clock speed question

[odannyboy000]

is 2.5-3-3-7 running at 160 MHz better or worse than 3-3-3-8 running at 200MHz

[saphalline]

Depends on the system, and if the RAM can hit those timings. Or are you talking about two different RAM modules?

[agentLX]

2.5-3-3-7 running at 160 MHz 3-3-3-8 running at 200MHz

do i have to post a new thread or can i just ask the meaning of the above numbers?

[poppy]

The numbers refer to the timings of RAM. For a discussion on this go to this thread:

http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34794

[odannyboy000]

my computer can support 2.5 latency at 160 and 3 at 200. i was wondering if they are pretty much the same.....or if one is better. right now i actually have one running at 3 and one running at 2.5, and obviously since they are mixed they all run at 2.5. so which is faster, or are they equivalent?

[saphalline]

Well, look at the numbers.

2.5 on a 160MHz clock = 1.5625 * 10^-9.

3 on a 200MHz clock = 1.5000 * 10^-9.

According to the raw numbers, a CAS of 3 using DDR400 speeds is better. Whether or not your particular system sees any benefit depends on its hardware.

[Ray_G]

FSB is going to have an effect, as well as 1T or 2T timings.

[saphalline]

FSB is going to have an effect, as well as 1T or 2T timings.

Yes, exactly. The total FSB/HT Link bandwidth will have an effect on performance between these two settings, as well as if your particular system can run DDR400 at 1T command timing.

It depends on many many factors. Kind of like the question "Is a 3.2GHz CPU faster than a 3.0GHz CPU?" Well... it depends!