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

Should I run my mem @ 1066 or 800 unganged?

Discussion in 'Motherboards & Memory' started by kenkickr, Jul 23, 2008.

  1. kenkickr

    kenkickr

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,830 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    I'm not sure if this has been posted but I'll ask anyways. The ram I have is stock @ 800 4-4-4-12 but currently can run fine @ 1066 5-5-5-15. Does unganged benefit any from the 1066 or will I just not see a difference between the two do to the tighter mem settings @ 800 compared to the 1066 settings?
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  2. Ketxxx

    Ketxxx Heedless Psychic

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,510 (3.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Location:
    Kingdom of gods
    1066 should offer you a nice bandwidth improvement which will lead to better performance in most things. Download Everest and try 800 and 1066, good quick way to see whats going on.
     
    kenkickr says thanks.
  3. kenkickr

    kenkickr

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,830 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    I will try Everest and will report back with my findings. Thanks
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  4. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    I'd be insterested in your findings too, I'm looking at upgrading from 800 4-4-4-12 to 1066 5-5-5-15 ram.
     
  5. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    I usually buy 1066 ram now so i have a bit more headroom for ocing.I had the previous tracers at 1125 but i am a bit scared to push these :(
     
  6. Ketxxx

    Ketxxx Heedless Psychic

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,510 (3.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Location:
    Kingdom of gods
    Wimp :p
     
  7. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Lol,it may have been the incompatibility(phew long word) with the p5k-prem that really killed the others,well 1 stick.I might have a bash later,at least see if these will reach 1125.
     
  8. Squirrely

    Squirrely

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    367 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Well, on a more technical aspect, there is a .6 ns delay difference between 800, and 1066.

    (This is all from my memory from a while ago, lol, so someone correct me if I'm wrong)

    To calculate out the base latency (this is cas latency only) it takes for a command to be processed, you do t = 1 / (f/2). So for 800, you would do 1/400, which is 2.5ns. Now with 1066 its 1/533, which is 1.88ns. But it has a higher cas latency of 5 vs 4.

    So:

    2.5 * 4 = 10ns delay
    1.88 * 5 = 9.4 ns delay.

    Thus, running the ram at 1066 mhz, and having a cas latency of 5, it is .6 ns faster than 800 mhz at 4 cas latency.

    If it is stable, then why not keep it at the faster speed. But, in the real world, the .6 ns delay, will not matter much, unless you are benching your ram. :p
     
  9. Ketxxx

    Ketxxx Heedless Psychic

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,510 (3.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Location:
    Kingdom of gods
    latency isnt everything. Available system bandwidth plays a big role when it comes to things like level loading times.
     

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

Share This Page