Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Registered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    72

    Toms new review on CAS latency effects on system performance,suprising results.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/motherbo...119/index.html

    This shows me,that for bartons, cas latency really doesnt seem to matter all that much.

  2. #2
    Member vidgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    235
    Wow, that was good reading to be honest.


    see, toms isn't that bad :P

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    130

    Or suprising conclusions?

    Couldn't be bothered to check each number, and I only read the Intel bits....

    But in several benchmarks the difference between 2-2-2-5 and 2,5-3-3-7 was bigger than or abut the same as, the difference between the 3.2C and the 3.2EE.
    I believe the price difference between 3500C2 and 3200C2 is still smaller than that between the 3.2C and the 3.2EE so I find the conclusion somewhat more suprising than the numbers.

    Br
    hepp

  4. #4
    Member Grandpa Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    OC moderator @intelforums.net
    Posts
    1,143
    Originally posted by vidgion
    Wow, that was good reading to be honest.


    see, toms isn't that bad :P
    Is the converse: Tom's isn't all that good?

    Agreed some good info, but an interesting way to compare AMD and Intel. Why not just state what each cpu does better with? not compare the two...

  5. #5
    Member vidgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    235
    yep grandpa, as i was reading through the article i said to myself, this is just tom's way of publishing more benchmarks of the intel platform outperforming the amd platform in a few tests.

  6. #6
    Member SpaceyWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sturbridge, MA
    Posts
    928
    Originally posted by vidgion
    yep grandpa, as i was reading through the article i said to myself, this is just tom's way of publishing more benchmarks of the intel platform outperforming the amd platform in a few tests.
    Yeah I thought the same thing, and wtf is with them not testing the amd's at 2-2-2-6? BS they can't do it, that's what I usually run at. Until I read that article, now Im at 2.5-3-3-7
    My Comp:

    Athlon XP Barton 2500+ ------------Asus A7V8X
    1024mb HyperX PC2700 RAM------Chieftec BLUE Dragon Series Case
    5 BLUE Neon LED Fans--------------Leadtek 6800le unlocked to 12x1, 6vp
    AverTV TV Tuner--------------------Logitech Z5300s
    17" Dell 1704FPT--------------------Microsoft BLUE Optical Mouse
    Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 Platinum
    Gateway FPD2185W 21" Widescreen monitor
    Laptop: Dell 600m, Pentium M 1.60ghz, 512mb ddr, Radeon Mobility 9000, DVD/CD-RW Combo

  7. #7
    Member gamefoo21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    605
    My cl3-3-3-8 kingston(stock) pc3200 get me 91% of the available ram bandwidth. This is dual channel on a nf2 mobo.

  8. #8
    Member AudiMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    2,695
    I don't understand howcome he couldn't run 2-2-2 on an AMD XP system, yet he was able to do so on an Intel system.

  9. #9
    Member chasingapple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Posts
    1,791
    I can second the results. I get better results when running the memory at a higher BUS Speed then lower with tighter timings. 11-4-4-2.5 is what I have to run at when @ 400Mhz and believe me that is nice and fast

  10. #10
    Eroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    611
    That is what i found too.

    I ran my Corsair 2700C2 ram at like 190 (380DDR) at 2.5-3-3-6 and it smoked it compared to even 160s with 2-3-3-6.
    AMD Rig--------------------------------------------------------Intel Rig
    AMD Phenom II BE 3Cores Unlocked 3612Mhz (200x18)--------------Intel 2600k 4400 (100x44)
    ZALMAN CNPS 9500 AM2--------------------------------------------------Xigmatek Gaia SD1283
    Asus M4A87TD EVO--------------------------------------------------------Asus P8P67PRO
    4GB Crucial Ballistix 1600 DDR3@ 800Mhz (8-8-8-24)------------------8GB Mushkin Enhanced Redline PC1600@1648 (7-9-8-24)
    Asus GTX460 1GB @750/1800;MSI GTX260@648-----------------------EVGA 7900GSKO
    Antec 900W High Current Gamer------------------------------------------Antec 900W High Current Gamer

    HeatFolding User Stats

  11. #11
    Member vidgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    235
    all this time i was pro timings mean everything, till i read that, but i've been doing memory benchmarks for like 2 yrs but i still didnt quite understand it so i went with what came close to making sense


    but now im reevaluating the matter, in all of the synthetic benchmarks i've run, less latency really shows no major performance gain.

    and just like the pentium platform, amd still perform well with high latency, of course theres more bandwidth that goes to waste but doenst hurt .

    another reason i selected timings over bandwidth is because i was trying new timings and went to like 3-5-5-12 and started up one of my favorite games which is extremely memory/cpu extensive, and it ran sluggish enough for me to realize it in real-time.

    so who knows what the correct formula is, one has to exceed the other because if not, we'd be stuck using pc2700.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ft. Hood, TX
    Posts
    1,725
    I wouldn't put much stock in tests done rather haphazardly.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB, Canada
    Posts
    114
    I found it an interesting read, but as always with Tom's you have to keep a bias in mind. But I found it quite good, just looking at the ram on each thing, not comparing the processors.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •