CPU versus RAM performance question

[bloodandsoil]

Which would be better:

A) 1:1 ratio
FSB = 333MHz
333 * 9 = 2997MHz CPU clock
333 * 2 = 666MHz RAM clock

B) 5:4 ratio
FSB = 320MHz
320 * 9 = 2880MHz CPU clock
320 * 1.25 * 2 = 800MHz RAM clock

 

[mercanucaribe]

1:1 I'd think

 

[myocardia]

The two choices would likely perform nearly the same. How high does your PC6400 clock? Most will do high enough to let you run your processor @ 3.0 Ghz, with the RAM @ 5:4, which is obviously the best choice, though not one you listed.

 

[Brunnis]

As myocardia said, both would be very close. I'm running my system on the exact settings that myocardia suggested (3GHz, RAM at 833MHz (5:4)) and it's definitely faster (although probably never noticeable without running benchmarks) than 3GHz with RAM at 1:1. If your RAM can do 800MHz, then chances are that it can do 833MHz too and if not, a 0.1V increase in voltage should probably take care of that problem. Also, remember that you can run with pretty slack 5-5-5 timings and still achieve nearly exactly the same performance as with 4-4-4.

 

[Yellowbeard]

In general, more CPU cycles are better, especially in gaming and CPU intensive apps. of the 2 choices you have, A is probably going to be better for real world useage. B will probably do better in memory benchmarks.

 

[A554SS1N]

More an exploratory question: wouldn't the faster memory be better for loading apps, levels in games etc?

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
More an exploratory question: wouldn't the faster memory be better for loading apps, levels in games etc?

You cannot compare it like that- lot of things matters when you scale the performance of a hardware device whether it's CPU, RAM or Hard Drive. I think the speed of the processor, the size of the RAM and the speed of the hard disk matters more, but again it depends on what you are trying to achive. for example when playing games you would need a lot of memory so that it can reduce load on hard drive paging and CPU processing. Applications such voice recognition, data processing and other day to day office applications require faster memory and less cpu power.....btw game textures are processed by GPU

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
More an exploratory question: wouldn't the faster memory be better for loading apps, levels in games etc?

Actually, the amount of memory and HD thruput is going to have the most effect on that. That's why RAID-0 is so popular. It does not actually improve game play but map loads etc are much faster.

 

[n7]

You have an E6600, a P5B Deluxe, Micron D9GMH-based RAM, & a Tuniq Tower.

Why the heck are you doddling around 3 GHz

You should be able to run 3.4+ GHz quite nicely, which is 9x378.

9x378 4:5 is DDR2-945.

Your Crucial should do that speed easy if you loosen timings to 5-5-5.
I bet it could do DDR2-900-1000 4-4-4 w/ around 2.2-2.3V easy.

If you need some tips on how to make [your excellent potential] system really fly, PM me.

 

[DrMrLordX]

If you're asking about an E6600, memory/FSB speed will have an impact, but not an enormous one. Go with the higher clock speed.

 

[Gigem]

So, is it generally accepted that a higher FSB is better than aggressive timings on RAM?

i.e. having DDR2 ~925 @ 5-5-5-15 is better than DDR2 ~850 @ 4-4-4-12?

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: Gigem
So, is it generally accepted that a higher FSB is better than aggressive timings on RAM?

i.e. having DDR2 ~925 @ 5-5-5-15 is better than DDR2 ~850 @ 4-4-4-12?

IMHO...Yes.