Ram Bandwidth/Latency vs Ram Size
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 by Threi | Discussion: PC Hardware
i made this decision already, but i would like to have your opinions on the matter as well 
basically i have an Athlon 64 s754 motherboard, with 3 slots for DDR ram. Originally i had 2 modules of 256mb ram (512mb total) running @ 230mhz (DDR460) with timings at 2.5,2,2,7.
just recently i had received 2 modules of 512mb ram (1gb total), but the ram has troubles running at stock speeds, so by increasing the FSB:DRAM ratio and OC'ing my CPU i got the ram running @ 190mhz (DDR380) with timings at 2.5,3,2,6.
i already chose the 1gb because the benefits in increasing in size (combined with no paging file
) outweigh the losses of 40mhz (80mhz DDR) and slightly lower latency.
however, what would u choose?
1gb@DDR380 or 512mb@DDR460 ?
basically i have an Athlon 64 s754 motherboard, with 3 slots for DDR ram. Originally i had 2 modules of 256mb ram (512mb total) running @ 230mhz (DDR460) with timings at 2.5,2,2,7.
just recently i had received 2 modules of 512mb ram (1gb total), but the ram has troubles running at stock speeds, so by increasing the FSB:DRAM ratio and OC'ing my CPU i got the ram running @ 190mhz (DDR380) with timings at 2.5,3,2,6.
i already chose the 1gb because the benefits in increasing in size (combined with no paging file
) outweigh the losses of 40mhz (80mhz DDR) and slightly lower latency.however, what would u choose?
1gb@DDR380 or 512mb@DDR460 ?
Threi
Reply #2 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:16 AM
Reply #2 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:16 AM
yeah its wierd it isnt able to run at stock no matter what the timings...the fsb of my cpu is 230mhz though so i set the divider to 333mhz instead of 400mhz and i got the speed up to 190mhz...turning off the paging file resulted in a HUGE performance gain for me (especially when loading music) so i am sticking with the 1gb, even if it is crappy 
Xythe
Reply #3 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:15 AM
Reply #3 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:15 AM
Generally you are going to be better off with the 1GB RAM no matter what.
Yeah, I fail to see why DDR400 wont run at DDR400 speed, unless you did not buy DDR400 RAM.
Are you running in dual-channel mode?
Just a tid-bit. Many games require the paging file to be on as no matter how much RAM you have, a small bit of data is sent there. Besides, the paging file wont be used if RAM is available UNLESS its requires by the application.
There is not really enough information here to answer your question though.
What make/model motherboard?
CPU?
What type and geometry RAM did you purchase, and what is the brand. (better yet, the part number)?
What do you use your PC for?
Yeah, I fail to see why DDR400 wont run at DDR400 speed, unless you did not buy DDR400 RAM.
Are you running in dual-channel mode?
Just a tid-bit. Many games require the paging file to be on as no matter how much RAM you have, a small bit of data is sent there. Besides, the paging file wont be used if RAM is available UNLESS its requires by the application.
There is not really enough information here to answer your question though.
What make/model motherboard?
CPU?
What type and geometry RAM did you purchase, and what is the brand. (better yet, the part number)?
What do you use your PC for?
Threi
Reply #4 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:38 AM
Reply #4 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:38 AM
ok well first of all i did not purchase the ram, my friend gave it to me in exchange for the 512mb ddr400
my mobo is an ASUS K8N
my CPU is Athlon 64 2800+ running at 2.07GHz
the ram is built for dual channel, but my motherboard is single channel (its always better to get dual channel ram cause u know you are getting the exact ram) it is 2 x 512mb of Kingmax MPXC22D
from what i have read about the modules the inability of the ram to reach ddr400 is because of some sort of incompatibility with AMD mobos
I mostly use the PC for listening to music, i edit pictures in photoshop alot, and it is used for gaming as well (Radeon x700pro)
As for the paging file i havent encountered any game or app that gave me trouble for it (photoshop gives you a notice, but it still loads fine) It seems that winamp/wmp11 have a rather large performance benefit from turning the paging file off
*update*
it seems the ram is not the problem, as i put in just one stick and it ran at 230Mhz (DDR460) just fine, and the benchmarks were even better than my old ram...so it has something to do with my motherboard
my mobo is an ASUS K8N
my CPU is Athlon 64 2800+ running at 2.07GHz
the ram is built for dual channel, but my motherboard is single channel (its always better to get dual channel ram cause u know you are getting the exact ram) it is 2 x 512mb of Kingmax MPXC22D
from what i have read about the modules the inability of the ram to reach ddr400 is because of some sort of incompatibility with AMD mobos
I mostly use the PC for listening to music, i edit pictures in photoshop alot, and it is used for gaming as well (Radeon x700pro)
As for the paging file i havent encountered any game or app that gave me trouble for it (photoshop gives you a notice, but it still loads fine) It seems that winamp/wmp11 have a rather large performance benefit from turning the paging file off
*update*
it seems the ram is not the problem, as i put in just one stick and it ran at 230Mhz (DDR460) just fine, and the benchmarks were even better than my old ram...so it has something to do with my motherboard
Xythe
Reply #6 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:21 PM
I found a review that uses a K8N-Sli mobo and an AMD 3500+ CPU and what I believe is your RAM. Their conclusion was:
Our tests however proved that this was not the case, as the Kingmax memory modules performed just as well as anything the competition has to offer.
Kingmax has added a lot of features in the SuperRAM series and especially the programmable read latency, which might be useful for some users who require higher timings at lower operating frequencies. There are two SPD timings offered, the default 400MHz (2.5-3-3-7) and the slower 266MHz (2-2-2-5).
The Bad:
- Slow performance at 266MHz
- Cannot operate at 400MHz with 2-2-2-5 timings
Heres the Link to the full conclusion
Have you tried the other module in the same slot? If you have, and it works, then both modules are probably good.
Then try placing one module in the slot that works, and the other in a slot other than the one you tried the first time. If it works well, Then you have a bad RAM slot on your MB.
For what you use your PC for, you will definitely be better off with the 1GB vs the 512GB.
Concerning the paging file, I'm not optimistic that you will gain much of any overall system performance by not employing the paging file. This is what I have found on my own tests in the past, rather it seemed to have caused just the opposite in certain instances. I would be interested to see any benchmarks you might have. I would also be interested in anything the others may have experienced in this respect.
It's my feeling, if you can find 2 RAM sockets that will function on your MB, and employ the 1GB RAM, you should have no trouble what so ever getting at least PC-3200 speeds, and you should notice quite significant overall system performance using the 1GB vs the 512MB.
Good luck and please let me know
Reply #6 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:21 PM
| from what i have read about the modules the inability of the ram to reach ddr400 is because of some sort of incompatibility with AMD mobos |
I found a review that uses a K8N-Sli mobo and an AMD 3500+ CPU and what I believe is your RAM. Their conclusion was:
Our tests however proved that this was not the case, as the Kingmax memory modules performed just as well as anything the competition has to offer.
Kingmax has added a lot of features in the SuperRAM series and especially the programmable read latency, which might be useful for some users who require higher timings at lower operating frequencies. There are two SPD timings offered, the default 400MHz (2.5-3-3-7) and the slower 266MHz (2-2-2-5).
The Bad:
- Slow performance at 266MHz
- Cannot operate at 400MHz with 2-2-2-5 timings
Heres the Link to the full conclusion
| it seems the ram is not the problem, as i put in just one stick and it ran at 230Mhz (DDR460) just fine, and the benchmarks were even better than my old ram...so it has something to do with my motherboard |
Have you tried the other module in the same slot? If you have, and it works, then both modules are probably good.
Then try placing one module in the slot that works, and the other in a slot other than the one you tried the first time. If it works well, Then you have a bad RAM slot on your MB.
For what you use your PC for, you will definitely be better off with the 1GB vs the 512GB.
Concerning the paging file, I'm not optimistic that you will gain much of any overall system performance by not employing the paging file. This is what I have found on my own tests in the past, rather it seemed to have caused just the opposite in certain instances. I would be interested to see any benchmarks you might have. I would also be interested in anything the others may have experienced in this respect.
