is not running a divider better?

[Bona Fide]

In short,

Speed 1st. Then timings.

 

[rise]

flux check out zebos memory matrix in the cpu forum and compare test3 vs test4 for a ballpark.

really, a few benches will give you a better idea.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: rise4310
dude are you out of your mind?

we're talking ram speed, or at least i am. wth would i compare ddr400 vs ddr400?

the rest of the free world refers to a divider as the relation between ram speed and htt/fsb- raise the htt and you raise the ram speed, unless you use a divider. understand?

as i said before,
10x220 and 11x200 won't mean a thing if ram speed is kept at ddr400.

Your comparing DDR 400 to DDR 400 because the first DDR 400 is using a ram divider with a LOWER MULTIPLIER to get to the said clockspeed while the 2nd DDR400 is using a higher Multiplier WITHOUT a divider. As i previously stated, there is a less than .5% performance hit when using the divider. THAT IS what I am talking about when using the divider. I have no idea where you got that using the divider meant comparing DDR600 to DDR400. The divider is meant to boost up Clock speeds, not ram speeds. Using the 3:2 divider with 300HTT will boost the clock speed not the ram speed.

Ow ya, you have to figure out that a performance Pentaly using the ram divider is NOT the same thing as performance gain going 1:1.

 

[Hacp]

Ok to make my earlier post clearer, when your comparing overclocks, it is unfair to compare a CPU at 2.4GHZ using the divider running at DDR400 to 2.4GHZ running at DDR600 1:1. Why? Because you get the Impression that you are losing performance. You are NOT losing performance. Compared to a 3800+(2.4GHZ DDR400 no ram divider), you have the same performance or almost the same performance (less than .5%).

Rise is obviously confused as he did not understand DLeRium's first post, which says the same thing I'm saying. I'm just trying to clear this up. He needs to understand that Using the ram divider to overclock gives No performance Hit or almost none. Do the math with the Xbit labs article and you will see that my .5% or less performance hit number is about right.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: fluxquantum
hello everyone,

since you guys are on the topic of dividers, i was wondering which is better in my situation.
i've played a little bit with my settings and this is what i was able to achieve so far.

180 MHz (DDR360) using a 266 divider with CAS at 2-3-2-5 1T at default voltage (2.6 vdimm)

225 MHz (DDR450) using a 333 divider with CAS at 3-4-4-10 1T at voltage 2.7 vdimm
the rest of the information is in my sig.

I would think the 2-3-2-5 would run faster. As stated, look at Zebo's memory matrix.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Ok to make my earlier post clearer, when your comparing overclocks, it is unfair to compare a CPU at 2.4GHZ using the divider running at DDR400 to 2.4GHZ running at DDR600 1:1. Why? Because you get the Impression that you are losing performance. You are NOT losing performance. Compared to a 3800+(2.4GHZ DDR400 no ram divider), you have the same performance or almost the same performance (less than .5%).

Rise is obviously confused as he did not understand DLeRium's first post, which says the same thing I'm saying. I'm just trying to clear this up. He needs to understand that Using the ram divider to overclock gives No performance Hit or almost none. Do the math with the Xbit labs article and you will see that my .5% or less performance hit number is about right.

holy chit, i'm confused? lol. me thinks you should learn what a divider is before calling other people confused.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: rise4310

Originally posted by: Hacp
Ok to make my earlier post clearer, when your comparing overclocks, it is unfair to compare a CPU at 2.4GHZ using the divider running at DDR400 to 2.4GHZ running at DDR600 1:1. Why? Because you get the Impression that you are losing performance. You are NOT losing performance. Compared to a 3800+(2.4GHZ DDR400 no ram divider), you have the same performance or almost the same performance (less than .5%).

Rise is obviously confused as he did not understand DLeRium's first post, which says the same thing I'm saying. I'm just trying to clear this up. He needs to understand that Using the ram divider to overclock gives No performance Hit or almost none. Do the math with the Xbit labs article and you will see that my .5% or less performance hit number is about right.

holy chit, i'm confused? lol. me thinks you should learn what a divider is before calling other people confused.

Yet you provide no evidence to back yourself up. You have stated no numbers that prove that using a ram divider will have a performance loss of more than X%. I know exactly what a ram divider is and have stated that using is will barely give you any performance loss. You on the other hand, claim a performance loss in using the ram divider, then compare the overclock using a ram divider to an overclock using 1:1 DDR600.

THat is not a performance loss. If you compare the ram divider speeds to a regular chip using the multiplier, that has the same clock speeds, it will show no performance hit. If you can't get that into your head, then I can't help you and you should forever be lost in the lingo.

 

[rise]

i didn't have to, you provided the links yourself

although i did take the time to type them out for you. you're welcome

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Yet you provide no evidence to back yourself up. You have stated no numbers that prove that using a ram divider will have a performance loss of more than X%. I know exactly what a ram divider is and have stated that using is will barely give you any performance loss. You on the other hand, claim a performance loss in using the ram divider, then compare the overclock using a ram divider to an overclock using 1:1 DDR600.

