How memory timings on A64's affect performance - The truth.

J

joecuddles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,103
December 28, 2004 : Added RAS to CAS Investigation. Updated CAS results with LL / LH scores and removed CPU Arithmetic. SuperPi to be added shortly, was unable to find a Process Timing program to measure SuperPi calculation time within 100th's of a second. Updated first post with benchmark methods and details, as well as an A64 Tweaker screenshot.


Ever hear this : "Ram on Intel loves Mhz, ram on A64's love tight timings"? I know I have, and I had never, ever seen any solid evidence to state this as fact. Now, when you're dealing with something like memory timings, a lot of things come into play. Mobo, BIOS, ram type, and of course the CPU. There are also many facets of performance. You of course have your synthetic benchmarks, your benchmarks from the competitive realm (AQ3, 3DMark) as well as your pure real world gaming performance. I've seen on a lot of forums people asking about how ram timings will affect their performance, whether it be in competitive benchmarks or real world gaming. Not finding any hard evidence, I decided to look into this topic.

By no means do I consider myself an expert at all in the Ram department. At the time of me typing this, I've only been actually overclocking my computer for about 1.5 months. I've been reading about overclocking for maybe 4 months. In the following sections, I'll take a look at CAS, RAS to CAS and RAS effects on performance, as well as a compilation at the end including FSB and performance ratios and other data to help you sort out where you are most likely to perform best (220 3-2-2 > 200 2-2-2?).

The test setup is as follows :

S939 AMD FX-53 (200x12, stock)
2x512MB Crucial Ballistix DDR400 (running in Dual Channel)
MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum (1.3b6 BIOS)
x800 Pro flashed to XT PE @ 570 / 590
2x74GB Raptors in Raid 0
Windows XP SP2
Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro

Notes about the conditions of the benchmarks :
- I tried to keep all tests on even playing ground. All of the same services were running in the background for all tests at all settings.
- If a benchmark looked off, or fishy, I ran it more than once to make sure my results were exact. There will always be a slight margin of error, which can be attributed for some differences.
- VSync was never enabled.
- The ATI Control Panel was set to High Quality for all tests.
- For the Competitive Benchmarks I simply ran the tests from beginning to end. No tweaks, no tricks, no nothing.
- In 3DMark 2001 I only use Lobby High and Lobby Low to show results. Originally I ran through the entire benchmark, but margin of error in 2001 is very large. At the advice of the 2001 Pro's, LL and LH were deemed as the most RAM / CPU dependant tests, and therefore those are the only scores you will see.
- A64 Tweaker shot for specific settings on all benchmarks can be found here.

I'm breaking this down into 3 subsections, Synthetic Benchmarks, Competitive Benchmarks and Real World Performance.

Here are the settings for the gaming benchmarks :

Counter-Strike : Source Visual Stress Test (Ran once, running twice gave identical results)
Low :
640x480
All settings on Low
Bilinear Filtering, No Reflect

High :
1600x1200
All settings on High
4xAA / 16xAF / Reflect All

Doom 3 - timedemo demo1 (Ran twice, took second score)
Low :
640x480
Lowest Quality
All Advanced Settings disabled

High :
1600x1200
Ultra Quality
All Advanced settings enabled (except for AA and VSync)

And without futher delay, here are the results!

EDIT - Quick Links
Investigating CAS
Investigating RAS to CAS (tRCD)
 
Investigating CAS


Synthetic Benchmarks

200x12 / 2-2-2-10 :
Everest Latency Benchmark : 47.2ns
Sandra Soft 2005 Bandwidth : 6070 / 6027

200x12 / 2.5-2-2-10 :
Everest Latency Benchmark : 50.8ns
Sandra Soft 2005 Bandwidth : 6055 / 6012

200x12 / 3-2-2-10 :
Everest Latency Benchmark : 53.1ns
Sandra Soft 2005 Bandwidth : 6048 / 5994

As you can see, going from CAS2 to CAS2.5 will lose you about 3ns in latency (7.6%). Going from CAS2.5 to CAS3 will hit you for about another 3ns.

And how does this affect your bandwidth? Not much overall. The total difference from CAS2 to CAS3 is only a 22 / 33 decrease (0.25% / 0.25%). And from CAS2.5 to CAS3 it's only 1%! That definately isn't much in the grand scheme of things, as you'll see when we get to real world gaming.




Competitive Benchmarks

200x12 / 2-2-2-10 :
3DMark 2001 : 351.3 / 156.2
3DMark 2005 : 6312
Aquamark 3 : 77661

200x12 / 2.5-2-2-10 :
3DMark 2001 : 344.5 / 153.3
3DMark 2005 : 6304
Aquamark 3 : 76749

200x12 / 3-2-2-10 :
3DMark 2001 : 338.2 / 150.9
3DMark 2005 : 6309
Aquamark 3 : 75755

(Note : Most competitive benchers on the A64 platform make use of A64 Tweaker by CodeRed, I'd just like to note that I did not use that utility at all for any of these benchmarks. CAS timings were set in the BIOS. Lobby Low and Lobby High are the scores shown. A64 Tweaker shot for specific settings on all benchmarks can be found here.)

Interesting results we see here. Competitive Benchmarks really do get affected by things as specific as your ram timings, which most competitive benchmarkers already know :) I didn't use 2003 for this test because it's essentially in between 2001 and 2005 as far as CPU / Ram dependance.

3DMark 2001 showed a large decrease when switching CAS timings. Going from CAS2 to CAS2.5 decreased Lobby Low by 6.8 (1.97%)FPS ! As benchers know, this is a huge decrease. Going from CAS2.5 to CAS3 dropped it another 6.3 FPS (1.86%). These may seem like nothing to most people, but when it comes to competitive benchmarking, almost 2% is a huge, huge difference. In Lobby High we saw the same drop happen, we lost 5.7 FPS (3.51%) going from CAS2 to CAS3.

3DMark 2005 showed slight differences which are within the margin of error, so we can basically ignore all those tests. This just goes to show you that 3DMark 2005 is essentially entirely GPU as of now. In 4 years it will probably just as CPU bound as 3DMark 2001 has become.

Aquamark 3 showed interesting results as well. I never thought Aquamark 3 was this dependant on things as specific as ram timings. We see that from CAS2 to CAS2.5 we drop an astounding 912 (1.18%) points. Further, from CAS2.5 to CAS3 we drop another 994 (1.31%) points. The total difference from CAS2 to CAS3 is 1906 (2.52%) points. That is a huge difference, if you ask me when it comes to competitive benchmarking.

And now, we move on to the true test, real world performance.



Real World Performance

200x12 / 2-2-2-10 :
VST Low : 198 FPS
Doom 3 Low : 144.2 FPS

VST High : 102.74 FPS
Doom 3 High : 61 FPS


200x12 / 2.5-2-2-10 :
VST Low : 198 FPS
Doom 3 Low : 143.7 FPS

VST High : 101.7 FPS
Doom 3 High : 61 FPS


200x12 / 3-2-2-10 :
VST Low : 193 FPS
Doom 3 Low : 142.2 FPS

VST High : 101.07 FPS
Doom 3 High : 61 FPS


Very interesting results we see here. Even when we're running at lowest settings, taxing the CPU / Ram much more so than the video card, we see almost the exact same numbers throughout.

Doom 3 Low barely budged. It isn't within margin of error, it is indeed because of the CAS timings, but a total of 2 FPS difference from CAS2 to CAS3 is pretty significant when it comes to showing that timings don't matter that much in real world gaming.

Doom 3 High was entirely GPU. Frames don't change at all, why? Well, something as insignificant as ram timings won't change anything if all the work is being put on your GPU, so we see absolutely no performance decrease.

VST Low gave almost the same results as Doom 3 Low. Now, on CAS3 it did seem to drop more than from CAS2 to CAS2.5, and I did rerun the test to make sure, and it hit 193 each time. Even so, a 5 FPS drop when you're dealing with settings that will never be used real world don't have much weight, in my opinion.

VST High also gave interesting results. This is real world, this is what you'll see while playing. From CAS2 to CAS2.5, we lost 1 FPS. Oh no!! Not a whole frame! Going from CAS2.5 to CAS3 dropped us not even a single frame per second, 0.63 if you want to get technical. I think we can all agree that that means nothing in terms of real world performance. Overall, going from CAS2 to CAS3 dropped us approximately 1.63 FPS.



Conclusions

Well, overall, I think we got some interesting results. On forums a lot I'll hear people ask 'Should I get this 2.5-3-3 ram or this 3-3-3 ram?'. In most cases, the 2.5-3-3 ram will be a decent amount more expensive than the 3-3-3 ram. And most people get the answer of 'Go for the 2.5 ram, it's worth it'. I think after the tests given above, we should really start questioning that.

For Competitive Benchers
I don't think I need to say much here. If you bench for sport, you already know what I've told you. Timings do matter, and they matter a reasonable amount. The difference at the same Mhz between CAS2 and CAS2.5 even is a reasonable amount. The difference between CAS2 to CAS3 is even more pronounced, and as we all know, 500 points in any benchmark can make or break a world record. Paying the extra $50-$100 for CAS2 ram instead of CAS2.5 is definately worth it. But as I said, if you're a bencher, you already know all of this and probably have some nice sticks of BH5 or TCCD at your side already, so I don't think I need to say much more on this front.

For Gamers (especially those on a budget)
Here's what it really all comes down to. If you're a gamer with a newer PC, you're most likely on the A64 platform. The question of timings comes into play a lot when deciding your PC components. I even previously would tell people to spring for the CAS2 over the CAS3, thinking it would indeed help with performance. Keep in mind, this is specifically dealing with CAS only. If you have the choice between 2-2-2 and 3-2-2 ram (which won't happen often), then I think you can see that the extra money usually isn't worth it if you're an average gamer. After the tests above, I really have to question myself. Is it really worth it? For a budget gamer, $50-$100 is a pretty decent amount of cash to smack down for some CAS2 ram as opposed to some CAS3 ram. Is it truely worth it? I guess that's up to the gamer themselves, but overall I think we can come to the conclusion that the answer is no. $50 extra for 1 FPS under normal gaming conditions is not something most people would spring for. Even when it's entirely CPU / Ram dependant, we barely see a 3 FPS difference. This is entirely negligable, I think we can agree. I myself was surprised at how little difference in the real world ram timings had an effect. Update - Keep in mind, this is CAS only.



Final Thoughts

Well, when it comes to CAS only, I think it's clear that for real world performance, CAS doesn't mean a thing. For benching, of course it does. And for synthetic benchmarks, you will see a performance decrease, but it's extremely minimal (well under 100mb/s from CAS2 to CAS3). Scroll down for more benchmark results regarding other timings. But as a final answer for CAS only, it has no real world performance decrease when changing from CAS2 to CAS3 (keeping all other timings equal).
 
Investigating RAS to CAS (tRCD)



Synthetic Benchmarks

200x12 / 2-2-2-10 :
Everest Latency Benchmark : 47.2ns
Sandra Soft 2005 Bandwidth : 6070 / 6027

200x12 / 2-3-2-10 :
Everest Latency Benchmark : 50.9ns
Sandra Soft 2005 Bandwidth : 6052 / 6006

200x12 / 2-4-2-10 :
Everest Latency Benchmark : 52.9ns
Sandra Soft 2005 Bandwidth : 6027 / 5983

When it came to CAS only, we saw very minimal performance loss (22 / 33 decrease). When it comes to tRCD2 to 4, we see a 43 / 44 (0.71% / 0.74%) decrease overall. Going from 2 to 3, we only see a drop of 18 / 21 total. When it comes to memory bandwidth, this isn't a huge drop, but it is noticable when it comes to synthetic benchmarking.

The latency also suffers a reasonable amount, moreso than with CAS only being the variable. We drop 4ns from 2 to 3 and another 2ns from 3 to 4 for a total drop of 6ns. That's a reasonable amount when it comes to your ram timings. Much more pronounced than we saw with CAS changing.

With CAS from 2 to 3, we had a total drop of about 0.25%. With tRCD from 2 to 4 we see a ~0.72% decrease. More than twice the performance difference in comparison between the two settings when it comes to bandwidth.


Competitive Benchmarks

200x12 / 2-2-2-10 :
3DMark 2001 : 351.3 / 156.2
3DMark 2005 : 6312
Aquamark 3 : 77661


200x12 / 2-3-2-10 :
3DMark 2001 : 340 / 151.1
3DMark 2005 : 6316
Aquamark 3 : 76573

200x12 / 2-4-2-10 :
3DMark 2001 : 332.3 / 147.7
3DMark 2005 : 6305
Aquamark 3 : 75668

Looks like we have some more 'splainin to do.

3DMark 2001 showed almost the same decrease as before. With CAS only we had a decrease of almost 4%. Here, going from tRCD 2 to 4 dropped us 19 FPS (5.7%) in LL. In LH with CAS we saw a total 3.51% drop. With tRCD from 2 to 4 we see a drop of 8.5 FPS (5.75%). The differences between CAS and tRCD so far show us that tRCD effects performance close to twice as much overall in 3DMark 2001.

3DMark 2005 is almost not worth mentioning. This should probably be dropped from future benches, but I left it in just to show that Ram timings mean next to nothing in 2005. Going from CAS2 to 3 will drop maybe 2 points off your score, and going from tRCD 2 to 4 will drop you about the same.

Aquamark 3 also showed us more of a decrease than with CAS. While we were seeing a total of 1906 (2.52%) points, going from tRCD 2 to 4 drops us about 1993 (2.63%) points. While less drasatic than the CAS2 to 3 drops we saw previously, tRCD only increase your performance decrease (yeah, that makes sense :p ) by about 0.1%. Not entirely significant, but the drop is there.

Overall we can see that 3DMark 2001, as usually is very picky about ram and doesn't like the tRCD being upped as much as the CAS. With AQ3, we see that it doesn't really have a preference as to what is being changed. Upping CAS or tRCD will get you about the same decrease.


Real World Performance

200x12 / 2-2-2-10 :
VST Low : 198 FPS
Doom 3 Low : 144.2 FPS

VST High : 102.74 FPS
Doom 3 High : 61 FPS

200x12 / 2-3-2-10 :
VST Low : 195.84 FPS
Doom 3 Low : 142.8 FPS

VST High : 102.27 FPS
Doom 3 High : 61 FPS

200x12 / 2-4-2-10 :
VST Low : 188.37 FPS
Doom 3 Low : 140.1 FPS

VST High : 102.65 FPS
Doom 3 High : 61 FPS

Doom 3 Low really isn't worth mentioning. Once again, we about a 2 FPS difference between timing changes. Woopdee.

Doom 3 High is what you'd notice playing. And yes, you wouldn't notice a thing. Rock hard 61 FPS all throughout, it just doesn't budge.

VST Low was also worthless. There was a decrease of about 5 FPS total from tRCD 2 to 4. Not huge at all, considering no one would even play at these resolutions. It does show that the ram timings are affecting gameplay under these specific circumstances, so let's see how it will really affect things.

VST High shows us... a suprise!. With CAS2 to 3 we saw a 1 FPS decrease. With tRCD 2 to 4 we see nothing change at all. They're all within margin of error, so we get the exact same results with tRCD 2 to 4 throughout. Not something I was expecting, but I'm not particularly suprised either. CS: Source just doesn't care about tRCD at all.


Conclusions

I think we saw what we expected. There is a performance decrease with synthetic and competitive benchmarks when increasing RAS to CAS (tRCD). In the competitive benchmarks, it is very significant, and it also is in the synthetic benchmarks, especially in latency. But with real world, we see once again it makes essentially no difference. Remember, this is tRCD only!

For Competitive Benchers

What we see here is that you will see a bigger decrease when changing tRCD compared to CAS. Going from 2 to 3 on tRCD hits you for almost 1000 AQ3 marks and drops your LL by ~10 and LH by ~5. If you have a choice between 2.5-2-2 and 2-3-2, I think it's clear that you'll want 2.5-2-2. This actually suprises me, but when looking at FPS comparisons we see that upping tRCD one step hits you for about twice the performance that upping your CAS does. I personally find this suprising, as I would have naturally thought 2-3-2 would outperform 2.5-2-2, but as we see here, that isn't the case.


For Gamers

Well, here's where most of the populace is, even the hardcore OCers are usually primarily gamers going for the most out of their system and their budget. Once again in Doom 3 we see no performance drop when playing with tRCD, and we also see nothing change in the VST at all. In fact, tRCD affects CS: Source less than changing CAS does. And when I say 'affects', we're talking about 1-2 FPS, which is practically nothing. $50 for 2-2-2 over 2-3-2 clearly isn't worth it. Will it be worth it with 2-2-2 vs 2.5-3-2 or 2.5-3-3? We'll find out shortly ;)

Final Thoughts

Another timing down, another fable perhaps destroyed. When it comes to real gaming, tRCD matters just as little as CAS does. Keep in mind, these are singular variables, with only one timing being changed at a time. The entire story could change with CAS as well as tRCD changing, but that's something we'll have to wait to see.

The bottom line with RAS to CAS (tRCD) : In real world performance, going from tRCD2 to tRCD4 has no performance decrease.
 
Saved for future results - Mhz differences and what Mhz increase is required to make up for timing differences (i.e 220 2.5-3-3 = 200 2-2-2?)
 
Your timing is impeccable as I was just asking myself this very question last night when posting about OC'in my A64.

Good job and you have answered most of my questions. You do bring up a valid point in your final thoughts regarding other timings. But what about tighter timings at lower speeds? Lets take for instance an overclocked FSB at 222MHz. Is it better to run the RAM at 222MHz @ 3-4-4-8 at 1:1 or would it be better to run the RAM at say 181MHz @ 2.5-3-3-7.

(HyperX memory sure does have loose timings to be called a "gamer's" memory)
 
Nice post Joe,
my roommate needs to read this thread BAD! He's been mumbling for days trying to max out his A64 OC and he keeps saying his RAM timings need to be better,,,
 
wow thank you for this! great work.

i found this out too... i went through 5 pairs of ram trying to get something to work in my shuttle.

i ended up with 'high latency' stuff (pc3700 3-4-4-8) but meh, i don't notice any real pratical speed difference, especially overclocked.

the advantage of low latency stuff like TCCD, is that you can relax the timings and really juice the frequency, that is where the real speed comes from.
 
Well, alot of it has to do it with personal preference... I take my 30 bucks and go with XLL 2-2-2-5 ram, and you take yours and go s939 with Dual Channel RAM... both of course show little gain, but it's all about how 'cutting edge' you want to be. And Gaining 2% here there, eventually lead to 20% gains overall.
 
xyoufailmex said:
Well, alot of it has to do it with personal preference... I take my 30 bucks and go with XLL 2-2-2-5 ram, and you take yours and go s939 with Dual Channel RAM... both of course show little gain, but it's all about how 'cutting edge' you want to be. And Gaining 2% here there, eventually lead to 20% gains overall.
Click to expand...

When dealing with CAS only, there is no difference in gaming performance. Benchmark performance is another story, but in the real world it makes absolutely no difference.
 
I've updated it with what I'll be investigating hopefully over the next few days (try to squeeze it in without upsetting the girlfriend). RAS to CAS, as well as RAS which will include a look at RAS to CAS and RAS at higher settings. I'll also look into compensating timings with FSB to try to find where the line draws, and whether or not timing changes becoming greater at higher FSB settings.

One problem I will face is that my ram is unable to do 2-2-2 at anything above 215 or so, so most of my tests involving FSB speeds will unforunately have to be done comparing CAS2.5 to CAS3 only, without the CAS2 ability. Expect it to be completely finished within a week (hopefully).
 
Great thread, finally, the truth has come out.

I bought fancy Corsair PC3200XLPro (2225) for my FX53 because of the hype. Guess what, I can't run at those timings. I have to run my memory at 2336, and I've tried two sets. I've seen many posts of people who must run at 2.5,3,3,5 and so on.

So not only is there no differance in real world benchmarks because of the timings, but

MOST PEOPLE CAN'T RUN AT 2225 TO BEGIN WITH.

The problem I have with this, is if you put Corsair PC3200XLPro in an Asus A8V, the MB will try to run at 2225, and you'll crash when loading windows (happened to me). When you go on the CorsairMicro forums, they'll tell you to raise the voltage and get the newest bios. Only after you try and fail, will they tell you to adjust your timings. They'll never admit their memory can't run at those 2225 timings.

And if you notice, the main page of their web site now talks about upgrades and flash memory. Gone is the fancy talk about 2225 memory. I wonder why?

I also ran benchmarks at 2225 vs 2336 and there was no differance.
 
Great post, but as has been stated already... the true benefit from those low-latency RAM sticks is they are particularly high-yield... meaning they can be pushed to higher frequencies in an overclocked rig which will DEFINITELY benefit overall real-world performance.

This is exactly why I'm fine with running HyperX PC2700 for the time being.
 
Very thorough post, impressive even ;)

On behalf of all those like me, thanks for the info, really nice to see the real world numbers on timings with the A64. Can't wait to see the differences in different timings at diff FSB's.
 
Yes, very helpful. I just went down the 2-2-2-5 road with OCZ PC3200 Plat rev 2 TCCD

I thought my whole rig sucked, I couldn't get past about 215 at 1:1, even at 2.75V. Relaxed it back to 2.5-3-3-6 and it's really happy at 225 1:1 (225X11 for the CPU) at 2.65V and 1.488V on the chip. This isn't a really radical OC, but it's very stable and runs pretty cool on air. OC'd my 6800U to 450/1200 in 2D and 3D, now everything seems fine.

I just thought everybody was getting like 240 FSB at 2-2-2-5, I haven't tried anything past the 2.5-3-3-6 @225, I got really tired of clearing the CMOS every time the thing wouldn't POST.

EDIT
And I just had to try 2.5-2-2-6 @225...wouldn't POST. I just thought I was tired of clearing the CMOS ;) But I went up to 230 at 2.5-3-3-6 (230X11) and it seems pretty stable.
 
Good job bro....thx for your time put into this, even though I don't run an A64.

I'm working on another one of my comparison threads again though.....will hopefully be done in a couple weeks if i take my time. ;)
 
Joe,

Great work! It will be very useful for those thinking about ponying up the dough for the good RAM or save a few bucks and get the cheaper RAM.

One more item to note. If you are overclocking, and your RAM timings are already 3-4-4-8 via SPD at DDR 3200 spec, then the RAM will have almost no headroom to move. If, however, you want to reach say 250 FSB, then stock DDR 3200 at 2-2-2-5 can be relaxed to 2.5-3-3-7 to allow for the greater frequencies. The cheaper CAS 3 RAM, however, will most likely not allow any looser timings, since they were already relaxed to meet stock spec.
 
Interesting, good job. If you're taking requests for the future, can you maybe add some non-gaming benches in as well? Maybe a video encoding or something. Thx :)
 
Sandman said:
Interesting, good job. If you're taking requests for the future, can you maybe add some non-gaming benches in as well? Maybe a video encoding or something. Thx :)
Click to expand...

I'd like to see how the timing changes effected your SuperPi times.....you might have to do 32M runs to see a lot of time differences though, but it would be nice. ;)
 
U seem to have a fx cpu ie dual channel which obviously compensates for slower ram. If u had a 754 and did the test i bet u it'd be a bigger percentage in speed then just 1%. Maybe 5%+! =)
 
binkgle said:
did you continue teting with the other timings?
Click to expand...

If you were asking me, yes...I read that X-X-X-10 was better on the Nforce 3 boards, so I tried that and got over 7K memory bandwidth (both readings) on SiSoft Sandra and am currently at 240X11 @ 1:1, I ran 245X11 for a while, but it wasn't super stable, 240X11 is.
 
Tazman2 said:
U seem to have a fx cpu ie dual channel which obviously compensates for slower ram. If u had a 754 and did the test i bet u it'd be a bigger percentage in speed then just 1%. Maybe 5%+! =)
Click to expand...

I'd also like to see these same tests ran on a s754.....but you could even move one of your sticks of ram to kill of the DC bandwidth and level things out a BIT. ;)
 
cornelious0_0 said:
I'll second that. :cool:
Click to expand...
I'll ...double...(or is it triple?) that!
Good job there joe! Keep up the work!

I'd like to know what happens with the overclock when you loosen the tRAS timing from 5, to 10? Will it give you a little more headroom for how far you can go?
 
To answer, 2.5-4-3-10 timings nets around 295 FSB with my PQI DDR 3200 2-2-2-5.
 
December 28, 2004 : Added RAS to CAS Investigation. Updated CAS results with LL / LH scores and removed CPU Arithmetic. SuperPi to be added shortly, was unable to find a Process Timing program to measure SuperPi calculation time within 100th's of a second. Updated first post with benchmark methods and details, as well as an A64 Tweaker screenshot.

To answer some questions, I keep tRAS at 10. As it performs the best for 90% of A64 platforms out there, it's performance increase / decrease is nominal, and most people use 9 or 10 already. I'd gladly run all these on a S754 system if someone has one to send me ;) I don't really feel the need to look into S754 much, as it's phased out already and no more chips shall be produced. S939 is the future and will be for some time, so I feel that my findings can carry on for a reasonable amount of time. SuperPi will be addded once I find a Process Timer and get a batch file for SuperPi so that I can get exact times to 100th of a second. Glad you're all enjoying it, Investigating RAS to come soon ;)
 
Thx bro.....darn near 10fps gain from the timings in Lobby High aint to bad at all......and if Car Chase wasn't so random in its results I'd actually like to see how it effected that, 'cus a 10fps difference in car low/high can make a much bigger impact on scores then Lobby.
 
very good work, timings seem to be having the effect i expected.

The differences are not monstrous but seems if you combine the differences it will be noticable, but not by much.
 
cornelious0_0 said:
Thx bro.....darn near 10fps gain from the timings in Lobby High aint to bad at all......and if Car Chase wasn't so random in its results I'd actually like to see how it effected that, 'cus a 10fps difference in car low/high can make a much bigger impact on scores then Lobby.
Click to expand...

I would use that bench if it wasn't so random. You can get 10+ FPS variant just from running it over and over due to that barrel.
 
Auger said:
Yes, very helpful. I just went down the 2-2-2-5 road with OCZ PC3200 Plat rev 2 TCCD

I thought my whole rig sucked, I couldn't get past about 215 at 1:1, even at 2.75V. Relaxed it back to 2.5-3-3-6 and it's really happy at 225 1:1 (225X11 for the CPU) at 2.65V and 1.488V on the chip. This isn't a really radical OC, but it's very stable and runs pretty cool on air. OC'd my 6800U to 450/1200 in 2D and 3D, now everything seems fine.

I just thought everybody was getting like 240 FSB at 2-2-2-5, I haven't tried anything past the 2.5-3-3-6 @225, I got really tired of clearing the CMOS every time the thing wouldn't POST.

EDIT
And I just had to try 2.5-2-2-6 @225...wouldn't POST. I just thought I was tired of clearing the CMOS ;) But I went up to 230 at 2.5-3-3-6 (230X11) and it seems pretty stable.
Click to expand...
My cheapy PDP with TCCD chips is stable at 280 2.5-3-3-10 so I imagine you have quite a lot of headroom if you want to try for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top