Athlon4all - im not really sure how to explain it. but ill try.
these are purely hypothetical scores from a hypothetical benchmark, but please bare with me...
2400mhz 100fsb/3:5 166-333ddr = memory score 100, gaming score 100
2400mhz 125fsb/3:4 166-333ddr = memory score 104, gaming score 107
2400mhz 133fsb/4:5 166-333ddr = memory score 105, gaming score 109
2400mhz 166fsb/1:1 166-333ddr = memory score 111, gaming score 121
notice how the scores would go up as the memory ratio closes? its running the same 333ddr speeds in all 4 tests so why the difference?
obviously this is purely theoretical. the only way to truely prove this would be with an unlocked CPU.
but from all the testing ive done, and information from other peoples testing, im 99% sure that the above chart would be very close to correct.
when i tested 2466mhz 137fsb 4:6 411ddr setting vs. 2520mhz 140fsb 4:5 350ddr settings, the later kicked the formers butt in every test i could throw at it - except for memory tests of course.
why?
how could an extra 54 cpu mhz be so much better then an extra 61mhz ddr?
A) it doesnt really need that much memory bandwidth.
B) higher cas latency due to memory ratio makes it worthless.
i choose B
*i dont read about AMD systems too much, but from what i understand, async ratios aint so great on those systems either.
im not trying to push any theories on anyone, im basically just looking for someone else to confirm this
(Cas 2/2/2/5/1 333ddr is just as good or better for overall system performance then Cas 2.5/4/4/7/2 400ddr) or you could just say cas 2.5/4/4/7 anything, is crap
