Associate
Just wondering how CL 9-8-8-28 (CAS-TRCD-TRP-TRAS) could be considered as "aggressive latencies" ?
Is that aggressively slow, or just aggressively expensive?
Is that aggressively slow, or just aggressively expensive?
OCZ 2GB DDR3 PC3-16000C9 "aggressive latencies"
- Thread starter mremulator
- Start date
Soldato
Marry em up with a high clocked C2D and the timings will make just about zero difference anyway. The intel's just love mhz.
Soldato
The sort of jump from ddr to ddr2 really. Its common for ddr to have timings of 2-2-2-5 (Or lower?). Yes they might get it lower, but with ddr3 looks like mhz counts for more.
Personally, I think it's a trade-off. Fast DDR with low latencies performs equally as well (if not better) than DDR2 PC2-4200 for example. Just as fast DDR2 performs as well (if not better) compared to DDR3 PC3-1066 for example.
However, I can see that 2000Mhz DDR3 is going to give any DDR2 a whipping.
I still stand by what I said about these modules having anything but aggressive timings though. Fast yes, aggressive timings certainly not IMHO.
Associate
The latency clocks are higher, but so is the frequency, in such proportions that this is considered 'aggressive' latency compared to other RAM.
Eg,
PC3-16000C9 runs at 2Ghz
PC2-6400C4 runs at 800Mhz (rather on the 'aggressive' side for DDR2 at that frequency)
9 clock ticks at 2000Mhz = 4.5ns
4 clock ticks at 800Mhz = 5ns
Thus, the CAS latency of 16000C9 is lower than 6400C4, giving it it's 'aggressive' nomenclature.
Of course this is not the only factor that determines the performance of the memory across the wide-range of possible memory access patterns, but it gives a good idea of its best case performance.
Eg,
PC3-16000C9 runs at 2Ghz
PC2-6400C4 runs at 800Mhz (rather on the 'aggressive' side for DDR2 at that frequency)
9 clock ticks at 2000Mhz = 4.5ns
4 clock ticks at 800Mhz = 5ns
Thus, the CAS latency of 16000C9 is lower than 6400C4, giving it it's 'aggressive' nomenclature.
Of course this is not the only factor that determines the performance of the memory across the wide-range of possible memory access patterns, but it gives a good idea of its best case performance.
Permabanned
Its been answered dozens of times.
Quoted from another post:
" You cant compair the Timings on DDR to DDR2 to DDR3.
Fastest DDR was Corsairs 400mhz 2:2:2:5
I think thats about the same as DDR2 800mhz @ 4:4:4:4:10 (Mushkin) and DDR3 1600mhz @ 8:8:8:8:20, you can get likes of DDR3 1600mhz @ 7:7:7:7:18 (G-Skill)."
The memory you listed is not that hot TBH, slacker Timings than many others if thats 1600mhz.
Quoted from another post:
" You cant compair the Timings on DDR to DDR2 to DDR3.
Fastest DDR was Corsairs 400mhz 2:2:2:5
I think thats about the same as DDR2 800mhz @ 4:4:4:4:10 (Mushkin) and DDR3 1600mhz @ 8:8:8:8:20, you can get likes of DDR3 1600mhz @ 7:7:7:7:18 (G-Skill)."
The memory you listed is not that hot TBH, slacker Timings than many others if thats 1600mhz.