No, angry games did a whole test on this. Timings were more important than frequency. Which is why say 200mhz RAM (divided @ 2-2-2-5 1T on an FX is really no different to say 250mhz (3-3-3-8 for example x 12). Bandwidth is needed by intels because iirc, the bus has to carry info from the chipset to the cpu for the memory controller (in a very simplified way). A64's onboard requires less bus, it being on the cpu die.matt100 said:woh there smidsy!
I had 2gb of the zx (still have incedentally) and it wouldn't go past 245 with any timings let alone the tighter ones (I think I gave up at about 3-4-4-8 or similar and vs up to 2.95) I ended up buying the hz because it came back into stock and they're sitting happy at stock timings and volts at 261 (3-4-3-7 I believe).
The 2.5 CAS time above I think is misleading anyway and the on board mem controller can't do halves so despite what it says in the bios it will actually be running at CAS 3.
Finally.. I thought the debate had landed on A64s liking bus speed over timings? I was under the impression timings were a socket A/maybe 754 issue? But not with the on board controller??
CAS2.5 is supported by the memory controller (CAS1.5 isn't). CPU multi's don't work on halves, is that what you are thinking? TBH, I wanted to run 200mhz mem anyway @ 2-2-2-5 1T.
Last edited: