Originally Posted by hitman012 He meant that higher speeds are better than (>) tighter timings rather than higher speeds = lower timings :)
I think he actually meant that an increase in speed (MHz) will give you better performance than tighter timings. Of course it works in reverse too - if you've got RAM that can run really tight timings at PC3200, you can probably loosen it up to run it at a faster MHz speed. Or maybe that's what you're (hitman) saying too and you just left out a comma that I needed to read it right.
Nice article, but ram still seems like a pretty complex portion of a computer. Obviously tighter timings and faster bus speeds is better, but understanding exactly what tRAS, CAS, and the rest of the nomenclature means is pretty tough. Maybe I need another read through...heh.
One thing I hoped this article would have addressed was load times in games. My number one reason for installing ram isn't to eek out 1 more fps, but rather to help speed up the sometimes unbearable load times between games (even 30 seconds is killer...:)). FPSs like DOD:Source and BF2 make the benefit of having small load times huge, especially when rounds can last only 15 minutes.
Other than that, excellent article. It's nice to see something informational AND useful at the same time...:)
Originally Posted by funkbro2 i thoguht the 2T problem was solved with the E3 revision AMD?
anywho
does that mean no matter what sizes of ram, if i want to do 4 sticks ill have to 2T
If you ran 4 sticks pre-venice they would run at PC2700 not PC3200, but now they still suffer from 2T. You can force 1T on some boards but it isnt guranteed to be stable.
Originally Posted by hitman012 I think it was meant this way to advise people who currently have 2x512MB to still get 2 more 512MB modules despite having to run a 2T command rate.
Originally Posted by ek-hat I don't understand why the slower 400Mhz XMS4000, but with lower timings, was beaten by the faster 520Mhz XMS4000, but with higher timings, in all four tests...
...I heard that you should always opt for lower timings over slight-higher speeds - isn't this true?
Be that as it may, 520MHz is a significant amount faster than 400MHZ. So the argument is null.
It was my understanding that in dual channel mode 2GB (1GB in each channel) would only operate as 1GB total.... that if you wanted 2GB in total you had to use single channel... am I drunk?
Originally Posted by trader28 It was my understanding that in dual channel mode 2GB (1GB in each channel) would only operate as 1GB total.... that if you wanted 2GB in total you had to use single channel... am I drunk?
No, you still recieve the full capacity - the theoretical bandwidth is just doubled.
LOAD TIMES!!! I can personally say that if you play BF2 having 2gbs of ram is well worth it. After upgrading to 2gb I'm always one of the first people in a level, first in means more points, choice of vehicles, etc... My load times (verifying client data)went from about 1 minute down to 15-20 secs
It seems to me that if you had a large amount of memory (4gig), you could run your application from ram instead of from a hard drive, and that you might see dramatic improvements in performance.
Is anybody using large amounts of ram to make a game run entirely from ram instead of from a hard drive?
"If you're willing to take a bit of a gamble (dependant on whether you'll be able to sell your current memory or not), we'd recommend swapping out your current memory for 2GB - it's just a case of whether you choose to buy the cheaper modules with looser timings, or whether you opt for memory capable of reasonably tight timings at DDR400. That'll ulimately come down to whether you're planning to overclock or not. "
I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty following this final paragraph. Cheaper modules will probably not provide tight timmings or assist in a good overclock. Are you saying that cheap modules are okay if one isn't going to overclock? Or are you saying that it's okay to overclock with loose timings. Actually, I'm having difficulty following the entire long sentence/paragraph in general. Please clarify...thanks.
Originally Posted by qquizz I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty following this final paragraph. Cheaper modules will probably not provide tight timmings or assist in a good overclock. Are you saying that cheap modules are okay if one isn't going to overclock? Or are you saying that it's okay to overclock with loose timings. Actually, I'm having difficulty following the entire long sentence/paragraph in general. Please clarify...thanks.
Well, it's basically stating that if you are not interested in overclocking, then you're probably good with just getting another two 512MB sticks. Where as if you're going to kick your PC in it's ass and up everything, you will be far better off going for some high quality 1gig sticks with tight timings (at stock speeds).
As it says in the article: tight at stock = good overclock (because you can slack the timings a little as you up the MHz without loosing too much performance). Loose at stock = no overclock (as you'll notice a huge drop in performance due to even slacker timings and a pitiful jump in MHz).
Originally Posted by qquizz "If you're willing to take a bit of a gamble (dependant on whether you'll be able to sell your current memory or not), we'd recommend swapping out your current memory for 2GB - it's just a case of whether you choose to buy the cheaper modules with looser timings, or whether you opt for memory capable of reasonably tight timings at DDR400. That'll ulimately come down to whether you're planning to overclock or not. "
I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty following this final paragraph. Cheaper modules will probably not provide tight timmings or assist in a good overclock. Are you saying that cheap modules are okay if one isn't going to overclock? Or are you saying that it's okay to overclock with loose timings. Actually, I'm having difficulty following the entire long sentence/paragraph in general. Please clarify...thanks.
Hi there,
If you're looking to overclock, you're most-likely going to need modules that have a little more headroom in them. The likes of Corsair's Value Select operates at 3.0-4-4-8 at DDR400, meaning that there is generally very little overhead in the modules. If you purchase something with a little more overhead (either tighter timings or rated at a higher memory speed), you're more likely to have the overhead to overclock.
Basically, if you're looking to overclock, the general concensus is to buy better modules. ;)
I dont get it, I have a X2 3800+ & 7800GT with a single 1GB corsair 3200C2 Pro... if I get rid of my pagefile and run the F.E.A.R. benchmark with CachemanXP monitoring peak usage I only use 600-700MB... why do I need 2GB?
Originally Posted by trader28 I dont get it, I have a X2 3800+ & 7800GT with a single 1GB corsair 3200C2 Pro... if I get rid of my pagefile and run the F.E.A.R. benchmark with CachemanXP monitoring peak usage I only use 600-700MB... why do I need 2GB?
When the computer loads the new room/level or program, memory usage spikes. 600-700 mb is still being played and new stuff loads, taking another 300-400 mb, and you are maxing memory and going to the pagefile - that is what causes the stuttering. Usually this only causes some slowing, but if the margin gets too close or goes over you get the unplayable stutter.
For example: you have been running in dungeon or in a closed space, and lots of targets, now you move into an outside area. The computer was probably cruising along shifting 200-300mb dealing with targets and graphigs files that are already handy, spiking with the room changes to 600-700. the step outside suddenly doubles the requirement adding the need for new color/texture, physics, targets, lighting, etc. probably spiking the bandwidth, and need for memory to over the 1 gb. and transfer capacity.
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove Hmm and then there are us sorry peeps who still run with 2x256mb modules :(
Try a Gb of old sdram, p4, and a 6600. One of the reasons I am lurking around here, learning what is good, and what is not. Some of the issues are the SOS tho'
Originally Posted by rarich When the computer loads the new room/level or program, memory usage spikes. 600-700 mb is still being played and new stuff loads, taking another 300-400 mb, and you are maxing memory and going to the pagefile - that is what causes the stuttering. Usually this only causes some slowing, but if the margin gets too close or goes over you get the unplayable stutter.
For example: you have been running in dungeon or in a closed space, and lots of targets, now you move into an outside area. The computer was probably cruising along shifting 200-300mb dealing with targets and graphigs files that are already handy, spiking with the room changes to 600-700. the step outside suddenly doubles the requirement adding the need for new color/texture, physics, targets, lighting, etc. probably spiking the bandwidth, and need for memory to over the 1 gb. and transfer capacity.
Oh ok, thanx... I'm gonna play it for awhile and see how close it gets, or if it goes over
Well I played it for about 20 minutes (no pagefile), indoor and outdoor scenes, peak usage was 993MB.. didn't notice any real slow downs except for saving check points but they are notoriously slow on FEAR anyway... I dont think it would have went over 1024MB because you get that message from WinXP and it auto creates a Pagefile... so can I assume I dont need another gig of memory?
One thing to point out is that with the current 2gb value sets, you can quite easily achieve 3-4-4-8 1T settings with 250 "fsb" (500ddr) eventhough the set would be CAS 3 DDR400. By just paying a little more attention on what you're buying; anything with Samsungs UCCC chips will do nicely most of the time.
Then again, sometimes a more pricey 2gb kit with decent latencies might not overclock too well, eventhough usually this is because of the other components like the motherboard. Having paid a pretty nice price for the G.Skill kit in my signature, I was expecting to get a bit more hrz out of them, but it seems that my a8n premium doesn't see it the same way. What to learn from this? Always make sure your motherboard is 100% compatible with the memory you're planning on buying! =]
Quote:
Though in theory tRAS should be tRCD added to CAS Latency plus 2.
I've been wondering about this, because these G.Skill ZX's are guaranteed to do 2-3-2-5 ddr400. So if that theory is correct, these should be 2-3-2-7. I've heard that tRCD CAS + 2 idea before too and have tried to remember it when changing settings, but this whole manufacturer guaranteed thing is a bit confusing...
Originally Posted by trader28 Well I played it for about 20 minutes (no pagefile), indoor and outdoor scenes, peak usage was 993MB.. didn't notice any real slow downs except for saving check points but they are notoriously slow on FEAR anyway... I dont think it would have went over 1024MB because you get that message from WinXP and it auto creates a Pagefile... so can I assume I dont need another gig of memory?
As long as you don't runn anything else when you are gaming. If you look at the article the 2GB usually is needed when doing a lot of shifting between applications, but your peak appears to be within what you already have. (a serious type like a programmer can probably tell you about some special memory management issues, but I think windows 95 and later solved most of those.)
Originally Posted by Sathy One thing to point out is that with the current 2gb value sets, you can quite easily achieve 3-4-4-8 1T settings with 250 "fsb" (500ddr) eventhough the set would be CAS 3 DDR400. By just paying a little more attention on what you're buying; anything with Samsungs UCCC chips will do nicely most of the time.
True - I seem to have got lucky with my 2GB of Value Select. They run 250 at 3-4-4-8 1T perfectly happily with just a .5 voltage boost, memtest86 stable over 20 hours :D.
EDIT: sorry, .25, not .5!
EDIT EDIT: Actually, I've just realised I have no idea what the voltage boost is. I thought it was documented somewhere but now I can't see it. I have the ASRock Dual939 board with the AGP and PCIe slots, and the VDIMM settings are "Normal" and "High".
Whatever, the RAM runs lovely, and with a board like that I'm fairly certain the max VDIMM isn't going to be anything dangerous ;)
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove Hmm and then there are us sorry peeps who still run with 2x256mb modules :(
I agree.
In my opinion 1GB are enough for most applications; I have2*512MB and swap file size=0. :D
I put 2 more RAM modules but 2GB total RAM did not improve the system's performance.
For other users may 2GB help.
For me no. :)
Comments 26 to 50 of 52
anywho
does that mean no matter what sizes of ram, if i want to do 4 sticks ill have to 2T
One thing I hoped this article would have addressed was load times in games. My number one reason for installing ram isn't to eek out 1 more fps, but rather to help speed up the sometimes unbearable load times between games (even 30 seconds is killer...:)). FPSs like DOD:Source and BF2 make the benefit of having small load times huge, especially when rounds can last only 15 minutes.
Other than that, excellent article. It's nice to see something informational AND useful at the same time...:)
If you ran 4 sticks pre-venice they would run at PC2700 not PC3200, but now they still suffer from 2T. You can force 1T on some boards but it isnt guranteed to be stable.
Be that as it may, 520MHz is a significant amount faster than 400MHZ. So the argument is null.
The days of 1gb being enough are gone....
What happened to Ram Disks?
It seems to me that if you had a large amount of memory (4gig), you could run your application from ram instead of from a hard drive, and that you might see dramatic improvements in performance.
Is anybody using large amounts of ram to make a game run entirely from ram instead of from a hard drive?
I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty following this final paragraph. Cheaper modules will probably not provide tight timmings or assist in a good overclock. Are you saying that cheap modules are okay if one isn't going to overclock? Or are you saying that it's okay to overclock with loose timings. Actually, I'm having difficulty following the entire long sentence/paragraph in general. Please clarify...thanks.
Well, it's basically stating that if you are not interested in overclocking, then you're probably good with just getting another two 512MB sticks. Where as if you're going to kick your PC in it's ass and up everything, you will be far better off going for some high quality 1gig sticks with tight timings (at stock speeds).
As it says in the article: tight at stock = good overclock (because you can slack the timings a little as you up the MHz without loosing too much performance). Loose at stock = no overclock (as you'll notice a huge drop in performance due to even slacker timings and a pitiful jump in MHz).
If you're looking to overclock, you're most-likely going to need modules that have a little more headroom in them. The likes of Corsair's Value Select operates at 3.0-4-4-8 at DDR400, meaning that there is generally very little overhead in the modules. If you purchase something with a little more overhead (either tighter timings or rated at a higher memory speed), you're more likely to have the overhead to overclock.
Basically, if you're looking to overclock, the general concensus is to buy better modules. ;)
Hmm and then there are us sorry peeps who still run with 2x256mb modules :(
When the computer loads the new room/level or program, memory usage spikes. 600-700 mb is still being played and new stuff loads, taking another 300-400 mb, and you are maxing memory and going to the pagefile - that is what causes the stuttering. Usually this only causes some slowing, but if the margin gets too close or goes over you get the unplayable stutter.
For example: you have been running in dungeon or in a closed space, and lots of targets, now you move into an outside area. The computer was probably cruising along shifting 200-300mb dealing with targets and graphigs files that are already handy, spiking with the room changes to 600-700. the step outside suddenly doubles the requirement adding the need for new color/texture, physics, targets, lighting, etc. probably spiking the bandwidth, and need for memory to over the 1 gb. and transfer capacity.
Try a Gb of old sdram, p4, and a 6600. One of the reasons I am lurking around here, learning what is good, and what is not. Some of the issues are the SOS tho'
Then again, sometimes a more pricey 2gb kit with decent latencies might not overclock too well, eventhough usually this is because of the other components like the motherboard. Having paid a pretty nice price for the G.Skill kit in my signature, I was expecting to get a bit more hrz out of them, but it seems that my a8n premium doesn't see it the same way. What to learn from this? Always make sure your motherboard is 100% compatible with the memory you're planning on buying! =]
As long as you don't runn anything else when you are gaming. If you look at the article the 2GB usually is needed when doing a lot of shifting between applications, but your peak appears to be within what you already have. (a serious type like a programmer can probably tell you about some special memory management issues, but I think windows 95 and later solved most of those.)
True - I seem to have got lucky with my 2GB of Value Select. They run 250 at 3-4-4-8 1T perfectly happily with just a .5 voltage boost, memtest86 stable over 20 hours :D.
EDIT: sorry, .25, not .5!
EDIT EDIT: Actually, I've just realised I have no idea what the voltage boost is. I thought it was documented somewhere but now I can't see it. I have the ASRock Dual939 board with the AGP and PCIe slots, and the VDIMM settings are "Normal" and "High".
Whatever, the RAM runs lovely, and with a board like that I'm fairly certain the max VDIMM isn't going to be anything dangerous ;)
In my opinion 1GB are enough for most applications; I have2*512MB and swap file size=0. :D
I put 2 more RAM modules but 2GB total RAM did not improve the system's performance.
For other users may 2GB help.
For me no. :)