Timings vs. FSB

Milspec · 04-05-04, 04:11 PM

I regret if this has been asked before, and it probably has, but I was wondering which would get me more quantifiable results ingame: lower memory timings, or a higher FSB? I know, of course that to increase the FSB, one must lower timings, and vice versa, so I am basically trying to ascertain which option would be most beneficial.

Right now, I am running at 200mhz x12 on a AthlonXP 2500+, voltages almost maxed, 48-50 idle, 50-55 full load. The timings are currently at 2-3-2-5 IIRC.

So, would it be beneficial (ingame mind you... I care very little about benchmark scores) for me to raise the timings in order to ramp the FSB up?

c627627 · 04-05-04, 04:19 PM

Depends what FSB we're talking about.
My PC2700 goes into 190s wiith 2.5 while it can't budge much passed 166 if I use 2 instead of 2.5

so in my case 193 FSB at 2.5 is better than high 160s at 2.

Milspec · 04-05-04, 04:27 PM

Well, I reckon I could probably get it up to maybe 215, 220? I'm not sure, I haven't tried.

But 2-3-2-5 is the lowest mem temps I can get windows to boot with. Everything else blue screens (though now, with DRAM voltages maxed, its stable as a rock).

So, what do you recommend? Is a 15-20mhz jump in the FSB noticeable? And will perform better than 200 with lower timings?

TruckyJ · 04-05-04, 05:22 PM

Why don't you loosen up the timings and see what you can get it up to? Then benchmark it at both your current setup and the higher FSB setup and determine which is best? I guess thats how I would approach it at least.

Milspec · 04-05-04, 05:55 PM

:P

That would be the most logical approach, but I'm quite lazy and was hoping for a quick-n-easy answer.

No worries tho, if this is more system dependant, I can try 'er out...

Yuriman · 04-05-04, 06:03 PM

If you have an nforce2, then set the last thing(cant remember the name lol) from 5 to 11. It gets better performance. I dont usualy use #'s to decide on what to use, but rather how my system feels. Ive noticed that bartons dont gain as much performance from higher fsb as tbreds do, and therefore gain more from timings.

Foxie3a · 04-05-04, 06:36 PM

I'd always go for the FSB as opposed to the RAM timings.

jjyiz28 · 04-06-04, 12:12 AM

what frequency is your mem running at with those tight timmings?? also, as said before, raise the TRAS, the last one high, like 9 through 11.

Milspec · 04-06-04, 09:53 AM

Don't tell me why, maybe something screwed up, but with 220x12 with 6-3-3-2.5, Aquamark got 26868. With 200x12 with 5-2-3-2, it got 42135.

Mem freq. is the same as the processor.

EDIT:

??? Memory timing numbers always screw me up.

the 5-2-3-2 is literally the order they show up in BIOS. I don't know what each one is/does.

Yuriman · 04-06-04, 10:09 AM

Well the 5 is the TRAS, and nforce2's like it to be 9-11. See if you can run 11-2-2-2, it will be faster if you can.

Milspec · 04-06-04, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yuriman
Well the 5 is the TRAS, and nforce2's like it to be 9-11. See if you can run 11-2-2-2, it will be faster if you can.

Well, as far as everything is set right now, Windows BSOD's with X-X-2-X... needs to be 3... but p'raps with the TRAS up, itll go...

What do I want then? 9 or 11? which is faster by definition?

Yuriman · 04-06-04, 01:07 PM

They found it got gradualy faster until it reached 12, then it dropped sharply in speed. I use 11.

