Memory for 64-bit OS's

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???

Nut
Wed May 30 09:47:00 CDT 2007


"Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
> 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.

Theo
Wed May 30 10:15:57 CDT 2007

Nut Cracker wrote:
> "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message=
=20
> news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
>>
>> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory=20
>> timings
>> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around =A34=
5=20
>> (~$90)
>> by going for the slightly slower timings.
>>
>> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly=20
>> slower
>> chips???
>=20
> I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very=20
> noticable, if at all.
>=20
> The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2=
=2E5,=20
> or 3.=20
>=20
>=20

I think the 5 is normal for DDR2 memory used on AM2 and=20
Intel boards.

The 2.5 and 3 are usually found in DDR(1) memory used on skt=20
939 boards.

Theo
Wed May 30 10:19:16 CDT 2007

Nut Cracker wrote:
> "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message=
=20
> news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
>>
>> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory=20
>> timings
>> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around =A34=
5=20
>> (~$90)
>> by going for the slightly slower timings.
>>
>> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly=20
>> slower
>> chips???
>=20
> I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very=20
> noticable, if at all.
>=20
> The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are 2=
=2E5,=20
> or 3.=20
>=20
>=20

P.S.

It also depends on the speed of the memory. 5 is average=20
for DDR2-800MHz. 2.5 & 3 would be lower speed DDR2.

John
Wed May 30 12:31:02 CDT 2007

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


"Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%238Uiv3soHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Nut Cracker wrote:
> "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>> 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
Wed May 30 13:01:54 CDT 2007

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" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:e$3RTBuoHHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting
for
> response.
>
>
> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%238Uiv3soHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Nut Cracker wrote:
> > "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
> >> 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.
>

Nut
Wed May 30 15:33:30 CDT 2007


"Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23SYp41soHHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Nut Cracker wrote:
> "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>> 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

Theo
Wed May 30 15:57:08 CDT 2007

Nut Cracker wrote:
>> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message=20
>> news:%23SYp41soHHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Nut Cracker wrote:
>>> "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messa=
ge=20
>>> news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>>>> I'm thinking about upgrading my memory to 8Gb (from 4Gb).
>>>>
>>>> I have two choices available, both from Corsair. One set has memory=
=20
>>>> timings
>>>> of 5-5-5-15 and the other 5-5-5-18 and I could save myself around =A3=
45=20
>>>> (~$90)
>>>> by going for the slightly slower timings.
>>>>
>>>> Would I see much difference in performance by going for the slightly=
=20
>>>> slower
>>>> chips???
>>> I dont believe the difference of 3 ticks from 15 to 18 will be very=20
>>> noticable, if at all.
>>>
>>> The basic CAS Latency of 5 is pretty slow as it is. Most memories are=
2.5,=20
>>> or 3.
>>
>=20
>> I think the 5 is normal for DDR2 memory used on AM2 and
>> Intel boards.
>>=20
>> The 2.5 and 3 are usually found in DDR(1) memory used on skt
>> 939 boards.
>=20
> and most SDRAM, PC100/PC133=20
>=20
>=20

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

Nut
Wed May 30 16:44:27 CDT 2007


"Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Ohb$i0voHHA.4220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Nut Cracker wrote:
>> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23SYp41soHHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Nut Cracker wrote:
>>> "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>>>> 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.

CarolSteele
Wed May 30 18:54:00 CDT 2007

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" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:e$3RTBuoHHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting
> for
> > response.
> >
> >
> > "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:%238Uiv3soHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Nut Cracker wrote:
> > > "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
> > >> 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.
> >
>
>
>

Chuck
Wed May 30 19:37:37 CDT 2007

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.

Tony
Wed May 30 19:48:22 CDT 2007

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" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F5643343-EC3A-48FD-8D71-647D1516C6DF@microsoft.com...
> 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" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> > news:e$3RTBuoHHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > > The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles
waiting
> > for
> > > response.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%238Uiv3soHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > > Nut Cracker wrote:
> > > > "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > > > news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
> > > >> 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
Wed May 30 19:53:02 CDT 2007

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. . .

John
Wed May 30 20:21:50 CDT 2007

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" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23Q0ocSuoHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:e$3RTBuoHHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting
> for
>> response.
>>
>>
>> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:%238Uiv3soHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Nut Cracker wrote:
>> > "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>> >> 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.
>>
>
>

CarolSteele
Wed May 30 22:00:01 CDT 2007

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.
>
>
>

CarolSteele
Wed May 30 22:04:01 CDT 2007

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. . .
>

Dominic
Thu May 31 01:54:05 CDT 2007

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" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F5643343-EC3A-48FD-8D71-647D1516C6DF@microsoft.com...
> 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" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:e$3RTBuoHHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting
>> for
>> > response.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%238Uiv3soHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Nut Cracker wrote:
>> > > "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> > > message
>> > > news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
>> > >> 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
Thu May 31 04:52:58 CDT 2007

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" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:eKPbYIyoHHA.716@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> 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" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:%23Q0ocSuoHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > 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" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> > news:e$3RTBuoHHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> The lower the latency the HIGHER the speed. Fewer clock cycles waiting
> > for
> >> response.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%238Uiv3soHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Nut Cracker wrote:
> >> > "Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:DB151B69-20D3-4C8A-A21B-8F3C49D6CDE2@microsoft.com...
> >> >> 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
Thu May 31 07:06:33 CDT 2007

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

"Carol Steele" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:81769170-B479-438B-B93C-2F08DC9D21B5@microsoft.com...
>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
Thu May 31 07:49:27 CDT 2007

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" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:81769170-B479-438B-B93C-2F08DC9D21B5@microsoft.com...
>> 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
Thu May 31 08:32:15 CDT 2007

Good point.

"Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eLw3sI4oHHA.4552@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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" <CarolSteele@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:81769170-B479-438B-B93C-2F08DC9D21B5@microsoft.com...
>>> 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. . .
>>>>
>>>
>>

Chuck
Thu May 31 14:19:39 CDT 2007

Yeah, sounds like it's a 32-bit Large Address Aware application. Too bad
they don't yet have a 64-bit native implementation. I know plenty of
Photoshop users who would love to throw 8 or 16 GB of memory at the thing.

--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.