THat is not a performance loss. If you compare the ram divider speeds to a regular chip using the multiplier, that has the same clock speeds, it will show no performance hit. If you can't get that into your head, then I can't help you and you should forever be lost in the lingo.

its ok, if thats how you want to look at it, thats fine.

3200 venice 10x200 1:1 = 3000 venice 9x222 ddr400. no kidding, lol. you're brilliant

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think i understand what hacp is saying.

Comparing a HTT 300 DDR400 with HTT 200 and DDR400 might seem pointless but it shows running a memory divider has very small performance hit , so for example

3200+ overclocked to 2.4ghz, HTT240 DDR400
3700+ not overclocked at 2.4ghz stock HTT200 DDR400

both give same speed less than 1% difference eventhough 3200+ is running memory divider and 3700+ is running at 1:1.

Of course running RAM at 300MHZ is faster than RAM at 200MHZ but the topic is about whether not running a divider is better

 

[spiritwalker2223]

To make things easier, when you look at latencies look at them in time not cycles. This way you can clearly see which latency is lower (and better). Cause ram running at DDR400 2-3-3-6 is a lot faster than DDR550 3-4-4-7.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: DrZoidberg
I think i understand what hacp is saying.

Comparing a HTT 300 DDR400 with HTT 200 and DDR400 might seem pointless but it shows running a memory divider has very small performance hit , so for example

3200+ overclocked to 2.4ghz, HTT240 DDR400
3700+ not overclocked at 2.4ghz stock HTT200 DDR400

both give same speed less than 1% difference eventhough 3200+ is running memory divider and 3700+ is running at 1:1.

Of course running RAM at 300MHZ is faster than RAM at 200MHZ but the topic is about whether not running a divider is better

yeah, took me a while to understand what he meant.

i mean, if you are oc'ing anyway to say 10x240 then the question becomes what performance loss is there from running your ram at 240 as opposed to a divider at 200mhz.

as for the topic, seemd the OP was clearly looking to run above ddr400.

anyway, enough of all this.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: rise4310
you link to the same article twice. i dunno why you're comparing the difference between an fx57 and fx55 but regardless your final conclusion is what i said before i just don't agree with the .5%-0 difference you stated.

if you want the extra performance and you're not spending money that would be better used on other components, get good ram.

you just seem to take a round about way of saying it

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: rise4310

Originally posted by: DLeRium


but again, most people run a divider to keep there ram ~200mhz. do you think you'd see a difference between your ddr500 cl2 and ddr400 cl3

not in anything other then a benchmark

or FPS but whichever way you want to look at it.

Look at the first article I linked to. DDR400 with HTT at 300 compared to DDR400 with HTT at 200. Thats running the ram divider. CALCULATE the percentages by hand if you want.

i agree with you it makes more or less no diff, no one and I MEAN NO ONE can tell teh diff between 108 FPS and 110 FPS

 

[GamerExpress]

Originally posted by: w00t
links are broken.

running a divider is not bad chances are your wont even tell a difference.

 

[Matt2]

I get higher FPS with tighter timings.

With my VX running 236mhz 2-2-2-7 I got 104.8 fps in CSS stress test 1280x1024 4x/16/x aa/af.

With my PLatinum running 200mhz 2-3-2-7 I get 103.6 fps.

1fps difference from DDR472 to DDR400

Now if I drop the timings to 2.5-3-3-7 I get ~100fps.

 

[jonesmaster]

Originally posted by: rise4310

Originally posted by: DrZoidberg
I think i understand what hacp is saying.

Comparing a HTT 300 DDR400 with HTT 200 and DDR400 might seem pointless but it shows running a memory divider has very small performance hit , so for example

3200+ overclocked to 2.4ghz, HTT240 DDR400
3700+ not overclocked at 2.4ghz stock HTT200 DDR400

both give same speed less than 1% difference eventhough 3200+ is running memory divider and 3700+ is running at 1:1.

Of course running RAM at 300MHZ is faster than RAM at 200MHZ but the topic is about whether not running a divider is better

yeah, took me a while to understand what he meant.

i mean, if you are oc'ing anyway to say 10x240 then the question becomes what performance loss is there from running your ram at 240 as opposed to a divider at 200mhz.

as for the topic, seemd the OP was clearly looking to run above ddr400.

anyway, enough of all this.

Yeah, i was pretty much wondering what would perform better, 200mhz at 2-3-2-5 or 240mhz at 3-3-3-8. Seems like they perform around the same and running a divider wont hurt so i went with the platinum.

 

[DarkKnight69]

crucial value has dropped the micron c??

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
In short,

Speed 1st. Then timings.

/agree