04-05-04, 04:11 PM	Thread Starter #1
Milspec Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Canada, eh?	Timings vs. FSB I regret if this has been asked before, and it probably has, but I was wondering which would get me more quantifiable results ingame: lower memory timings, or a higher FSB? I know, of course that to increase the FSB, one must lower timings, and vice versa, so I am basically trying to ascertain which option would be most beneficial. Right now, I am running at 200mhz x12 on a AthlonXP 2500+, voltages almost maxed, 48-50 idle, 50-55 full load. The timings are currently at 2-3-2-5 IIRC. So, would it be beneficial (ingame mind you... I care very little about benchmark scores) for me to raise the timings in order to ramp the FSB up?
	QUOTE Thanks

04-05-04, 04:19 PM	#2
c627627 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kansas	Depends what FSB we're talking about. My PC2700 goes into 190s wiith 2.5 while it can't budge much passed 166 if I use 2 instead of 2.5 so in my case 193 FSB at 2.5 is better than high 160s at 2.
	QUOTE Thanks

04-05-04, 04:27 PM	Thread Starter #3
Milspec Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Canada, eh?	Well, I reckon I could probably get it up to maybe 215, 220? I'm not sure, I haven't tried. But 2-3-2-5 is the lowest mem temps I can get windows to boot with. Everything else blue screens (though now, with DRAM voltages maxed, its stable as a rock). So, what do you recommend? Is a 15-20mhz jump in the FSB noticeable? And will perform better than 200 with lower timings?
	QUOTE Thanks

04-05-04, 05:22 PM	#4
TruckyJ Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Middle America	Why don't you loosen up the timings and see what you can get it up to? Then benchmark it at both your current setup and the higher FSB setup and determine which is best? I guess thats how I would approach it at least.
	QUOTE Thanks

04-05-04, 05:55 PM	Thread Starter #5
Milspec Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Canada, eh?	:P That would be the most logical approach, but I'm quite lazy and was hoping for a quick-n-easy answer. No worries tho, if this is more system dependant, I can try 'er out...
	QUOTE Thanks

Timings vs. FSB

Internet Services

Website Development

Tech Hardware

04-05-04, 06:03 PM	#6
Yuriman Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The OCFORUMS	If you have an nforce2, then set the last thing(cant remember the name lol) from 5 to 11. It gets better performance. I dont usualy use #'s to decide on what to use, but rather how my system feels. Ive noticed that bartons dont gain as much performance from higher fsb as tbreds do, and therefore gain more from timings.
	QUOTE Thanks

04-05-04, 06:36 PM	#7
Foxie3a Normal Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Modesto, CA	I'd always go for the FSB as opposed to the RAM timings. __________________ Dual Xeon X5482 E0 3.2/12M/1600 (400x8 1.26v) Supermicro X7DWA-N, 14GB ECC/Fully Buffered (400, 5-5-5, 1.8v) Radeon 5770 1GB Triple LCDs (22/22/24") Boot: 5x SAS/15K Drives in RAID5 (~350mb/s) Storage: 17 hard drives from 10K to 15K RPM. All SCSI Hot Swap. PCP&C 1.2KW Single 12v, 90A Rail Auzen X-FI Prelude <- Digital -> Denon Receiver -> Sennheiser HD650 Headphones.
	QUOTE Thanks

04-06-04, 12:12 AM	#8
jjyiz28 Registered Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: cerritos, ca	what frequency is your mem running at with those tight timmings?? also, as said before, raise the TRAS, the last one high, like 9 through 11.
	QUOTE Thanks

04-06-04, 09:53 AM	Thread Starter #9
Milspec Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Canada, eh?	Don't tell me why, maybe something screwed up, but with 220x12 with 6-3-3-2.5, Aquamark got 26868. With 200x12 with 5-2-3-2, it got 42135. Mem freq. is the same as the processor. EDIT: ??? Memory timing numbers always screw me up. the 5-2-3-2 is literally the order they show up in BIOS. I don't know what each one is/does. Last edited by Milspec; 04-06-04 at 10:01 AM.
	QUOTE Thanks

04-06-04, 10:09 AM	#10
Yuriman Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The OCFORUMS	Well the 5 is the TRAS, and nforce2's like it to be 9-11. See if you can run 11-2-2-2, it will be faster if you can.
	QUOTE Thanks

04-06-04, 01:07 PM	#12
Yuriman Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The OCFORUMS	They found it got gradualy faster until it reached 12, then it dropped sharply in speed. I use 11.
	QUOTE Thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search