It's my feeling, if you can find 2 RAM sockets that will function on your MB, and employ the 1GB RAM, you should have no trouble what so ever getting at least PC-3200 speeds, and you should notice quite significant overall system performance using the 1GB vs the 512MB.
Good luck and please let me know
Xythe
Reply #7 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:24 PM
Reply #7 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:24 PM
P.S. If you manage to get both modules working in 2 well working sockets, try using the following RAM timings:
2.5-3-3-7
3-3-3-7
3-3-3-8*
* this should work no matter what.
2.5-3-3-7
3-3-3-7
3-3-3-8*
* this should work no matter what.
Threi
Reply #8 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:44 PM
Reply #8 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:44 PM
i tried all those timings and they dont change anything really...i
tried a single piece of ram in all 3 of my modules and they were able
to run @ 230mhz apiece, so i know it isnt the ram it is the lack of
power to my mobo, before i had a similar problem with my 512mb (2 x
256mb) and increasing the voltage to 2.7v solved the problem...i
changed the voltage to 2.8v and no luck.
btw i read the review you were talking about...which calls to beleive even more that the ram is not the problem.
i cant really do anything now anyways cause my hard drive seems to have died. !!!
*edit* and thanks to my superior PC repair skills my comp is alive again
*edit again* in terms of paging file it is program specific...my benchmarks are pretty much the same...but there is a very big performance gain when i load music in WMP11 or Winamp. I havent yet encountered any problems yet for not having a paging file, nor have i encountered any performance loss.
btw i read the review you were talking about...which calls to beleive even more that the ram is not the problem.
i cant really do anything now anyways cause my hard drive seems to have died.
!!!*edit* and thanks to my superior PC repair skills my comp is alive again
*edit again* in terms of paging file it is program specific...my benchmarks are pretty much the same...but there is a very big performance gain when i load music in WMP11 or Winamp. I havent yet encountered any problems yet for not having a paging file, nor have i encountered any performance loss.
Dan Greene
Reply #10 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:13 PM
Reply #10 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:13 PM
Don't ram timings mean marginal improvment bonuses anyway? I mean can you get from the same quantity of ram, lets say two systems with a single 1GB stick of ram inside, one with the best latencies and one with average or slightly below average, what would be your performance increase with the better ram, 5%, 10%,20%? I know that adding ram, doubling the quantity of RAM gives you vastly more improvement for the same money so if the question is increasing quantity over latency times, then adding more quantity is always better for system performance then having lower latency times but less RAM. All of the data that goes into the RAM has to come from the harddrive at one time or another so it doesn't really matter how good you latency times are if the RAM is constantly loading and unloading to the Hard Drive anyway right?
Threi
Reply #11 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:34 PM
Reply #11 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:34 PM
latencies do not really mean much of a performance difference at all...but ram frequency sure does
Xythe
Reply #12 Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:50 AM
Thats the point of optimizing isn't it? Every little bit counts?
Dan, I believe latency is the time measured from data transfer from the CPU to RAM. Yeah, it has little to do with ones hard disk.
Reply #12 Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:50 AM
| Don't ram timings mean marginal improvment bonuses anyway? |
Thats the point of optimizing isn't it? Every little bit counts?
| All of the data that goes into the RAM has to come from the harddrive at one time or another so it doesn't really matter how good you latency times are if the RAM is constantly loading and unloading to the Hard Drive anyway right? |
Dan, I believe latency is the time measured from data transfer from the CPU to RAM. Yeah, it has little to do with ones hard disk.
Dan Greene
Reply #13 Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:23 PM
Reply #13 Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:23 PM
I understand what latency time is and how it works, but when loading programs everything starts at the harddrive which is vastly slower of an upload then anything going on between the ram and the CPU, so if you can get more of the data into RAM even slow ram, that's good, if you have less ram, meaning more harddrive access then the latency of your ram is moot. Agreed?
In the case of 512MB vs 1024MB of RAM where XP is using about 192 MB outright by itself, that mean yous have either about 300MB or 800MB of data that is indexable inside the RAM or has to be transferred up and down the harddive line from the harddrive to the ram and back down to the harddrive's pagefile/virtual ram.
If you have 1GB of low latency ram and 1GB of higher latency ram then obviously the lower latency ram is going to be a performance booster, even if marginal. My point was in the case of going with an extra 512 of ram or spending the money on lower latency ram I guess the only case where it makes sense to me to spend money on lower latency ram is if you are going to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB and decide instead to just got with a 1GB stick of lower latency ram.
In the case of 512MB vs 1024MB of RAM where XP is using about 192 MB outright by itself, that mean yous have either about 300MB or 800MB of data that is indexable inside the RAM or has to be transferred up and down the harddive line from the harddrive to the ram and back down to the harddrive's pagefile/virtual ram.
If you have 1GB of low latency ram and 1GB of higher latency ram then obviously the lower latency ram is going to be a performance booster, even if marginal. My point was in the case of going with an extra 512 of ram or spending the money on lower latency ram I guess the only case where it makes sense to me to spend money on lower latency ram is if you are going to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB and decide instead to just got with a 1GB stick of lower latency ram.
Xythe
Reply #14 Friday, November 17, 2006 5:16 AM
Ill agree with all except the fact that latency is moot, As latency is truly the bottleneck after the app is loaded into ram.
Windows XP running under 512MB RAM using typical apps really never uses the swap. Have a look. 1GB is only a performance increase if its required. But none the less, even though it may be overkill, I recommend 1GB RAM. I wont build em any other way unless the client insists.
Definately agreed!
Really, id get a MB that supports dual channel (costs less than the RAM btw) and run (2) 512MB modules of good RAM. Thats really your best bet.
Reply #14 Friday, November 17, 2006 5:16 AM
| I understand what latency time is and how it works, but when loading programs everything starts at the harddrive which is vastly slower of an upload then anything going on between the ram and the CPU, so if you can get more of the data into RAM even slow ram, that's good, if you have less ram, meaning more harddrive access then the latency of your ram is moot. Agreed? |
Ill agree with all except the fact that latency is moot, As latency is truly the bottleneck after the app is loaded into ram.
Windows XP running under 512MB RAM using typical apps really never uses the swap. Have a look. 1GB is only a performance increase if its required. But none the less, even though it may be overkill, I recommend 1GB RAM. I wont build em any other way unless the client insists.
| My point was in the case of going with an extra 512 of ram or spending the money on lower latency ram I guess the only case where it makes sense to me to spend money on lower latency ram is if you are going to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB and decide instead to just got with a 1GB stick of lower latency ram. |
Definately agreed!
Really, id get a MB that supports dual channel (costs less than the RAM btw) and run (2) 512MB modules of good RAM. Thats really your best bet.
Dan Greene
Reply #15 Friday, November 17, 2006 12:40 PM
Reply #15 Friday, November 17, 2006 12:40 PM
Wouldn't you say it's most likely that with the way people use their systems today, at least in the US, personal systems, not necessarily business systems, though I had open four different applications simultaneously at work yesterday all day...
That with 512MB, your odds of swapping data off the Harddrive's page file are much greater then with 1GB, simply because of the volume difference and the OS's percentage of occupation inside 512MB and inside 1BG?
And that being the case then it really wouldn't matter what the latency speed of the ram was unless it was excessively low, maybe ram types they dont even make anymore?
That with 512MB, your odds of swapping data off the Harddrive's page file are much greater then with 1GB, simply because of the volume difference and the OS's percentage of occupation inside 512MB and inside 1BG?
And that being the case then it really wouldn't matter what the latency speed of the ram was unless it was excessively low, maybe ram types they dont even make anymore?
Xythe
Reply #16 Friday, November 17, 2006 1:28 PM
No, not really. But for the sake of arguement 4 apps:
firefox, outlook express, msn messenger, word, security apps. There is your apps. Windows would hardly touch the swap as we still have yet to approach 375MB used RAM. Besides, you woould be hard pressed to notice any significant performance increase. But as I said, I never build em with less than 1GB RAM.
You know, I do this all the time, and Im done splitting hairs with you here.
If your not gaming, your PC will run fine on 512MB RAM under Win XP. Since that is not the case here, Im done on this thread. ciao.
