FSB and Memory Sync and ASync

[Xenogears]

I've got an Athlon 3000+ 1.8Ghz 90nm 939pin w/ a nForce 3 Ultra and some blah DDR400 memory. The memory is cheap cause I am cheap cause it's Christmas and I had to buy presents *cry* so...quick question that won't take long to answer. Will my computer run faster with memory/FSB being sync or async? I had DDR400 and 1.80Ghz (200x9) but I so far have my CPU pushed to 2.16Ghz @ 240x9. with DDR still at 400 by using a lower divider instead of 1:1. Just was curious which was faster (I remember on XP systems sometimes sync was faster than async, dunno how A64 behaves with integrated controller if sync or async is faster). Thanks!

 

[AristoV300]

I believe on those AMD chips it doesn't really hurt not to run the memory 1:1 unlike the Intels.

 

[Dough1397]

but say you have a 240 fsb and 200 mhz ram, it would run better than than normal 200 fsb and 200 ram right? but above all 240 fsb and 240 ram would pwn?

 

[rogue1979]

Use the memory divider to lower the memory speeds in order to increase your cpu overclock if necessary.
With the on die memory controller running async will not hurt performance like a socket A.

The increased cpu speed should increase overall performance, even if the memory divider has to be set to maintain stability causing a lower memory frequency (within reason).

 

[ts3433]

The memory controller of the A64 improves with increased clockspeed anyway, and as mentioned above you probably will not see a very huge performance hit (at least not in real-world usage) running asynchronously unless the memory goes down to something below 166MHz (though 200 is always preferable if you can set the divider as such).