BF2S Forums Good news to all Kinston value ram users

The#1Spot wrote:

stock
running at 3.0 4 4 8

overclocked
running at 3.0 5 5 13

Doesn't lower timings = better?

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

stock
running at 3.0 4 4 8

overclocked
running at 3.0 5 5 13

Doesn't lower timings = better?

Yes. But higher frequencies mean more speed and Freqency > Latency (at least for Intel CPUs).

Bertster7 wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

stock
running at 3.0 4 4 8

overclocked
running at 3.0 5 5 13

Doesn't lower timings = better?

Yes. But higher frequencies mean more speed and Freqency > Latency (at least for Intel CPUs).

im using an AMD mobo

SargeV1.4 wrote:

lower latencies mean jack shit. quake 3 performance went from 550 -> 560fps on a test setup, from 3 something to 2-2-2-5

Lowering RAM latency definitely does help. Low-latency RAM generally stands up better to running at higher clock frequencies (sometimes with a slight increase in latency settings), and the biggest performance improvement almost surely comes from running some combination of lower-latency, overclocked RAM.

The#1Spot wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

im using an AMD mobo

In that case you'll get less benefit from it. The latencies impact far more on AMD CPUs due to the lower cache sizes and primarily because of the onboard memory controller.

One of the reasons why AM2 is a pile of crap. AMD CPUs are not suited to DDR2 because they gain little from the high frequencies and they lose just as much from the higher latencies.

the main reason why im going to get socket F in about a 1 1/2 years cheap socket F and cheap ddr2 ram cause ddr3 will be out

I doubt that'll be a good decision. Although that does remain to be seen. AMDs recent efforts have been pitifull and Intel are so far ahead with their fabrication processes that AMD have no hope of cathcing up. AMD have not yet released their 65nm CPUs and Intel have announced their 45nm CPUs - not a good sign, especially considering the performance disparity between Conroe and X2/FX CPUs and Kentsfield up against 4x4 CPUs. AMDs inability to fit 4 cores into a single package is also worrying.

I have been a fan of AMD since the first release of the K7, but I fear they have died and will slowly wither away now. AM3 will almost certainly be too little too late.

Maybe that won't be the case, I hope not, but I think it's unlikely AMD will ever pull back their performance lead.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-27 14:48:33)

The#1Spot wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

the main reason why im going to get socket F in about a 1 1/2 years cheap socket F and cheap ddr2 ram cause ddr3 will be out

I doubt that'll be a good decision. Although that does remain to be seen. AMDs recent efforts have been pitifull and Intel are so far ahead with their fabrication processes that AMD have no hope of cathcing up. AMD have not yet released their 65nm CPUs and Intel have announced their 45nm CPUs - not a good sign, especially considering the performance disparity between Conroe and X2/FX CPUs and Kentsfield up against 4x4 CPUs. AMDs inability to fit 4 cores into a single package is also worrying.

I have been a fan of AMD since the first release of the K7, but I fear they have died and will slowly wither away now. AM3 will almost certainly be too little too late.

Maybe that won't be the case, I hope not, but I think it's unlikely AMD will ever pull back their performance lead.

I certainly hope not cause then intel can post extremely high prices on their hardware and no one can do anything about it. Its just like microsoft with their os they have almost not competition so they can sell there stuff at a high price.

It'll be ok. AMD aren't going to disappear overnight. Their presence will at least create an element of competition, even in a market that Intel dominate.