2-2-2-11 better than 2-2-2-5?

Silent Buddha

Member

​

Joined

Nov 30, 2003

Location

Bellevue, WA

• Dec 12, 2003

• #1

Somebody told me 2-2-2-11 is better than 2-2-2-5 for nForce2 chipsets. Is this true? And why?

 

W

^wargod

Member

​

Joined

Nov 4, 2003

Location

MD

• Dec 12, 2003

• #2

Yes, for nf2 chipsets it is better. No idea why, but i know it is :]

 

S

SeanOMatic

Member

​

Joined

Feb 12, 2003

• Dec 12, 2003

• #3

It has to do with the memory not being able to complete instructions before the cycles is complete.

 

mrspec3

Member

​

Joined

Apr 10, 2003

Location

Tallinn, Estonia

• Dec 12, 2003

• #4

All testing and images are by Dogman (crucible.ca)

 

V

vincent_1985

Member

​

Joined

Dec 2, 2003

• Dec 12, 2003

• #5

nice charts

 

T

Top Hat Theater

Member

​

Joined

Jul 24, 2002

Location

Lost in Thought

• Dec 12, 2003

• #6

My tests on this topic can be found at: http://www.mods4me.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4169

~THT

 

OP

Silent Buddha

Member

​

Joined

Nov 30, 2003

Location

Bellevue, WA

• Dec 12, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #7

SeanOMatic said:

It has to do with the memory not being able to complete instructions before the cycles is complete.

Click to expand...

So this is basically the only reason?

 

T

ttfrog

Member

​

Joined

Oct 5, 2003

• Dec 12, 2003

• #8

You should test your ram. It can vary from motherboard to motherboard though 2-2-2-11 is the "established" best.

 

mfjonny

Member

​

Joined

Jan 9, 2003

Location

California

• Dec 14, 2003

• #9

Here is a similar thread...

http://www.ocforums.com/vb/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248396&highlight=tras

Though Hoot's findings about multis weren't confirmed outside of his personal testing.

 

K

KHysiek

Registered

‍

Joined

Dec 10, 2003

Location

Poland

• Dec 15, 2003

• #10

considering these charts 2226 or 7 looks best, cause it's better simulation of real world usage. You don't use you computer just for Sandra nadwidth benches.

 

N

newg

Member

​

Joined

Apr 4, 2003

Location

Maine, U.S.A.

• Dec 15, 2003

• #11

looks like it was a lucky guess in my going 2-2-2-7..........................

 

perinator

Registered

​

Joined

Nov 10, 2003

Location

New Orleans

• Dec 15, 2003

• #12

Im guessing that these timings are for the nf2 chipsets.

Does anyone know the timings for via kt600 chips?

 

xgman

Member

​

Joined

Jan 3, 2002

Location

xgman

• Dec 15, 2003

• #13

Same for NF3 chipset?

 

DayUSeX

Member

​

Joined

Aug 13, 2003

• Dec 15, 2003

• #14

hm thnx for those charts and heads up guess its time to tweak my timings again.

 

Cow2kie

Member

​

Joined

Jul 20, 2003

• Dec 16, 2003

• #15

10x223 2,2,2,13 3360/3152
10x223 2,2,2,12 3364/3153
10X223 2,2,2,11 3371/3162
10X223 2,2,2,10 3367/3159
10X223 2,2,2,9 3357/3152
10x223 2,2,2,8 3353/3147
10x223 2,2,2,7 3352/3150
10x223 2,2,2,6 3351/3147
10x223 2,2,2,5 3340/3138

10X223 2,2,2,11 3371/3162
10x223 2,2,3,11 3356/3145
10x223 2,2,4,11 3354/3128


10X223 2,2,2,11 3371/3162
10x223 2,3,2,11 3355/3136
10x223 2,4,2,11 3340/3110

10x227 2,2,2,11 3436/3224

 

K

KHysiek

Registered

‍

Joined

Dec 10, 2003

Location

Poland

• Dec 19, 2003

• #16

Well, looking at above numbers differences are minor, you can get much more from higher FSB with lower timings than from lower FSB with tighter timings on nForce. But It all depends what you expect from your system and what kind of benchmarking Sandra use.
If you want to set records this is the way to go, if you want fastest system I'm not sure if Sandra scores are adequate to real world usage here. In RL apps you more benefit from lower timings (except mass data bandwidth hungry ones like video/graphics editing). I think you should select some typical app which can be used for precise measuring (calculation program, game, 3dmark, 3D renderer) and fire up some runs with different mem settings.

As for strictly TRAS there seems to be just 2-3 options - lowest possible, 6/7 and 10/11.