Memory frequency vs timings

ZeniTimes · 27 Feb 2010 at 19:31

My current memory is stable at 8-8-8-21 @ 1066 and at 9-9-924 @ 1600. Not sure what I should use...

Is it better to have high freq or lower timings?

mmj_uk · 27 Feb 2010 at 21:33

Lower timings will reduce latencies, higher mhz will increase bandwidth.

Try both and see which you think is best, I think 1600mhz cas 9 will be better though given the 450mhz difference

ZeniTimes · 27 Feb 2010 at 22:08

Thats what I was thinking, don't really understand what latencies mean.... Bandwidth thats easy.

I made a mistake it shoud have been 8-8-8-21 @ 1332Mhz. Would that make a diff?

Planning to set this up as a VMware workstation, so fast memory is a must

ZeniTimes · 28 Feb 2010 at 18:11

mmj_uk said:
Try both and see which you think is best, I think 1600mhz cas 9 will be better though given the 450mhz difference

Can anyone recommend some software I could use to bench mark memory? Free stuff is always better

EDIT: Dr. Google has come up with PassMark as a memory benchmarking tool + other stuff (CPU, GPU, etc...) however it's not free. Anyone ever used this?

Corasik · 28 Feb 2010 at 18:55

High clock speeds(mhz) will improve timings too, as the timings are based on waiting a number of clock cycles on the memory bus/controller.

So 4 clock ticks at 800mhz, or 8 clock ticks at 1600mhz will take exactly the same length of time. 9-9-9-24 @1600 is actually lower latency than 8-8-8-21@1332 , unless my math is out, you would need to have timings of 7-7-7@1332 to really have better latency than 9-9-9@1600

IKMS · 28 Feb 2010 at 19:10

I always though that 5-3-3-9 timings were better than 5-5-5-12 timings if the fist timing was less MHz.

Obviously I am wrong, thanks for the enlightenment!

ZeniTimes · 1 Mar 2010 at 19:39

I've got some results form Passmark, but how do I add a picture to my post??? :confused:

Basically did a comparison on the same BCLK, CPU freq, Uncore Freq and only adjusted the RAM timings and RAM freq.

9-9-9-24 @ 1600 - 1263.2
8-8-8-22 @ 1280 - 1284.2

The biggest difference was with allocating small block, with the 1280MHz settings out performing by around 6%

Corasik said:
So 4 clock ticks at 800mhz, or 8 clock ticks at 1600mhz will take exactly the same length of time. 9-9-9-24 @1600 is actually lower latency than 8-8-8-21@1332 , unless my math is out, you would need to have timings of 7-7-7@1332 to really have better latency than 9-9-9@1600

Your maths could indeed be out, not by much thou

Invictus · 4 Mar 2010 at 21:06

higher clock speed is much easier to get than latency.

RBL · 4 Mar 2010 at 21:45

This is the very question I am looking for answer to as well. Recentely oveclocked my i7 860 and with this I overclocked my RAM from 1333 7-7-7-20 to 9-9-9-24 1600mhz. Now I can't set 1333 anymore after OC. The only choice I have is either 1200mhz at 7-7-7-20 or 1600mhz at 9-9-9-24 (1600mhz 7-7-7-20 wont boot). My RAM is OCZ Platinum 1333mhz 7-7-7-20 8gb.

From the results of the benchmark posted above it looks like I will be better with setting my ram up to 1200mhz 7-7-7-20. Is that what I should have my RAM timings and frequency set to?

ZeniTimes · 4 Mar 2010 at 21:50

Strangely when I benchmarked the above settings again using Everest I got the opposite results....!??! :confused:

One thing I've found with this memory is it doesn't really like any other settings apart from the manufactures recommended ones. I'll stick with these as I've got my overclock stable for 48 hours +

ZeniTimes · 4 Mar 2010 at 21:54

RBL said:
From the results of the benchmark posted above it looks like I will be better with setting my ram up to 1200mhz 7-7-7-20. Is that what I should have my RAM timings and frequency set to?

IMO the difference between the two would not be noticeable. if you are playing games you might notice a few frames extra. with my tinkering around I've found stability is key. Find what is most stable for you and keep that setting

RBL · 4 Mar 2010 at 22:01

ZeniTimes said:
IMO the difference between the two would not be noticeable. if you are playing games you might notice a few frames extra. with my tinkering around I've found stability is key. Find what is most stable for you and keep that setting

I find both of those settings stable enough to use everyday, but 1600mhz 9-9-9-24 feels a little bit more responsive... but that could be only my imagination. I really want to set up everything as it should be and stop messing around in BIOS

Dancer · 5 Mar 2010 at 14:58

There are some reviews out there which shows that 1600 gives you almost no real gain over 1333. Also, you'll need to check carefully that you mobo and cpu can handle 1600. I decided to just go for the 1333 as it was cheaper and will give me about the same perfomance. Better to spend the money on a better motherboard or cpu. Some great maths here though.

RBL · 5 Mar 2010 at 18:55

Dancer said:
There are some reviews out there which shows that 1600 gives you almost no real gain over 1333. Also, you'll need to check carefully that you mobo and cpu can handle 1600. I decided to just go for the 1333 as it was cheaper and will give me about the same perfomance. Better to spend the money on a better motherboard or cpu. Some great maths here though.

Hmm my RAM is 1333mhz (7-7-7-20), but after overclocking my CPU I overclocked RAM too to 1600mhz (9-9-9-24). I now can't set 1333mhz in BIOS anymore, only 1200, 1600 or 2000mhz.