Low latency or 1066 Mhz? Wich is better in a C2Quad system?

[tostator]

Hi everybody!

I'm choosing the different components of my new machine. It will be a Q6600 with an Asus P5k (i don't know de flavor yet ) with 2 GB DDR2 (dual chanel). It seems that a C2d system get better perfomance with 1066 mhzz memories or above than low latency memories but I'm not sure.
I want to OC the new system: maybe... 3,4 GHZ? I have though in some kingston Ultralow latency memories (800 mhz, cas 3). This are the modules:
http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/PartsInfo.asp?ktcpartno=KHX6400D2ULK2/1G

Could someone confirm what will be the better choice: 800 mhz CAS3 or 1066 CAS5?

Thanks in advance

 

[JrRacinFan]

I am unsure why but I was told Intel likes high frequencies with looser ram timings. So to me the 1066 would give you a better performance rate.

But how much a difference it truly makes, that I am unsure of.

 

[Sasqui]

Absolutely 1066 CAS5

Just a stab, but I'd say that 800 CAS3 is roughly equivalent to about 900 CAS5. Wish I was near my home puter now, I'd like to test that.

Anyone have a more definitive measure?

 

[vega22]

i would get the 800 cas3 as you will have no worries hitting 1066 with those if you slacken the timings in your bios, this way you get to see which is best for the apps you use.


i found that some apps that dont use alot of ram work better with tight timings and some that use alot like the extra bandwidth you get with high frequencies.

 

[PaulieG]

Get some Ballistix Tracers 1066. I've got them at 920 4-4-4-9. High speed and tight latencies, the best of both worlds. I've also had them at 1160 5-5-5-15. From my testing, the tighter timings gave slightly better performance

 

[Sasqui]

Get some Ballistix Tracers 1066. I've got them at 920 4-4-4-9. High speed and tight latencies, the best of both worlds. I've also had them at 1160 5-5-5-15. From my testing, the tighter timings gave slightly better performance

Good info

 

[tostator]

Thanks to everybody!!!

As marsey99 suggests, probably the 800 cas3 should reach 1066 cas5. I'll look for the datasheet to see if they are able to achieve that speed.

Paulieg: thanks for posting your test results. It is very useful.

And one more question (the last one): I've read that in the c2d systems the 1:1 ratio doesn't give a significant improve... It is better to have memory with higher bandwith although the divider is not 1:1... Is that right?

Thanks again

PS: I apologize for my english

 

[Disparia]

A tad old, but this may help give everyone a general idea of the differences: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/core2duo-memory-guide_6.html

Note: They're testing with an X6800 at different memory speeds and latencies but keeping the chip at stock speeds (266Mhz). This is unlike what an overclocker would normally do (especially with an unlocked chip) - raise 'em both up as far as they'll go

 

[tostator]

Thanks Jizzler for the link It is useful.

No much difference between the 1066 and the 800 Mhz memory...

I'll keep looking (I don't know when) for some datasheets to see if the 1066 can run at 800 with lower timmings.

See you!

 

[Firecracker]

If I plan on overclocking to let's say 3.0GHz, which would be better:
The lower CL, but also the lower FBS or the higher FSB, but also the higher CL?

Crucial DDR2 BallistiX PC5300 2048MB CL3 ,Kit w/two matched BallistiX 128Megx64
2 x Crucial DDR2 BallistiX PC6400 1024MB CL4 ,2.1V, 128Megx64, 240pin, 800mhz, E.P.P
Crucial DDR2 BallistiX PC8500 2048MB CL5 ,Kit w/two matched BallistiX 128Megx64

Or anyone got a better suggestion for ram?

Thx in advance

 

[nflesher87]

If I plan on overclocking to let's say 3.0GHz, which would be better:
The lower CL, but also the lower FBS or the higher FSB, but also the higher CL?

Crucial DDR2 BallistiX PC5300 2048MB CL3 ,Kit w/two matched BallistiX 128Megx64
2 x Crucial DDR2 BallistiX PC6400 1024MB CL4 ,2.1V, 128Megx64, 240pin, 800mhz, E.P.P
Crucial DDR2 BallistiX PC8500 2048MB CL5 ,Kit w/two matched BallistiX 128Megx64

Or anyone got a better suggestion for ram?

Thx in advance

if the cost isn't much of an issue just get the 8500 as they will give you the most room to work with and I can basically guarantee they'll do 800CL4 and 667CL3 yet are guaranteed to do 1066CL5 and most undoubtedly 1066CL4 and better

if you go with the lower ones you may end up limiting yourself...no guaranteed but likely

 

[Firecracker]

if the cost isn't much of an issue just get the 8500 as they will give you the most room to work with and I can basically guarantee they'll do 800CL4 and 667CL3 yet are guaranteed to do 1066CL5 and most undoubtedly 1066CL4 and better

if you go with the lower ones you may end up limiting yourself...no guaranteed but likely

So it's 8500CL5 > 6400CL4 > 5300CL3 ?
Prices are 140$, 100$, 100$...

 

[DaMulta]

High speed ram doesnt all ways matter with Intel systems.
http://www.realworldgamer.com/article.php?cat=articles&id=55&pagenumber=1

 

[DaMulta]

I am unsure why but I was told Intel likes high frequencies with looser ram timings. So to me the 1066 would give you a better performance rate.

But how much a difference it truly makes, that I am unsure of.

That's backwards that's AMD that likes high speed vs lower speed better latency.

 

[rampage]

in my old e6600 running 3.4 ghz i found low latency v high mhz made hardly no difference, but what i found made the biggest difference was running t1 ram i think i was about 850 mhz.. it scored the same in all benchmarks (especially everest) as the ram running 1100 mhz 2T .. .. .. .. i scored over 11g a second in read and about 41 nanosecond delay running T1 ..

 

[gR3iF]

Tomshardware tested this.
The result was that it doesnt matter at all.
The C2d Architecture is build to live without much bandwith to memory and or low latencys
You see barely any difference between 800 cl4 and cl5 ram and nether between 1066 and 800mgh ram.


Also ddr3 which brings new highert latency and higher bandwith is unable to bring better benches along.

All in all it doesnt matter at all.

I would go with the cheaper thing or the memory that can feed my oc. If you plan to do so.

 

[largon]

gR3iF,
Ummm...
DDR3 already offers lower latencies than the world record Winbond BH-5 @ tCL2-tRCD2-tRP2 ~315MHz (DDR630) ever did.

 

[Kursah]

I've got my G.Skill HZ DDR2 800 at 1000 with 4-4-4-12 timings and 2.15v (they want 2.1v for 800/4-4-4-12), I've hit 1066, and they booted fine at stock timings at 2.25v. They were tighter timings and cheaper than 2x1gb kits at the time. I think DDR3 is getting better, but in 6 months imagine how things are going to be on newer chipsets/more support and with tighter timings and faster speed from them. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Chewy]

The Asus P5k you should get is the premium. Im getting this one, as is tigger.. it does not have vregs on the back like the dlx version.. its a redefined p5k deluxe.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-2831-view-Asus-P5K-premium.html

 

[nflesher87]

The Asus P5k you should get is the premium. Im getting this one, as is tigger.. it does not have vregs on the back like the dlx version.. its a redefined p5k deluxe.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-2831-view-Asus-P5K-premium.html

<====

 

[Chewy]

nice one lol

urggg just finished working stuff out.. might have 2 comps soon by the looks of it.. I could benifit from buying this hd and psu on sale to complete the second computer (-case). goign to make a thread and see what people think I can get for this "second" computer system right quick b4 sleep.

 

[gR3iF]

Largon:
Source?


This was my last:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/30/the_new_arms_race_ddr3-1800_ram/page12.html

They bring barely any good things apart from beeing warm.

And this Spds are high.

 

[largon]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/30/the_new_arms_race_ddr3-1800_ram/page12.html

Dunno what Tom's HW was thinking as they used a Core 2 Duo in the benchies. As you said Core 2 (Duo) isn't b/w sensitive, but the quads do infact gain from the extra bandwidth. Besides, I'm not talking about application nor realworld performance but the theoretical capabilities since technically DDR3 is way ahead of DDR2 (let alone DDR1) in regards of latency/bandwidth. The limitations of currently available platforms are the reason DDR3 doesn't offer much of a gain in realworld. The problem is, in order to OC DDR3 one can't run them 1:1 as FSB does not scale that well. This means all that bandwidth is stuck on the MCH, "behind the FSB" so to speak, thus CPU can only use only so much until FSB get's saturated.

Although Intel MCHs do support DDR3 but mere support is far from unleashing the real performance...
Once the platforms advance in a point that there's nomore FSB to bottleneck the RAM (read: Intel Core 3 aka. Nehalem, and/or as soon as AMD AM3 shows up) DDR3 will absolutely, positively trounce DDR2.

Example of what DDR3 can do:
DDR3-2000+ tCL8-tRCD6-tRP6-tRAS18 @ XtremeSystems
tRCD and tRP @ 5.8ns - that's equal to tRCD2/tRP2 @ DDR1-680+. Totally untouchable by worldrecord Winbond "low latency" BH-5.
tCL8 @ DDR3-2058 is nothing to sneeze at either. Although it's "merely" equal to tCL2 @ DDR1-515 (257MHz).

What actually blows my mind is that these are the very first available 1st generation DDR3 chips.

 

[tostator]

A in a spanish forum a friend had the same doubt as me, and he did some searchs and posted three benchies. I post the links here:

Fudzilla
Ocworkbech
Pro-clockers

The first and second show a slightly better performance of the 800 CAS3 memos and the third shows a better performance of the 1066 ones.

Some people afirm that the Quads are more 'bandwith hungry" than the Duos... I think i'll get the 1066 ballistic tracers.

At last we'll found the best option...

 

[Random Murderer]

the best thing for a c2q setup is bandwidth. throw as much bandwidth at it as possible. higher frequencies give higher throughput, i.e. higher bandwidth. go with the 1066.