• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Got my ADATA PC-4000 512MB STicks!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I think, Dirty_pink is right. I also prefer tighter timings at lower FSB than to the contrary.

But there is another important thing: The nature of the software one uses on his computer. If one runs progz with big sequential acess into memory, (for instance, various media processing appz) then highest latencies aren't a big problem, and here, higher FSBs give better results (here, the RDRAMs also perform well, while in the general usage, they suffers from long latency).

But "general usage apps" (very random access into RAM) does not benefit from high FSBs, but rather from low latencies.

So, in my opinion, if one does not build an special workstation say for picture editing or video encoding, I recommend using low latencies at lower FSB, rather than maximizing FSB for heaven's sake.
 
and see this
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/887/6.html

the best performer is the memory at 200mhz 2-5-2-2 VS PC4000@250mhz 3-8-4-4

and now, what do you say?

and for second
today i bought 2 sticks of nameless memory sticks, with HI YIELD chip brand (!!!) and them can do 242mhz 2-2-2-5 3.15v under my NF7-S prime stable, so isn't so difficult to find good memory

1.)i say why do you keep misqouting pc4000 @ 3, 4, 4, 8.

2.)so we should all bow down to some guy named macci eh?
one persons experience is not everyones. its not the same
from chip to chip, motherboard to motherboard.

3.)my a-data was tested just a few hours ago on an asus
p4c something or other delux , with dual channel (sorry im not
big into asus, i didnt write down the mobo) and it ran fine
@ cpu: 250mhz ddr: 400mhz (im GUESSING thats its 1:1)
however it ran that at 2.5, 3, 3, 6. since id NEVER used an asus
before i didnt get to figure out wtf was up with those wacko divisor settings (ddr 266? ddr 320? ddr 400?), and couldnt get a 5:4 @ 2, 2, 2, 5 tested.

4.) who the HELL has ever heard of hi yield?
 
Spade said:
2.)so we should all bow down to some guy named macci eh?
one persons experience is not everyones. its not the same
from chip to chip, motherboard to motherboard.

4.) who the HELL has ever heard of hi yield?

2)if one people find that 5:4 fast timings is better than 1:1 slow timings, if a site make a review where there is the same results and if you search on xtremesystems forum and find A LOT OF PEOPLE saying that PC4000 suks, then are you blind or worse??

4)NOONE, and this is only for say that good memory is everywere, also in unknown brand, but not in pc4000

and:
pc4000 usullay get to 275-280 1:1 with 2.85v.
280 in 5:4 mode is 224mhz, and ANY pc3500 can get 224mhz 2.85v 2-5-2-2, so PC4000 isn't better clockers than PC3500
 
on a canterwood id take high speed relaxed timings with 1:1 over 5:4 at a slow speed and fast timings any day, just the divider are slowing ur system down alot, u might have 2 2 2 5 timings but ur bottleneck suddenly is that they a asynch wich hurts performance more than relaxed timings do, also p4 are a sucker for bandwidth and u are limiting its bandwidth as soon u put it asynch, hell even my windows loads faster if i clock down the cpu by 300 mhz put the mem at 1:1 and relaxed timimngs compared to having them at 5:4 with fast timings and more cpu power, timings are good but u dont wanna sacrifice a synch system to get them belive me.
 
Kingdom said:
on a canterwood id take high speed relaxed timings with 1:1 over 5:4 at a slow speed and fast timings any day, just the divider are slowing ur system down alot, u might have 2 2 2 5 timings but ur bottleneck suddenly is that they a asynch wich hurts performance more than relaxed timings do, also p4 are a sucker for bandwidth and u are limiting its bandwidth as soon u put it asynch, hell even my windows loads faster if i clock down the cpu by 300 mhz put the mem at 1:1 and relaxed timimngs compared to having them at 5:4 with fast timings and more cpu power, timings are good but u dont wanna sacrifice a synch system to get them belive me.

sorry, but I just can't agree with you.

intel did a great job with the 5:4 ratio...you only loose about 5% performance over 1:1 ratio.(sometimes less)
yet that is at the same mem timmings.....
so what you gain in FSB with 1:1, you loose with the crappy timmings.

sorry, I'll take 2,2,3,6 at 5:4, then 3,4,4,8 at 1:1.....
the benchmarks are everywere(even in this section, on this site)...
9 out of 10, the PC4000/4200 looses out to PC3500 at non modded vdimm. (I'm talking, no more then 2.85vdimm)

there are rare exceptions, yet I can't verify the stability of them.

mica
 
Back