mowed the lawn, fired up my everclear and.......

to clear my mind of course, so I cleared my mind and.........
when i did i figured out why my 1333 ram is about as good as or a little better than my 2400 ram.
this little formula right here tells the tail, tCAS/MHZ* ramspeed.
the 2000 is 2 micro seconds.
my 1333 = 5*1000/666.5, result= 7.5 (1333)
my 1866= 9*1000/933, result= 9.6 (1866)
my 2400= 10*1000/1200, result= 8.3 (2400)
so my 1333 does whatever it is in 7.5 micro seconds.
so my 1866 does whatever it is in 9.6 micro seconds.
so my 2400 does whatever it is in 8.3 micro seconds.
looks like my 1333 ram is better than my 2400 ram.
looks like my 1866 should be avoided if I dont reduce tCAS.
from testing I have found that ram means very little in anything other than benchmarks and you should only really worry about getting good stuff that works with the rest of your system, screw the speed.
has my everclear kept me on the straight and narrow or lead me astray?

Kinda.

(CL/(Freq-in-MHZ) * 1000) = speed in ns

(remember frequency is half the chips label frequency)

so we should be talking micrseconds?
nano was wrong as I reread it.

using your formula it halves my result so to compare ram they are about the same.

caddi daddi said:

so we should be talking micrseconds?
nano was wrong as I reread it.

using your formula it halves my result so to compare ram they are about the same.

Click to expand...

actually result is exactly the same
1333 ram= (5/666)*1000=7.5

dyckah said:

actually result is exactly the same
1333 ram= (5/666)*1000=7.5

Click to expand...

You would be correct.

yea, forgot to halve the speed.

- - - Updated - - -

so, would you agree with my other statements?

caddi daddi said:

yea, forgot to halve the speed.

- - - Updated - - -

so, would you agree with my other statements?

Click to expand...

if you can get the 2400 ram down to cl9, then it is back to that 7.5 number, so the same as the 1333 stuff
i dont know if that works out to being exactly the same in practice, but the math looks right to me.

caddi daddi said:

so, would you agree with my other statements?

Click to expand...

Generally, yes, but CL is not the only contributing factor. You would only see the effects of the other factors benching anyways.

and to keep it simple we will talk about 1 only, otherwise we have to work them all out and average them and..... it gets........ a little beyond what everclear can power me to.

ok post#1 fixed.

Yup, that's the right idea. You're only looking at half the total performance equation, though. The first major factor is latency - the number of cycles required to do certain read and write operations. The second major factor is bandwidth, which is the rate at which data can be transferred. So while your slower memory may be able to achieve similar latency numbers, 1333MHz memory has about half the bandwidth of the 2400MHz memory.

In most cases you're not bandwidth limited, though, which is why memory much faster than 1600MHz or so doesn't provide much of a performance boost. So... yes, if your latency numbers on the 1333MHz are better than the other sticks, it may well perform better in most situations. Go with what works!

I'm not sure about your numbers. I'll let the engineers check your math. I will say your Everclear seems correct though.