1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Looking for a quick RAM 101

Discussion in 'Motherboards & Memory' started by Zaspera, Jul 18, 2012.

  1. Zaspera New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    500 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Location:
    Mapleville, RI
    I understand the very basics of RAM. I'm looking for a quick RAM 101 class about timings and CAS latency. From what I've researched, the latency is in nanoseconds. If this is true, does it really matter if you get CL9 vs CL10 RAM? Thanks for the help.
  2. happita

    happita

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,354 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    392
    The only knowledge I can bestow upon you is that Intel likes higher frequencies and AMD likes tighter timings. I am not sure if that still holds true today.
  3. Yo_Wattup New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    790 (0.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Well with my amd A8-3800, they like higher speeds over tighter timings.
  4. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    Is that for graphics loads of cpu loads?
  5. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,746 (4.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,782
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    CAS Latency does not refer to nanoseconds. It refers to clock cycles.

    Column Active Strobe is the first call for data, and with CL 9 it takes 9 CYCLES for that operation to complete. How long that takes is dependant on how fast each cycle takes...which is dictated by frequency. This is why CL 9 @ 2133 MHz offers more performance than CL9 @ 1333 MHz.


    However, CAS Latency only refers to the initial data access....
    Zaspera says thanks.
  6. Zaspera New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    500 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Location:
    Mapleville, RI
    "DDR3-2000 memory with 9-9-9-28 latency (9 ns) was available in time to coincide with the Intel Core i7 release.[8] CAS latency of 9 at 1000 MHz (DDR3-2000) is 9 ns, while CAS latency of 7 at 667 MHz (DDR3-1333) is 10.5 ns." -wikipedia

    That's where I inferred that CL was in nanoseconds. Thank you for the quick lesson.
  7. Yo_Wattup New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    790 (0.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Both, I believe.
  8. lilhasselhoffer

    lilhasselhoffer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,551 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    920
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    The basics of RAM:

    RAM is temporary storage. There are many many RAM cells, but they all work exactly the same. A charge is applied to either wipe the cell, or write a value of one. The cell does not retain that value infinitely (it slowly leaks out), so a refresh of the value is provided occasionally. This refresh cycle introduces an unusable cycle, but allows the very volatile RAM to accurately store values.


    Each RAM cell has an address, which the operating system assigns it. The pool of addresses is determined by two things, the operating system and the amount of bits the system can process at once (8, 16, 32, and 64 bit OSs are currently commercially available).

    Looking at a potential example, we can have three different computers, with exactly the same physical setup. The first has a 32 bit high end OS, the second a 64 bit low end OS, and the final a high end 64 bit OS. Assume each has the same processor, RAM quantity (32 GB), and other peripherals. You would see the following amount of RAM in each system:
    1) 4 GB
    2) 16 GB
    3) 32 GB

    Note that the first system can only address 4 GB. This is due to a physical limitation on addresses, because of the 32 bit OS.
    Now, the second and third OSs should read the full 32 GB, right? Well, no. If you're using a Microsoft OS then there are artificial limitations on the addressable RAM. A practical example is that the Professional windows 7 x64 variant can address 192 GB of RAM, while the Home Premium can only address 16 GB of RAM.


    Moving on to timings and frequency:
    Modern RAM has three significant values, which distinguish similar RAM modules from one another. Voltage, operational frequency, and timings determine what RAM is expensive and what is significantly cheaper to buy.

    Voltages are determined by the manufacturing process. Each RAM module is designed to operate at a specific voltage, determined by what materials they are constructed with. This value is generally given as a single voltage, but functionally is a range. Manufacturers generally specify DDR3 as 1.5 or 1.65 volts, depending upon many different factors.

    Operational frequency is a huge variable as far as system performance. The frequency determines how fast a RAM module can read or write values. Higher frequencies mean there are more read and write cycles, but memory cells can only read and write so fast. Higher voltages and looser timing can allow you to run at greater frequencies. In short, higher frequencies are better.

    Timing, latencies, or CAS values are all measures of how often a memory cell can be written. The value are often called "tight" or "loose" based upon values. Smaller values are better.


    Finally, modern systems are more interesting. With the inclusion of the North Bridge into the CPU there is no discrete memory control module. As such, systems generally have a memory frequency that they operate at best, with diminishing returns as frequency increases. The current Intel systems need 1600 MHz, the APUs need 1866 MHz, and BD is an interesting beast that I've never been able to get my mind around. The lowest timings that meet these minimum frequencies are generally all most users need.

    Assuming that you don't need special RAM (some high performance computing systems and programs might show preference for either tight timings or high frequencies), just shoot for what pricing you can afford. Forget all the crazy RAM overclocking, because most common users won't see a difference between similarly timed 1600 MHz and 1866 MHz.
    Zaspera says thanks.
  9. Zaspera New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    500 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Location:
    Mapleville, RI
    @lilhasselhoffer
    You rock. That's the kind of 101 I was looking for. Thank you!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page