Of MO.

Re: tighter timings or higher clock

Postby ibleet » Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:55 am

Interesting topic...anyone here do any actual benches on this?

There seem to be arguments going both ways on this subject. I would recommend running some ram speed tests (passmark?) each way and see which is best. Anyone here know of a good memory benchmark utility?

Or if you just want to check gaming, set up FRAPS and run the ram each way and see which delivers more FPS in the same part of the game. I highly doubt that the numbers will be that much different though.

It will be different for everyone depending on what types of apps you run, your hardware, and your system configuration, ie. overclocking.
User avatar
ibleet
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:40 pm

Re: tighter timings or higher clock

Postby Zertz » Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:26 pm

Sandra and Everest are good for benchmarking memory. The difference in real-world applications will be next to nothing.

I can do a few tests on my AMD computer
User avatar
Zertz
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: Magog, Quebec

Re: tighter timings or higher clock

Postby martini161 » Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:32 pm

yea, i thought i could do 1066, but my memory could handle it without something like 2.5 volts, which im not comfortable with
User avatar
martini161
Mr Awesome
Mr Awesome
 
Posts: 3292
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Re: tighter timings or higher clock

Postby Methious » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:46 pm

I ran some benches on my new OCZ Reaper and posted them down in the AMD Motherboard section in the M3A Swamp Thing Thread. Just got done reloading fresh XP and SP3RC and going to rerun some stuff anyway I'll try to get some more posted.

Btw I did see a pretty decent performance increase after installing SP3. Saw the on going discussion about it and ran 3dmark06, Lightsmark, and AquaMark before and after. 3dmark went from 10500 no OC to 11100+ no OC, Lightsmark went from 350 to 367FPS, and AquaMark went from 122.XX to 133.XX. That was all under the fresh install. If you do the math that's an almost consistent 9.5% performance increase across the board with all variables kept the same except the addition of SP3RC. (Downloaded from windows update)

Any body know if you can slipstream SP3?
Image
User avatar
Methious
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: Joplin Mo.


Return to Memory Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests