Memory for 64-bit OS's

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=, May 30, 2007.

  1. I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).

    I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory timings
    of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45 (~$90)
    by going for the slightly slower timings.

    Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly slower
    chips???
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=, May 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    Nut Cracker Guest

    "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >
    > I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    > timings
    > of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    > (~$90)
    > by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >
    > Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    > slower
    > chips???


    I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    noticable, if at all.

    The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2.5,
    or 3.
    Nut Cracker, May 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    Theo Guest

    Nut Cracker wrote:
    > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >>
    >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >> timings
    >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    >> (~$90)
    >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >>
    >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >> slower
    >> chips???

    >
    > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > noticable, if at all.
    >
    > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2.5,
    > or 3.
    >
    >


    I think the 5 is normal for DDR2 memory used on AM2 and
    Intel boards.

    The 2.5 and 3 are usually found in DDR(1) memory used on skt
    939 boards.
    Theo, May 30, 2007
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    Theo Guest

    Nut Cracker wrote:
    > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >>
    >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >> timings
    >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    >> (~$90)
    >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >>
    >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >> slower
    >> chips???

    >
    > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > noticable, if at all.
    >
    > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2.5,
    > or 3.
    >
    >


    P.S.

    It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    Theo, May 30, 2007
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    John Barnes Guest

    The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting for
    response.


    "Theo" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    Nut Cracker wrote:
    > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >>
    >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >> timings
    >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    >> (~$90)
    >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >>
    >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >> slower
    >> chips???

    >
    > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > noticable, if at all.
    >
    > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2.5,
    > or 3.
    >


    P.S.

    It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    John Barnes, May 30, 2007
    #5
  6. True, but not many want to foot the bill for low-latency high-speed memory,
    I bought DDR2 800 CL4, it was costly and not at all generally available -
    but wonderful of course.

    Otherwise, Carol, I agree with what has been said - if performance is the
    priority both your options are on the slow side. If cost is the priority,
    save as much as you can, you will not notice any difference. CL4 would make
    a difference, at least if you really need those 8 gig.


    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:e$...
    > The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting

    for
    > response.
    >
    >
    > "Theo" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    > Nut Cracker wrote:
    > > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    > > news:D...
    > >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    > >>
    > >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    > >> timings
    > >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    > >> (~$90)
    > >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    > >>
    > >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    > >> slower
    > >> chips???

    > >
    > > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > > noticable, if at all.
    > >
    > > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are

    2.5,
    > > or 3.
    > >

    >
    > P.S.
    >
    > It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    > for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    >
    Tony Sperling, May 30, 2007
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    Nut Cracker Guest

    "Theo" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    Nut Cracker wrote:
    > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >>
    >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >> timings
    >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    >> (~$90)
    >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >>
    >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >> slower
    >> chips???

    >
    > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > noticable, if at all.
    >
    > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2.5,
    > or 3.
    >


    I think the 5 is normal for DDR2 memory used on AM2 and
    Intel boards.

    The 2.5 and 3 are usually found in DDR(1) memory used on skt
    939 boards.

    and most SDRAM, PC100/PC133
    Nut Cracker, May 30, 2007
    #7
  8. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    Theo Guest

    Nut Cracker wrote:
    >> "Theo" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >> Nut Cracker wrote:
    >>> "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:D...
    >>>> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >>>>
    >>>> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >>>> timings
    >>>> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    >>>> (~$90)
    >>>> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >>>>
    >>>> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >>>> slower
    >>>> chips???
    >>> I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    >>> noticable, if at all.
    >>>
    >>> The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2.5,
    >>> or 3.

    >>

    >
    >> I think the 5 is normal for DDR2 memory used on AM2 and
    >> Intel boards.
    >>
    >> The 2.5 and 3 are usually found in DDR(1) memory used on skt
    >> 939 boards.

    >
    > and most SDRAM, PC100/PC133
    >
    >


    How many people are running Win x64 on a board with SDRAM?
    Theo, May 30, 2007
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    Nut Cracker Guest

    "Theo" <> wrote in message
    news:Ohb$...
    Nut Cracker wrote:
    >> "Theo" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >> Nut Cracker wrote:
    >>> "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:D...
    >>>> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >>>>
    >>>> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >>>> timings
    >>>> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    >>>> (~$90)
    >>>> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >>>>
    >>>> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >>>> slower
    >>>> chips???
    >>> I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    >>> noticable, if at all.
    >>>
    >>> The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are
    >>> 2.5, or 3.

    >>

    >
    >> I think the 5 is normal for DDR2 memory used on AM2 and
    >> Intel boards.
    >>
    >> The 2.5 and 3 are usually found in DDR(1) memory used on skt
    >> 939 boards.

    >
    > and most SDRAM, PC100/PC133
    >


    How many people are running Win x64 on a board with SDRAM?

    Dunno about x64 ... ask me about IA64, and I would tell you that I AM
    running that.
    Nut Cracker, May 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Thanks guys.

    Perhaps a brief rundown of my situation might be appropriate. I am a
    photographer and use Adobe Photoshop CS3 and other apps in the CS3 suite and
    need a fast machine as I am processing/batch processing many Gbs at a time (a
    thousand raw files at ~20Mb/file can bog down any system) and if I am
    stitching large panoramas the file size can grow very rapidy, what with
    layers, history states etc can very quickly start to use Photoshop's scratch
    disk.

    At the moment I am running with 4x1Gb sticks of Corsair 6400 C4 latency RAM
    and at the moment 2Gb sticks of RAM running at C4 latency are as rare as
    hen's teeth (and probably just as expensive) and I haven't seen any on this
    side of the pond - the Corsair 2Gb Dominator (or XMS) sticks have only just
    started to appear at stockists here in the UK and these are the ones running
    at 5-5-5-15 or 5-5-5-18 respectively.

    Any further observations which you care to make will be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you.

    "Tony Sperling" wrote:

    > True, but not many want to foot the bill for low-latency high-speed memory,
    > I bought DDR2 800 CL4, it was costly and not at all generally available -
    > but wonderful of course.
    >
    > Otherwise, Carol, I agree with what has been said - if performance is the
    > priority both your options are on the slow side. If cost is the priority,
    > save as much as you can, you will not notice any difference. CL4 would make
    > a difference, at least if you really need those 8 gig.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:e$...
    > > The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting

    > for
    > > response.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Theo" <> wrote in message
    > > news:%...
    > > Nut Cracker wrote:
    > > > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:D...
    > > >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    > > >>
    > > >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    > > >> timings
    > > >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    > > >> (~$90)
    > > >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    > > >>
    > > >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    > > >> slower
    > > >> chips???
    > > >
    > > > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > > > noticable, if at all.
    > > >
    > > > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are

    > 2.5,
    > > > or 3.
    > > >

    > >
    > > P.S.
    > >
    > > It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    > > for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=, May 31, 2007
    #10
  11. Is there a 64-bit native Windows x64 version of Adobe Photoshop, or is it
    just a 32-bit (potentially Large Address Aware) application?

    --
    Chuck Walbourn
    SDE, XNA Developer Connection

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT], May 31, 2007
    #11
  12. O.K. - there's not much to add, and I have no experience from that kind of
    processing, but I'm guessing that unless you're having the fastest HD system
    that money can buy, you will not see any performance boost that justifies
    investment in faster memory than what you have in mind. My philosophy, is to
    balance the 'powers' in a way that none of the resources introduces an
    unneccessary bottleneck - the bottleneck today is the HD's. That all, sounds
    pretty self-evident, no doubt, but may take more constructive thought out
    of the ordering process than most people realize. Most times that care will
    uncover the kind of investments that is usually forgotten, like cases and
    PSU's and room-lighting and chairs and monitors and keyboards (if you type a
    lot), but sometimes it can save you money too, it's often a waste to buy the
    fastest of anything if all of it isn't.

    I am assuming you're going to exchange your existing 4GB's with a new set of
    8GB's and not add 4GB's to the existing?


    Tony. . .



    "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks guys.
    >
    > Perhaps a brief rundown of my situation might be appropriate. I am a
    > photographer and use Adobe Photoshop CS3 and other apps in the CS3 suite

    and
    > need a fast machine as I am processing/batch processing many Gbs at a time

    (a
    > thousand raw files at ~20Mb/file can bog down any system) and if I am
    > stitching large panoramas the file size can grow very rapidy, what with
    > layers, history states etc can very quickly start to use Photoshop's

    scratch
    > disk.
    >
    > At the moment I am running with 4x1Gb sticks of Corsair 6400 C4 latency

    RAM
    > and at the moment 2Gb sticks of RAM running at C4 latency are as rare as
    > hen's teeth (and probably just as expensive) and I haven't seen any on

    this
    > side of the pond - the Corsair 2Gb Dominator (or XMS) sticks have only

    just
    > started to appear at stockists here in the UK and these are the ones

    running
    > at 5-5-5-15 or 5-5-5-18 respectively.
    >
    > Any further observations which you care to make will be greatly

    appreciated.
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
    >
    > > True, but not many want to foot the bill for low-latency high-speed

    memory,
    > > I bought DDR2 800 CL4, it was costly and not at all generally

    available -
    > > but wonderful of course.
    > >
    > > Otherwise, Carol, I agree with what has been said - if performance is

    the
    > > priority both your options are on the slow side. If cost is the

    priority,
    > > save as much as you can, you will not notice any difference. CL4 would

    make
    > > a difference, at least if you really need those 8 gig.
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >
    > > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > > news:e$...
    > > > The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles

    waiting
    > > for
    > > > response.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Theo" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:%...
    > > > Nut Cracker wrote:
    > > > > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in

    message
    > > > > news:D...
    > > > >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    > > > >>
    > > > >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has

    memory
    > > > >> timings
    > > > >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around

    £45
    > > > >> (~$90)
    > > > >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the

    slightly
    > > > >> slower
    > > > >> chips???
    > > > >
    > > > > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > > > > noticable, if at all.
    > > > >
    > > > > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories

    are
    > > 2.5,
    > > > > or 3.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > P.S.
    > > >
    > > > It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    > > > for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > >
    Tony Sperling, May 31, 2007
    #12
  13. Yea, if you're on AMD and your installation is more than a year old, you
    don't have much choice. If any at all.


    Tony. . .
    Tony Sperling, May 31, 2007
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Mine is likewise 4-4-4-12 The higher the bandwidth and lower the latency
    will make a noticeable difference in applications that are written to
    utilise larger memory addresses.

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > True, but not many want to foot the bill for low-latency high-speed
    > memory,
    > I bought DDR2 800 CL4, it was costly and not at all generally available -
    > but wonderful of course.
    >
    > Otherwise, Carol, I agree with what has been said - if performance is the
    > priority both your options are on the slow side. If cost is the priority,
    > save as much as you can, you will not notice any difference. CL4 would
    > make
    > a difference, at least if you really need those 8 gig.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:e$...
    >> The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting

    > for
    >> response.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Theo" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >> Nut Cracker wrote:
    >> > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:D...
    >> >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >> >>
    >> >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >> >> timings
    >> >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around £45
    >> >> (~$90)
    >> >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >> >>
    >> >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >> >> slower
    >> >> chips???
    >> >
    >> > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    >> > noticable, if at all.
    >> >
    >> > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are

    > 2.5,
    >> > or 3.
    >> >

    >>
    >> P.S.
    >>
    >> It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    >> for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    >>

    >
    >
    John Barnes, May 31, 2007
    #14
  15. It is still a 32-bit application - but can make use of the additional RAM in
    other ways:-

    From the Adobe web site
    When you run Photoshop CS3 on a computer with a 64-bit processor (such as a,
    Intel Xeon processor with EM64T, AMD Athlon 64, or Opteron processor) running
    a 64-bit version of the operating system (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
    or Windows Vista 64-bit) and with 4 GB or more of RAM, Photoshop will use 3
    GB for it's image data. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can
    use in the Let Photoshop Use number when you set the Let Photoshop Use slider
    in the Performance preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by
    Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly
    by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM),
    filters, or actions. If you have more than 4 GB (to 6 GB), then the RAM above
    4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch
    disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by
    Photoshop is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard
    disk by the operating system. If you are working with files large enough to
    take advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can speed
    performance of Photoshop. Additionally, in Windows Vista 64-bit, processing
    very large images is much faster if your computer has large amounts of RAM
    (6-8 GB).

    "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" wrote:

    > Is there a 64-bit native Windows x64 version of Adobe Photoshop, or is it
    > just a 32-bit (potentially Large Address Aware) application?
    >
    > --
    > Chuck Walbourn
    > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=, May 31, 2007
    #15
  16. I will probably use 3Gb of it in another machine (Vista Home Premium) and
    sell on the 1Gb of 667mHz RAM in that machine together with the remaining 1Gb
    of the 800mHtz RAM (or just keep them as spares).

    "Tony Sperling" wrote:

    > I am assuming you're going to exchange your existing 4GB's with a new set of
    > 8GB's and not add 4GB's to the existing?
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=, May 31, 2007
    #16
  17. With Photoshop, the main increase in speed comes from holding everything in
    memory and not having to wait for data to be read and written from the
    paging file and/or scratch disk. Memory speed is secondary.

    If you have only 4 DIMM slots the only choice appears to be 5-5-5-18 as you
    would need 4x2GB DIMMs and the only option Corsair offers is 2
    TWIN2X4096-6400C5DHX. See http://www.corsairmemory.com/corsair/xms2.html



    "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks guys.
    >
    > Perhaps a brief rundown of my situation might be appropriate. I am a
    > photographer and use Adobe Photoshop CS3 and other apps in the CS3 suite
    > and
    > need a fast machine as I am processing/batch processing many Gbs at a time
    > (a
    > thousand raw files at ~20Mb/file can bog down any system) and if I am
    > stitching large panoramas the file size can grow very rapidy, what with
    > layers, history states etc can very quickly start to use Photoshop's
    > scratch
    > disk.
    >
    > At the moment I am running with 4x1Gb sticks of Corsair 6400 C4 latency
    > RAM
    > and at the moment 2Gb sticks of RAM running at C4 latency are as rare as
    > hen's teeth (and probably just as expensive) and I haven't seen any on
    > this
    > side of the pond - the Corsair 2Gb Dominator (or XMS) sticks have only
    > just
    > started to appear at stockists here in the UK and these are the ones
    > running
    > at 5-5-5-15 or 5-5-5-18 respectively.
    >
    > Any further observations which you care to make will be greatly
    > appreciated.
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
    >
    >> True, but not many want to foot the bill for low-latency high-speed
    >> memory,
    >> I bought DDR2 800 CL4, it was costly and not at all generally available -
    >> but wonderful of course.
    >>
    >> Otherwise, Carol, I agree with what has been said - if performance is the
    >> priority both your options are on the slow side. If cost is the priority,
    >> save as much as you can, you will not notice any difference. CL4 would
    >> make
    >> a difference, at least if you really need those 8 gig.
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> news:e$...
    >> > The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting

    >> for
    >> > response.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "Theo" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:%...
    >> > Nut Cracker wrote:
    >> > > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in
    >> > > message
    >> > > news:D...
    >> > >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    >> > >>
    >> > >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    >> > >> timings
    >> > >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around
    >> > >> £45
    >> > >> (~$90)
    >> > >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    >> > >> slower
    >> > >> chips???
    >> > >
    >> > > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    >> > > noticable, if at all.
    >> > >
    >> > > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are

    >> 2.5,
    >> > > or 3.
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > P.S.
    >> >
    >> > It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    >> > for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    Dominic Payer, May 31, 2007
    #17
  18. Absolutely, John. The point, though, is that DDR2 memory was issued in
    significantly higher latency levels, so with high speed 800 Mhz DDR2, CL 4
    was (and still is, I believe) the best you could get - compare this to the
    widely available CL 2,5 and faster, of the 400 Mhz SDRAM.

    I would probably have to contend with the fact that a latency of 5 in a DDR2
    800 configuration is to be considered as 'High Speed', but the concept
    doesn't quite hit home with me, that is also why I waited almost six months
    for CL 4 to become available. I'm not at all sure if the difference is
    noticable, but it feels good now. I did not feel so good waiting and paying
    the bill.


    Tony. . .





    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mine is likewise 4-4-4-12 The higher the bandwidth and lower the latency
    > will make a noticeable difference in applications that are written to
    > utilise larger memory addresses.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    > > True, but not many want to foot the bill for low-latency high-speed
    > > memory,
    > > I bought DDR2 800 CL4, it was costly and not at all generally

    available -
    > > but wonderful of course.
    > >
    > > Otherwise, Carol, I agree with what has been said - if performance is

    the
    > > priority both your options are on the slow side. If cost is the

    priority,
    > > save as much as you can, you will not notice any difference. CL4 would
    > > make
    > > a difference, at least if you really need those 8 gig.
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >
    > > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > > news:e$...
    > >> The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting

    > > for
    > >> response.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Theo" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:%...
    > >> Nut Cracker wrote:
    > >> > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in

    message
    > >> > news:D...
    > >> >> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory
    > >> >> timings
    > >> >> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around

    £45
    > >> >> (~$90)
    > >> >> by going for the slightly slower timings.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly
    > >> >> slower
    > >> >> chips???
    > >> >
    > >> > I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very
    > >> > noticable, if at all.
    > >> >
    > >> > The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are

    > > 2.5,
    > >> > or 3.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> P.S.
    > >>
    > >> It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average
    > >> for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
    Tony Sperling, May 31, 2007
    #18
  19. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Your MOBO will set the timing to that of the slowest memory.

    "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I will probably use 3Gb of it in another machine (Vista Home Premium) and
    > sell on the 1Gb of 667mHz RAM in that machine together with the remaining
    > 1Gb
    > of the 800mHtz RAM (or just keep them as spares).
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
    >
    >> I am assuming you're going to exchange your existing 4GB's with a new set
    >> of
    >> 8GB's and not add 4GB's to the existing?
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>

    >
    John Barnes, May 31, 2007
    #19
  20. =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=

    Theo Guest

    And, some motherboards won't even boot with mixed memory.

    John Barnes wrote:
    > Your MOBO will set the timing to that of the slowest memory.
    >
    > "Carol Steele" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I will probably use 3Gb of it in another machine (Vista Home Premium) and
    >> sell on the 1Gb of 667mHz RAM in that machine together with the
    >> remaining 1Gb
    >> of the 800mHtz RAM (or just keep them as spares).
    >>
    >> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am assuming you're going to exchange your existing 4GB's with a new
    >>> set of
    >>> 8GB's and not add 4GB's to the existing?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Tony. . .
    >>>

    >>

    >
    Theo, May 31, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    562
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. BP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,058
    PhilSweet
    Dec 19, 2008
  3. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    702
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  4. David B.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
    David B.
    Jan 20, 2009
  5. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    395
    Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Jan 21, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page