Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Memory › Tighter timings vs. higher frequency for Sandy Bridge?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tighter timings vs. higher frequency for Sandy Bridge?

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
So I was reading some stuff on HF as well as some other sites and it seems everyone is saying that Sandy Bridge favors higher RAM frequencies over tighter timings.

Can anyone shed some light on that claim? For instance my RAM is already at pretty loose timings at 9-9-9-24 at 1600MHz, so would I be better off trying to loosen them down to CL10 or 11 to try to get to 1866MHz?

Has anyone done testing with this to see what kind of performance gains/losses could potentially be seen by doing this?
post #2 of 6
Tighter timings, there was a website that did a comparison for SB between a variety of memory kits. Turns out the high frequency stuff does nada, at least in terms of price vs performance increase.
I Love Cheese
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k @ 3.4 Asus P8P67 Basic XFX 5970 2 gig Black Edition 2x 4 gig DDR 1600 G-Skill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x500 gig WD Vista Ultimate 64-bit Dual 25" Hannspree LCD CM 750 Watt 
CaseMouse
Rosewill THOR Logitech Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
I Love Cheese
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k @ 3.4 Asus P8P67 Basic XFX 5970 2 gig Black Edition 2x 4 gig DDR 1600 G-Skill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x500 gig WD Vista Ultimate 64-bit Dual 25" Hannspree LCD CM 750 Watt 
CaseMouse
Rosewill THOR Logitech Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 6
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemaniaci View Post
Tighter timings, there was a website that did a comparison for SB between a variety of memory kits. Turns out the high frequency stuff does nada, at least in terms of price vs performance increase.
Well I saw the one at Bit-Tech, and by the looks of their testing the 1600MHz CL9 was overall faster than 1333MHz CL7, and 1866MHz CL9 over 1600MHz CL7, etc.
post #4 of 6
in my experience, speed makes a bigger difference in f@h, i gained ~2k ppd in bigadv going from 1600 9-9-9 to 2133 9-11-9.. i also tried 1600 8-9-8 vs 9-9-9 and saw no difference
post #5 of 6
if i had SB i would be running 2300 7-8-7

edit: n/m it looks like the max mem multi on them is 21X
i guess i will be running 2133 7-7-7
if i wanted a computer that requires no effort in overclocking it mind you.
Edited by redhat_ownage - 3/3/11 at 8:27pm
post #6 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis View Post
Well I saw the one at Bit-Tech, and by the looks of their testing the 1600MHz CL9 was overall faster than 1333MHz CL7, and 1866MHz CL9 over 1600MHz CL7, etc.
In their article it is only in one real test mplayer and 7-zip. I wouldn't count a single fps as worth it.
I Love Cheese
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k @ 3.4 Asus P8P67 Basic XFX 5970 2 gig Black Edition 2x 4 gig DDR 1600 G-Skill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x500 gig WD Vista Ultimate 64-bit Dual 25" Hannspree LCD CM 750 Watt 
CaseMouse
Rosewill THOR Logitech Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
I Love Cheese
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k @ 3.4 Asus P8P67 Basic XFX 5970 2 gig Black Edition 2x 4 gig DDR 1600 G-Skill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x500 gig WD Vista Ultimate 64-bit Dual 25" Hannspree LCD CM 750 Watt 
CaseMouse
Rosewill THOR Logitech Trackball 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Memory
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Memory › Tighter timings vs. higher frequency for Sandy Bridge?