The Definitive Answer To: RAM Overclocking: Higher Speed vs. Tighter Timings - Page 2 - Overclock.net

thealmightyone · 11-09-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyant

Did you look at the screenshot by the way?

Well, seeing as he was the one that POSTED the screenshots, I think he has.

xenophobe · 11-09-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duckydude

The only problem is that I can't run my memory at stock settings with this overclock and the only step in between is at 1167Mhz, which I can't get to even boot at cas 4, so it would sort of be pointless. Maybe I'll have to do it with my cpu at 3.0Ghz or something. What would you recommend the different steps in memory should be?

Well you got all the steps just fine, you just need a floor to put them on.

*Duckydude* · 11-09-07

The thing about running the FSB at a 1:1 ratio was that in my tests it proved to not have a performance boost. The screenshot that was shown has to bogus, nobody could get that much of a boost for just running your memory at a certain ratio.

I might redo the tests at a 3.0Ghz overclock this afternoon, which will have a much better variety in memory tests. This way I'll be able to run at stock settings and I'll also do another 1:1 test to prove...again...that 1:1 ratio does provide an increase in performance.

Cyant · 11-09-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by thealmightyone

Well, seeing as he was the one that POSTED the screenshots, I think he has.

I was refering to the screenshot I posted. Thanks for following the thread so closely

Cyant · 11-09-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duckydude

The thing about running the FSB at a 1:1 ratio was that in my tests it proved to not have a performance boost. The screenshot that was shown has to bogus, nobody could get that much of a boost for just running your memory at a certain ratio.

I might redo the tests at a 3.0Ghz overclock this afternoon, which will have a much better variety in memory tests. This way I'll be able to run at stock settings and I'll also do another 1:1 test to prove...again...that 1:1 ratio does provide an increase in performance.

You think the screenshot I posted is bogus? Why don't you try the same settings and see for yourself?

*Duckydude* · 11-09-07

Alright, I completely changed the format of this test and I am very pleased with it. I also didn't get any outrageous speeds with the 1:1 ratio, sorry.

Sozin · 11-09-07

Props for doing that Ducky...but I have no real idea what any of that means.

//edit. z**** 300th post.

*Duckydude* · 11-10-07

To answer your question: Well the timings are basically how fast your RAM refreshes each clock cycle. Some people debate whether tighter timings or higher speed result it higher performance. Intel systems don't benefit that much from tighter timings because of the extra latency added by the Front Side Bus. AMD has an integrated memory controller, so I would guess that tighter timings would benefit AMD systems more. I just felt like testing to see which accusation was true for intel systems, so I decided to run a few benchmarks and see for myself

.

thealmightyone · 11-10-07

I prefer calling the value of a timing as the number of clock cycles given to that timing to do it's specific job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duckydude

...AMD has an integrated memory controller, so I would guess that tighter timings would benefit AMD systems more...

Well, I can say that tighter timings at a low speed dont bring any lower latency than loose timings at a high speed on AMD systems. I actually got better latency with the loose timings at the high speed (for obvious reasons if you overclock memory), as well as better bandwidth.

redsox83381 · 12-03-07

Good info. One of the few Rep worthy posts in a while.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Intel > Intel Memory
The Definitive Answer To: RAM Overclocking: Higher Speed vs. Tighter Timings

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)