Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Memory
Memory
Forum Jump

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

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-19-04, 07:04 AM Thread Starter   #1
Darph
Registered



Join Date: Jan 2004

 
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.
Darph is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 08:51 AM   #2
vidgion
Member

 
vidgion's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Indiana

 
Wow, that was good reading to be honest.


see, toms isn't that bad :P
vidgion is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 08:59 AM   #3
hepp
Member



Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finland

 
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
hepp is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 10:46 AM   #4
Grandpa Dan
Member

 
Grandpa Dan's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: OC moderator @intelforums.net

 
Quote:
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...
Grandpa Dan is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 01:31 PM   #5
vidgion
Member

 
vidgion's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Indiana

 
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.
vidgion is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 03:58 PM   #6
SpaceyWilly
Member

 
SpaceyWilly's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sturbridge, MA

 
Quote:
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
SpaceyWilly is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 04:49 PM   #7
gamefoo21
Member

 
gamefoo21's Avatar 

Join Date: Mar 2003

 
My cl3-3-3-8 kingston(stock) pc3200 get me 91% of the available ram bandwidth. This is dual channel on a nf2 mobo.
gamefoo21 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 07:35 PM   #8
AudiMan
Member

 
AudiMan's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Winnipeg

10 Year Badge
 
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.
AudiMan is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 09:30 PM   #9
chasingapple
Member

 
chasingapple's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Las Vegas Nevada

 
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
chasingapple is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-19-04, 11:30 PM   #10
Eroc

 
Eroc's Avatar 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas

 
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
Eroc is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-20-04, 11:39 AM   #11
vidgion
Member

 
vidgion's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Indiana

 
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.
vidgion is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-20-04, 12:03 PM   #12
Speed_Mechanic2
Member



Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ft. Hood, TX

 
I wouldn't put much stock in tests done rather haphazardly.
Speed_Mechanic2 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 01-20-04, 04:15 PM   #13
Smartiepants
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada

 
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.
Smartiepants is offline   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Memory
Memory
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?