Is that true that..

[Monyet]

is that true guys? based on what? I heard about syncronized or something.. what's that?

 

[Ayah]

Nope. DDR2-667 is ALWAYS faster than DDR2-533 in terms of clockspeed.
Efficiency leaves more to be desired since it's extremely complex. Depending on your timings, DDR2-533 could effectively work faster than DDR2-667 of slow timings.

 

[fire400]

real world performance, probably not.

if you're a gamer, you probably won't notice very much. but whatever the best bang for the buck you can get in the DDR2 world, is good enough for me.

 

[Monyet]

Originally posted by: Ayah
Nope. DDR2-667 is ALWAYS faster than DDR2-533 in terms of clockspeed.
Efficiency leaves more to be desired since it's extremely complex. Depending on your timings, DDR2-533 could effectively work faster than DDR2-667 of slow timings.

can we determine the timings of a RAM?

 

[Ayah]

Originally posted by: Monyet

Originally posted by: Ayah
Nope. DDR2-667 is ALWAYS faster than DDR2-533 in terms of clockspeed.
Efficiency leaves more to be desired since it's extremely complex. Depending on your timings, DDR2-533 could effectively work faster than DDR2-667 of slow timings.

can we determine the timings of a RAM?

You can find the stock timings of RAM from the manufacturer of the part. You can usually check your own settings in the BIOS. CPU-Z can tell you while you're running the system.

 

[Howard]

According to madshrimps, yes.

 

[Spikesoldier]

depends on the application (hardware).

some architecures will benefit more from running ram synchonously with the FSB and slower timings, compared to tighter timings and asynchronous operation (slower memory clock).

it all depends on the context.

 

[JEDIYoda]

madshrimp has been known to be wrong before.....

common sense says that ddr 533 is slower than ddr 667.......thats a no brainer...

But you start fuguring in various timing and anything is possible!!