• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Agressive Memory Timings Comparison

All,

Has anyone found an article comparing the relative performance gain of more agressive memory timings? For example, compare Kingston's 2-2-2-5-1T with El Cheapo's 3-4-4-8-3T? If you work the numbers of 1GB of PC3200, the difference in price is around $70 to $80 more for the faster timed memory. But for that much, you could upgrade from a 9500 pro to a 9700 pro or another level of CPU.

Thanks in advance! - J
 
I can tell u the performance gain from personal experiences.
Me and my friend have ALMOST similar sytems. The only difference is that he has a 2500+ barton, and 2x256 Corsair XMS ram, as opposed to my samsung. So, at stock 166mhz, my memory was 7-3-3-2.5 at agressive, his - 5-2-2-2. In PCmark2002 i scored 5500 for memory, he - 5900.
 
so, your faster cpu with slower memory is *slower* than his slower cpu with faster memory... interesting data point... Thanks! Anyone else?
 
No, he said that with equal CPU's, he is 400 points lower on 3D mark. THe only real way to tell how much it effects a system is to get good RAM, all the way to aggressive settings, then just relax the settings a lot and do the test again. That way there is no variable other than the RAM. But thats not useful to someone BEFORE they buy the RAM.

However, using that $100 on a better graphics card is a smarter choice.

 
No, he said that with equal CPU's, he is 400 points lower on 3D mark. THe only real way to tell how much it effects a system is to get good RAM, all the way to aggressive settings, then just relax the settings a lot and do the test again. That way there is no variable other than the RAM. But thats not useful to someone BEFORE they buy the RAM.

However, using that $100 on a better graphics card is a smarter choice.

 
My Cpu is faster, but my memory is slower than his. Memory can be a bottleneck on todays systems. So getting faster ram shall boost the memory subsystem quite significantly. But i specifically indicated the 3dmark 2001 SE score, to showe that its morew cpu dependent.
What u want to upgrade, and what u need to upgrade should be solely based on what u need from PC.
1) If games - then either video card or CPU
2) video editing, design - memory and/or cpu
3) just wanna score higher at PCmark 2002 - then memory.
 
The difference in 3DMark01 on my system w/2.5-3-3-5 (most relaxed) and 2-2-2-5 (tightest) is maybe 500 points. There's no way anyone can feel that difference.
 
Squid, that seems interesting that his faster mem gives him the advantage between the two cpus. Does he have a different video card or were you running different number of background? I understand your tests were probably very informal, but the results are interesting.

Choco, have you tried that test?

Tom's Hardware did a very very small snippet in testing timings. But with the huge push from the mem vendors, its proably time someone here should do their usual impeccible investigation.

 
I'll guess the biggest difference between cheap and expensive memorys is that you could overclock the exepensive a lot ..

But I bought this TwinMos PC3200 w/ Winbond chip, cost just a few $ more than ordinary DDR PC3200 RAM but they are really kick-ass. I've seen people running them with FSB 230+ and still good timings (2-2-2-5) 😱 😀
 
if you're overclocking, get expensive ram... especially on an athlon system...

if not, you're wasting your money... spend that extra money on a videocard.
 
Back
Top