Free Scan: Update Your PC's Outdated Drivers to Optimize Performance
November 2nd, 2005, 03:03 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 244
| Memory timing…
Memory timing…
Can someone explain memory timing for me?
What should one look for when it comes down to memory timing? |
| |
November 2nd, 2005, 05:35 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | The FNG
Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,366
| |
| |
November 2nd, 2005, 05:50 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 244
|
This is a really informative link… unfortunately it doesn’t explain timing to me. What is the difference between 3-3-3 and 2-2-2-5? How about T1 and T2? Etc… |
| |
November 2nd, 2005, 06:14 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | The FNG
Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,366
|
Actually, it does. Start from slide number 19 through 24.
Timings (delay in clock cycles (latency)) are the clock cycles it takes to place or remove data from memory. The lower the timings, the faster data is stored/removed. |
| |
November 2nd, 2005, 06:23 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: inside the Beltway
Posts: 5,114
|
Now as to whether it's important for performance, this piece in Tech Report may prove illuminating. (Tip o' the hat to Slashdot.) |
| |
November 2nd, 2005, 06:42 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 244
|
Okay…. Ummm…. I see…. That was quite a bit of acronyms… so let me ask a more specific question….
Is 3-3-3 a good RAM to get? |
| |
November 2nd, 2005, 06:46 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | The FNG
Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,366
|
Meh, 3-3-3-X is nothing special, in fact, it's considered more of the low end.
Something decent would be in the range of 2.5-3-3-8.
Better would be 2-2-2-7 and I think the lowest now is 2-2-2-5.
Lower is better. |
| |
November 2nd, 2005, 06:48 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 244
|
so how is 2-2-2 better then 3-3-3 but 5-3-3 is the best?
it seems to me that it would be 2-2-2 then 3-3-3 then 5-3-3 (?) |
| |
November 3rd, 2005, 11:12 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Banned by everybody
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,593
|
no, 2-2-2-5 @ 1T is the best timings.
The lower the numbers the better, where the 1st 2 stands for Cache latency and is the most influential one.
1T and 2T are command data rates, 2T is a serious bandwidth killer, so best setting is 1T.
The normal ram you'd be looking for will have timings of 2.5-3-3-6 @ DDR400 speeds
__________________
Antec P180b, AMD X2 3800+ @ 2.7Ghz
DFI Lanparty Ultra-D, 2Gb DDR540
2 x 160Gb SATA, X1950XT 256MB
|
| |
November 3rd, 2005, 12:28 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 244
|
so what RAM would you recommend? (1 Gig sticks) |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | |
Posting Rules
| You may post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | |
Similar Threads | | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post | | Help with new memory timing | tw1112 | Processors, Memory, and Overclocking | 2 | September 27th, 2005 12:07 AM | | Memory timing question | zmaster1911 | Processors, Memory, and Overclocking | 5 | June 9th, 2005 10:13 PM | | Cass Timing? How to do it? | Slayertime | General Tech Discussion | 8 | January 30th, 2004 10:36 AM | | What should I set memory timing to (normal/fast/ultra)? | psycocommy | Motherboards | 5 | July 14th, 2003 05:06 PM | | memory timing??? | shady06 | Processors, Memory, and Overclocking | 3 | April 14th, 2003 12:00 PM | | Most Active Discussions | | | | | Recent Discussions  | | | | | |