Memory speeds changed?

Associate
Joined
1 Jan 2004
Posts
122
Hello guys, I don't know what I've done this time, but I have noticed that my CPU-Z readout for my memory has changed recently, it used to read:-

DRAM Freq: 1020.0 MHz
FSB: DRAM: 1:1.5
CL: 5
tRCD: 5
tRP: 5
tRAS: 15

But for some completely unknown reason it now reads:-

DRAM Freq: 510.0 MHz
FSB: DRAM: 2:3
CL: 5
tRCD: 5
tRP: 5
tRAS: 15

I realise that mathematically speaking 510/2:3 is equivalent to 1020/1:1.5 but my question is: is my memory now running slower than it used to, or are these settings actually equal to each other?
 
Last edited:
My guess is that either the revision of a newer bios and/or CPU-Z has caused it to show up differently. If it's all still running the same I would not worry about it. Run a memory benchmark and also compare what it shows to your actual bios settings. Sandra or Everest should tell you what you need to know.
 
Thanks for the advice, I checked the BIOS and the memory setting is definitely showing as 1:1.5 and 1020MHz.

It used to say this in CPU-Z only a few days ago, I'm using the same version of CPU-Z and I have not upgraded my BIOS.

Unfortunately, I can't tell if it is impacting on performance because I've only had the setup for about a week. It *seems* ok, but I am getting nagging doubts at the back of my mind of whether it is a little slower than before...

Generally speaking is 1:1.5 the same as 2:3 or is their some fundamental difference as to how it works?

Will Sandra or Everest tell me my memory speeds then? I've used one of them a while back and it just looked like an inventory of my PC ... told me I hav 2048MB RAM, I think that was all...
 
The latter reading is exactly what I would expect CPU-Z to show for memory running at 1020mhz and 1:1.5

Are you sure that CPU-Z used to say the former reading? As I'm 99% sure that is has always given the memory speed in single data rate speeds (and hence needs to be doubled for double data rate memory [DDR] ).
 
Your reassurance is encouraging Cob, I've sniffed around a few sites and managed to satisfy myself that this reading is fairly typical, but it is certainly true that the first set of values were consistently reported by CPU-Z over a period of several days, only last week. (see my other post)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17834169

'Tis really very odd... although I must confess, I'm no longer too worried about it since I've had the chance to actually play some games and not obsess over the damn readings, and... well, I've found the performance to be just fantastic!

Almost wish I'd never discovered CPU-bloody-Z. Ignorance is bliss, eh? :rolleyes:

Thanks again for your replies lads :)
 
Back
Top Bottom