I just got off the phone with a mushkin rep. He said that better cas specs is more important than a higher FSB. I was wondering what others opinions are about this subject, specifically I am looking at Mushkin pc2100 HiPerformance and Pc 2400.. The 21 hi po is dramatically more expensive when compared to the 2400. The rep said it's because the 2100 would give me cas 222 at 266 fsb while the 2400 would give me cas 232 at 300fsb.. ahh i wish i could have both and compare.. Can someone please share some insight with me!!!!
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FSB vs CAS what's better?
- Thread starter Big_KiD
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Location
- Lawrenceville, GA
My memory (primarily Crucial over 3 systems that have it) gets better memory bandwidth at 150MHz FSB CAS3 than does 133MHz FSB CAS2.
The Mushkin, more than likely, will run CAS2 at 150MHz anyway. It is a very popular overclocking memory brand. There is no guarantee it will do this but it is highly likely.
All of my Crucial 256MB modules do 150MHZ CAS2 easily for other considerations.
The Mushkin, more than likely, will run CAS2 at 150MHz anyway. It is a very popular overclocking memory brand. There is no guarantee it will do this but it is highly likely.
All of my Crucial 256MB modules do 150MHZ CAS2 easily for other considerations.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2001
- Location
- "The Southland" California
Jon said:
I second that.
- Thread Starter
- #6
i realize that 2-2-2 is faster transfer for the ram and that 2-3-2 is faster frontside bus.. ddr 2400.. my orginal post was "which will walk the dog the fastest". let me refraze that .. I don't have both types of ram and i can't afford both so i can't test with both. does anyone have any hard #'s comparing the two!!!!!
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2001
- Location
- Denver, Colorado
Right now, I am choosing CAS 2-2-2 over a higher FSB. My RAM tops out at 2-2-2 150mhz, but the chip goes to a higher FSB than that if I set it to 3-3-3.
It's only the difference between 112 and 115 FSB, really, not too much, but i do get an extra 150 or so 3dmarks set to 2-2-2 vs 50 or so from the higher FSB. So I leave it like it is.
It's only the difference between 112 and 115 FSB, really, not too much, but i do get an extra 150 or so 3dmarks set to 2-2-2 vs 50 or so from the higher FSB. So I leave it like it is.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
- Location
- Peoria Ill
Get the good ram now.
Then if you decide to crank up your FSB later, you shouldn't
have any problems....
Then if you decide to crank up your FSB later, you shouldn't
have any problems....
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Location
- Edina, MN
I've had much better results tweaking the latency than raising the FSB. It took me 5 hours of testing and tweaking to find the best combo of timings/clock speed
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2001
- Location
- St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
Gravity Man said:
And what were your findings? Please, share! ^_^
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2001
- Location
- Milton Keynes, UK
on the main page there is a review of a chipset waterblock, in that a 170MHz bus was worse the a cas 2 150MHz bus
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2000
- Location
- Montana, USA
I get better memory scores at 145 cas2 than i do a 166 cas3.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Location
- Edina, MN
With my 256 MB of crucial PC-2100 and DFI AK-76SN motherboard, I reached the limits of performance at 142 FSB, anything past that, and I would have to back off my timings to a point where my performance would be worse than with a slower clock rate. The settings I found to be the best were as follows:Oni said:
FSB..........................142
PH Limit....................8
Idle Limit..................8
Trc Timing Value.......6
Trp Timing Value......2
Tras Timing Value....2
CAS Latency............2
Trc Timing Value......2
Your results may vary based on your own configuration. I set my multiplier low to test the memory performance, and, due to processor constraints, I am currently using these timings with my FSB set to 139.
