1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Memory DDDR3-1600 11-11-11 is worse than 1333 9-9-9, right?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Chicken76, 10 Nov 2012.

  1. Chicken76

    Chicken76 Minimodder

    Joined:
    10 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    952
    Likes Received:
    32
    If it were 10-10-10 for the 1600 module, it would be marginally faster, but at CL11 it is actually slower, right?
     
  2. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,746
    Likes Received:
    423
    Depends on the application I think, some programs prefer the speed, others the tighter timings.
     
  3. Kodongo

    Kodongo What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    29 Feb 2012
    Posts:
    93
    Likes Received:
    4
    I would recommend taking a look at the first page of this AnandTech article which pretty comprehensively outlines the workings and quirks of DDR3 memory.

    The part which is most pertinent to you, I have added below.
     
    Chicken76 likes this.
  4. Chicken76

    Chicken76 Minimodder

    Joined:
    10 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    952
    Likes Received:
    32
    Thanks Kodongo. Have forgotten about that article.
    It seems 1333 9-9-9 is better than 1600 11-11-11 in every regard.
     
  5. Frohicky1

    Frohicky1 Awaits his moosey fate . . .

    Joined:
    16 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    9
  6. Deders

    Deders Modder

    Joined:
    14 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    106
    In terms of actual latency there isn't much in it:
    9/1333 = 0.006751
    11/1600 = 0.006875
     
  7. adam_bagpuss

    adam_bagpuss Have you tried turning it off/on ?

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    4,239
    Likes Received:
    152
    in real world speed is better than timings nowadays, however anything 1600mhz is wasted unless you have an amd setup using the on board gpu
     
  8. mm vr

    mm vr The cheesecake is a lie

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    84
  9. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,936
    Likes Received:
    529
    When I was playing around with Geekbench last year, I found that 2133MHz with 10-11-10 1T was measurably faster than 1800MHz with 9-9-9 1T. So reality and paper calculations didn't quite match up for me.
     
  10. Deders

    Deders Modder

    Joined:
    14 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    106
    It will be faster. it's just that as the mhz increases, the timings don't need to be as tight to get the same latency. So you get the benefit of increased bandwidth without losing out so much in terms of latency:

    10/2133 = 0.00469
    9 / 1800 = 0.005

    So the higher clocked ram actually has less latency even though the timings look looser.
     
  11. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,936
    Likes Received:
    529
    Well... I got the same numbers on paper, which led me to think they would perform similarly. That .00031 must make more of a difference than I thought.
     
  12. Deders

    Deders Modder

    Joined:
    14 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    106
    It was probably the extra 333MHz Bandwidth that made the most difference, it's just that the extra .00031 didn't make the latency any less than before.
     
  13. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,936
    Likes Received:
    529
    Hmm.. yeah.. You're right me thinks. Interesting stuff!
     
  14. mm vr

    mm vr The cheesecake is a lie

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    84
    ...and real world performance, particularly in games, is not affected at all by RAM settings as the article I posted shows.
     

Share This Page