RAM... 1066Mhz @ 5-5-5-5-12-2t vs 800Mhz @ 4-4-4-12-2t
- Thread starter slapnutz
- Start date
If you don't care about overclocking, then the only question is your processor manufacturer and front side bus speed. Running memory beyond a 1:1 ratio (FSB clock : MEM clock)is all but worthless unless you're on an AMD system.
So, if you're on an AMD and want a ~5% (at best) boost in speed, get the 1066. For all current Intel systems or AMD system that isn't going to notice the tiny change, the DDR2-800 sticks will do exactly what you want.
So, if you're on an AMD and want a ~5% (at best) boost in speed, get the 1066. For all current Intel systems or AMD system that isn't going to notice the tiny change, the DDR2-800 sticks will do exactly what you want.
In theory, 1066 at 555-12-2t should be faster than 800 at 444-12-2t (note that a cycle time of 4 at 800Mhz is actually a tiny bit more than 5 at 1066Mhz). I'd agree though it's not worth bothering.
Personally, I'd go even with standard 800Mhz ram at 555 timings, just make sure it's some branded stuff (I'd definitely prefer this to 800Mhz ram with 444 timings which requires more voltage than the standard 1.8V, quite often such modules are rated at 2.0V for that frequency and timings). The ddr2 1066 stuff is always overclocked / overvolted (I was kinda hoping jedec would specify a ddr2-1066 standard as was rumoured but it looks like it's not going to happen?).
Personally, I'd go even with standard 800Mhz ram at 555 timings, just make sure it's some branded stuff (I'd definitely prefer this to 800Mhz ram with 444 timings which requires more voltage than the standard 1.8V, quite often such modules are rated at 2.0V for that frequency and timings). The ddr2 1066 stuff is always overclocked / overvolted (I was kinda hoping jedec would specify a ddr2-1066 standard as was rumoured but it looks like it's not going to happen?).
Last edited by a moderator:
Its a bit old, and really only covers half your question...
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/18/core_2_duo_memory_timings/1
Tighter memory timings at the same speed make very little difference. If you want to overclock your RAM, go for the 1066, but I doubt theres many instances where the extra bandwidth is needed.
In short, until Intel move to onboard memory controller, unless you really want 1:1 FSB, Core2s arent that memory hungry.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/18/core_2_duo_memory_timings/1
Tighter memory timings at the same speed make very little difference. If you want to overclock your RAM, go for the 1066, but I doubt theres many instances where the extra bandwidth is needed.
In short, until Intel move to onboard memory controller, unless you really want 1:1 FSB, Core2s arent that memory hungry.
I would go with the tigther timings...but thats from just personal experience. I know 3dmark06 is not anything to go by but by running my memory at the 4-4-4 timings I got over a 150 ponit increase in my score. That does not seem like much but that could equate to a slight bit more fps in games? I am running at 1:1 at the moment though I totally dont understand what that has to do with anything.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Going with 1066 is only useful if you need the headroom for higher 1:1 FSB when overclocking (>400FSB). The performance improvement will not be tangible in anything other than benchmarks. DDR2 800 5-5-5-15 1.8v is very, very cheap.
1.8v is the standard. It is most compatible with boards (some will not even POST with RAM that's not stable at 1.8v).
Similar threads