Reply #16 Friday, November 17, 2006 1:28 PM
| Wouldn't you say it's most likely that with the way people use their systems today, at least in the US, personal systems, not necessarily business systems, though I had open four different applications simultaneously at work yesterday all day... |
No, not really. But for the sake of arguement 4 apps:
firefox, outlook express, msn messenger, word, security apps. There is your apps. Windows would hardly touch the swap as we still have yet to approach 375MB used RAM. Besides, you woould be hard pressed to notice any significant performance increase. But as I said, I never build em with less than 1GB RAM.
You know, I do this all the time, and Im done splitting hairs with you here.
If your not gaming, your PC will run fine on 512MB RAM under Win XP. Since that is not the case here, Im done on this thread. ciao.
Dan Greene
Reply #17 Friday, November 17, 2006 5:26 PM
Reply #17 Friday, November 17, 2006 5:26 PM
"If your not gaming, your PC will run fine on 512MB RAM under Win XP."
Ok, so who the hell is worried about RAM latency if they aren't gaming? Give me a break. You're talking about two mutually exclusive groups. Grandma Emailers and letter writters they would be fine running on 256 MB or RAM cause that's all they do. Or midrange users who game and also email or demanding uses who hardcore game, burn music/movies, email, use their comps alot, and use them online a lot, that need robust security, do all of these things at the same time, more ram is better then faster ram for that type or system use environment.
But you are right splitting hairs is how you measure performances.
The bottom line in order of cost effectiveness of upgrades is...
More ram up to about 2GB, then
faster ram, up to 2GB, then
more ram up to 4GB, then
faster CPU/mother board.
Each more costly then the last, try running Galciv2 with 512 Ram and let me know how its working out for you in a gigantic galaxy.
Ok, so who the hell is worried about RAM latency if they aren't gaming? Give me a break. You're talking about two mutually exclusive groups. Grandma Emailers and letter writters they would be fine running on 256 MB or RAM cause that's all they do. Or midrange users who game and also email or demanding uses who hardcore game, burn music/movies, email, use their comps alot, and use them online a lot, that need robust security, do all of these things at the same time, more ram is better then faster ram for that type or system use environment.
But you are right splitting hairs is how you measure performances.
The bottom line in order of cost effectiveness of upgrades is...
More ram up to about 2GB, then
faster ram, up to 2GB, then
more ram up to 4GB, then
faster CPU/mother board.
Each more costly then the last, try running Galciv2 with 512 Ram and let me know how its working out for you in a gigantic galaxy.
Xythe
Reply #18 Friday, November 17, 2006 9:07 PM
I guess you can't read Dan?
If you have an issue reading this, let me know how you need it translated.
Reply #18 Friday, November 17, 2006 9:07 PM
| Each more costly then the last, try running Galciv2 with 512 Ram and let me know how its working out for you in a gigantic galaxy. |
I guess you can't read Dan?
| If your not gaming, your PC will run fine on 512MB RAM under Win XP. |
If you have an issue reading this, let me know how you need it translated.
Xythe
Reply #19 Friday, November 17, 2006 9:08 PM
Reply #19 Friday, November 17, 2006 9:08 PM
Oh, and I refuse to take any further part in this hijacking.
Talk to the wall if you like.
Talk to the wall if you like.
Dan Greene
Reply #20 Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:10 PM
Reply #20 Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:10 PM
My point was, this is a discussion about ram latency vs adding additional ram quantity, my point was simply if you aren't a gamer, you wouldn't be in either group, interested in ram latency, or interested in adding more ram.
As you said, 512 MB Ram would be fine for email/word processing, exclusive to gaming.
My point, is that if you are gaming, then and only then does your interest in ram latency vs ram quantity come into play.
If all you do is email, play spider solitare, and word process the occassional letter, then you could even argue that 256MB is enough, either way, 256 or 512, who's got that amount of ram in their system and cares about the argument of adding more or lowering the latency?
Answer : Nobody.
As you said, 512 MB Ram would be fine for email/word processing, exclusive to gaming.
My point, is that if you are gaming, then and only then does your interest in ram latency vs ram quantity come into play.
If all you do is email, play spider solitare, and word process the occassional letter, then you could even argue that 256MB is enough, either way, 256 or 512, who's got that amount of ram in their system and cares about the argument of adding more or lowering the latency?
Answer : Nobody.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:56 PM