Pages: 1

 

2006-12-29 10:27:52
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|7006|EUtopia | Austria
Well - I've got 1gig of DDR2 533MHz RAM, CL4 (timings 4-4-4-12), Value Select, Kingston.
I could, however, set the timings to 3-3-3-9 and end up with a DDR2 400MHz.

What would the advantages with this configuration be?
And what are the cons? (I know the differences, but what is more valuable for gaming?)
2006-12-29 10:30:02
The Stillhouse Kid
Licensed Televulcanologist
+126|7099|Deep In The South Of Texas
Higher frequency is better than lower timings.
2006-12-29 10:32:25
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6982|South Florida
timings are better ide say. Check this out:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6820227210

its like the fastest 2gb package youll ever see, the timings are really low, it gets shit done lemme tell ya, made my pc run like IBM's BlueGene/L
15 more years! 15 more years!
2006-12-29 10:34:54
darthazeem
Member
+7|6929
Latency=wait time, but bandwidth is what you are looking for here.  You may get quicker latentcy but you wont be able to push the same amount of data through the same pipe as fast if that helps any

https://www.bf2player.com/sig/67240774-539.png
2006-12-29 10:40:44
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7173

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

timings are better ide say. Check this out:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6820227210

its like the fastest 2gb package youll ever see, the timings are really low, it gets shit done lemme tell ya, made my pc run like IBM's BlueGene/L
AMD CPU's = Timings are more important.
Intel CPU's = Clock speed.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-12-29 12:17:36
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|7006|EUtopia | Austria

darthazeem wrote:

Latency=wait time, but bandwidth is what you are looking for here.  You may get quicker latentcy but you wont be able to push the same amount of data through the same pipe as fast if that helps any
Thanks, but what I wanted to know in detail was something like: Do I need that bandwith if, for example, I'm constantly transferring the same data from RAM to CPU - such as a loaded map. Wouldn't it there be better to rather have it loaded some earlier...

Well, I think I'm gonna leave it as it's right now
2006-12-29 12:18:54
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|7006|EUtopia | Austria

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

AMD CPU's = Timings are more important.
Intel CPU's = Clock speed.
Aye, Sir.



(But why? I recon AMD CPUs being superior to Intels in memory concerns. Is there any connection?)
2006-12-29 12:21:32
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7173

Stormscythe wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

AMD CPU's = Timings are more important.
Intel CPU's = Clock speed.
Aye, Sir.



(But why? I recon AMD CPUs being superior to Intels in memory concerns. Is there any connection?)
AMD CPU's are superior to Intel CPU's in memory places is because of their memory controller is actually on the CPU, not on the motherboard like intel CPU's. In turn AMD CPU's rely on timings on the memory chip to increase speed, but once memory companies can't produce low lantacy memory... (Beginning of DDR2 ram) AMD is pretty much fucked. AMD's memory bandwith advantage is useless in real world, it is only good in benchmarks.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-12-29 18:21:57
Mad Ad
Member
+178|6968|England, UK
timings are insignificant compared to memory bandwidth - tweaking the timings from bad to best can yield up to 5% with the worst intel boards, less for AMD, however your asking about a tiny step change in timings which is unlikely to give you more than 1% ish improvement- and thats only in some data scenarios.  However restricting the bus speed down to 400 will have far greater penalties to be lost than a 1% speedup- longer bf2 load times for one.

grab sisoft sandra and play about with their tests and comparisons, you can see for yourself how different bus speeds limit work done.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard