![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Mushkin at 4-2-2-2?
- Thread starter infin|ty
- Start date
anotherguy159
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 2,093
1. Remove focus from 'benchmarks.'
2. Focus on in-game performance.
3. ...
4. Profit.
BillLeeLee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,486
I must ask how you get 2-2-2-4 timings. Is it prime stable? Does it pass multiple passes in Memtest86? What voltage are you feeding it?
JEDEC only sees 2-2-2-5 timings as the lowest possible with current RAM.
Also, Athlons need tighter timings for better performance. In Intels, it's less important; memory bandwidth is more vital.
And yes, focus less on synthetic benchmarks. Real world performance is a lot different.
JEDEC only sees 2-2-2-5 timings as the lowest possible with current RAM.
Also, Athlons need tighter timings for better performance. In Intels, it's less important; memory bandwidth is more vital.
And yes, focus less on synthetic benchmarks. Real world performance is a lot different.
DocFaustus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,830
The 2-2-2 part is good, but the 4 part isn't the best choice.
Because you have it set too agressive, the data isnt ready to be picked up in the cycle. So it has to wait another cycle to grab it, kinda like doubling it to 8.
I cannot find the formula right now, but I think it is 2+Cas+Ras or something like that. So theoretically, 6 would be the optimum number for you.
Some people report that 11 is the "magic" number that makes your ram run the fastest. In all of my tests, I have never been able to prove that though.
Because you have it set too agressive, the data isnt ready to be picked up in the cycle. So it has to wait another cycle to grab it, kinda like doubling it to 8.
I cannot find the formula right now, but I think it is 2+Cas+Ras or something like that. So theoretically, 6 would be the optimum number for you.
Some people report that 11 is the "magic" number that makes your ram run the fastest. In all of my tests, I have never been able to prove that though.
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
You dont want to run your tRAS (4) any lower then 5 at the very most. It should be set at 6 really. Yes you'll get more performance the lower it goes but its only slightly noticeble in benchmarks and if you set your tRAS too low it WILL cause data corruption on your hard drives.
tRAS is suppost to be tRCD + CAS + 2 for DDR and tRCD + CAS for SDRAM.
Set your timings to 2-2-2-5 but no lower then that.
Also, timings are just as important on Pentium 4 systems as AMD systems. More bandwidth isn't going to affect your gaming performance or other areas that reflect according to timings especially when Pentium 4 rigs have dual channel which doubles the available bandwidth. So at all costs, keep your timings tight.
That only holds true for nForce 2 boards.
tRAS is suppost to be tRCD + CAS + 2 for DDR and tRCD + CAS for SDRAM.
Set your timings to 2-2-2-5 but no lower then that.
Also, timings are just as important on Pentium 4 systems as AMD systems. More bandwidth isn't going to affect your gaming performance or other areas that reflect according to timings especially when Pentium 4 rigs have dual channel which doubles the available bandwidth. So at all costs, keep your timings tight.
That only holds true for nForce 2 boards.
BillLeeLee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,486
That's only in Athlon XP systems. They have a bizarre bug.
@burningrave and DocFaustus:
since I'm running more relaxed timings now because Level II ini Intels can't perform at DDR433 at 2-2-2-6 for me, I'm running 2-3-2-6. Should I set it to 2-3-2-7 for optimum?
DocFaustus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,830
I have an AthlonXP system (and yes it was the one I used to try to reproduce it with). 
ahhh, thanks for the quick help.
I have 2.9v on the vdimm. It's not prime stable, I dont run mem test. It's not that the rams not, it's just the OC isnt
Let me rephrase just for the record "would it increase performance?"
Yeah, I was thinking it might of been harming my performance a hair.. i'll try 6-2-2-2 and maybe even try out the 11-2-2-2 for a second.
Much appreciated!
I have 2.9v on the vdimm. It's not prime stable, I dont run mem test. It's not that the rams not, it's just the OC isnt
Let me rephrase just for the record "would it increase performance?"
Yeah, I was thinking it might of been harming my performance a hair.. i'll try 6-2-2-2 and maybe even try out the 11-2-2-2 for a second.
Much appreciated!
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
As long as you dont go lower then 5 i dont think you'll have a problem. You could set it at 6 to be on the safe side. The higher you go though more time will be allocated to finishing addressing the RAM, storing information, closing everything and so on and it will in turn hurt performance. You have to find a happy medium.