Is DDR2-690 1:1 better than DDR2-800 Async?

[obeseotron]

I'm running a Q6600 at 346x9 on an Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus (650i northbridge MCP55 southbridge) in sync mode, where the RAM runs at 346x2 and the FSB 346x4. I was looking at my system's benchmarks in Everest and it seems to do better than all but a couple A64's in latency and better than everything in bandwidth. This includes A64's and Core2's with dual channel DDR2-800, many with tighter timings than mine (5-4-4-11-1T).

I'm running in sync mode because it seems more stable for overclocking on my board, but does it also provide better performance despite the 100+Mhz clockrate disadvantage? I've always wondered what the point of memory bandwidth that exceeds FSB bandwidth was anyway.

 

[JustaGeek]

I would run SANDRA's Memory Bandwidth benchmark, and then the PCMark05, and compare the results. This will give you a direct comparison with the translation into numbers.

Besides the obvious faster or slower "feel" in games and applications.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
I would run SANDRA's Memory Bandwidth benchmark, and then the PCMark05, and compare the results. This will give you a direct comparison with the translation into numbers.

Besides the obvious faster or slower "feel" in games and applications.

Neither Sandra nor PCmark represent any real world application.

Your best bet is to rar a big file and time it. Raring and Zipping are very memory bandwidth intensive. Otherwise use the applications you use the most and test it, i would bet that there is very little difference in games, if any.

 

[zach0624]

I don't see how running at 800mhz would hurt unless you have to use really loose timings it might be the 1T that is helping you out since from what I can see It provides better performance. IF you can get it stable at your current timings then it should help.