CAS 1.5 is doubt to work on A64 based systems......

[brandinb]

But if cas 1.5 was truly a reality, your memory should clock lower than cl2

true but it shows that it is something besides cas 2 so what is it??
\
________
LovelyWendie

[s7e9h3n]

Mabye but some ram just likes low latts. And I to noticed that the preformance was the same pretty much saw some improvments in some 3d programs. Nothing major, but the fact that I can clock 10mhz highier because of it is why I like it.

Leave it to OPP to come up with memory that clocks higher @ lower latencies

[s7e9h3n]

true but it shows that it is something besides cas 2 so what is it??
\

It's most likely something besides the memory since the memory itself doesn't recognize cl1.5 and just defaults to cl2.

[fatfreepork]

Just did a little test run using SuperPI 1M and Sandra Bandwidth.

CPU @ 2.75GHz
Mem @ 250Mhz

CAS 2.0
SuperPI 1M
1st Run - 30.922
2nd Run - 30.965
3rd Run - 30.797
Sandra Bandwidth
Int - 7218
Float - 7142

CAS 1.5
SuperPI 1M
1st Run - 30.921
2nd Run - 30.950
3rd Run - 30.797
Sandra Bandwidth
Int - 7218
Float - 7140

Going by these results imo they are the same as far as performance goes. I still think that in some ram 1.5 adds stability some how.

those numbers are within variable range. there is no cas 1.5

[guess2098]

even at 3Dmark01, CL1.5 is a bit slower than CL2

but only 10 point..... not really can tell the big difference

http://www.coolaler.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=57781

[5-Clicks]

of course it works! it's all about bragging rights, man, and what looks cool! this is XS after all. what would this place be without the results looking faster?

[HARDCORECLOCKER]

Geil uses the lower CAS values as a marketing gimmick, leading people to believe they have come up with some new tech that runs at cas1.5. Supposedly these sticks can even run at cas1.0, maybe they should read some white papers. Link

But what did they test there here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/business...x_day1-09.html

Shown is the older GEIL ULTRA-X and no word about the chips - WB or TCCD.

But even it is TCCD it is an increadeble result - 2.5-3-3-X at 325 MHz !!!

Never saw a RAM doing this........ !!! But again, what exactly did they test there?

[Eldonko]

But what did they test there here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/business...x_day1-09.html

Shown is the older GEIL ULTRA-X and no word about the chips - WB or TCCD.

But even it is TCCD it is an increadeble result - 2.5-3-3-X at 325 MHz !!!

Never saw a RAM doing this........ !!! But again, what exactly did they test there?

I have, take a another look at the multi being used. 325*4/5=260Mhz Deception marketing woot.

[Eldonko]

Cas1.5 is not supported, its not setting cas1.5 and its no faster than cas2. OCZ ran tests months ago to see if it was worth releasing VX at cas1.5, upon advice we decided not to as its not actually cas1.5 being set.

/cheer!

[HARDCORECLOCKER]

Makes me feel sad but it's true - CAS2 is even faster:

1.5:



2.0:



Will check 3D'01 soon.........

[Eldonko]

There are rare cases where cas 1.5 will add a small bit of stability over cas2.0. It's similar to tras=00, it doesn't exist because it's reserved but I know for a fact it adds stability at very high TCCD/5 speeds.

I am not going to attempt to explain the reason for added stability though, I'll leave that to the gurus

Thanks for the comparisons by the way

[STEvil]

who cares? cas latency does crap all for performance now anyays.

TRCD and TRP are far more important... although CAS 1 would be interesting.

[bachus_anonym]

@HCC,

0.040s in 1M is not really what I would call "faster"

CAS1.5 is totally not worth it. Any performance gain some might be feeling is just a placebo effect, really. Some folks few months back started using CAS1.5 and all it does is look. CAS1.5 doesn't have any performance advantage over CAS2.0 and reason is that is not supported by AMD chips Whatever BIOS sets when you switch to 1.5, is not faster than CAS2.0. I used to have comparo screens with 3DM01, few months ago with Neo2/X800XTPE... I can't find them now, though But difference was small enough to call it margin of error
I just did few SPi 16M runs. 0.141s is definetely not faster

SPi16M @ CAS1.5



SPi16M @ CAS2.0

[HARDCORECLOCKER]

There are rare cases where cas 1.5 will add a small bit of stability over cas2.0. It's similar to tras=00, it doesn't exist because it's reserved but I know for a fact it adds stability at very high TCCD/5 speeds.

I am not going to attempt to explain the reason for added stability though, I'll leave that to the gurus

Thanks for the comparisons by the way

Have to thank You mate - You showed me somethin' I did not know.

BTW I really feel pissed about the GEIL test done by THG - it is a big amount of what they did post there...........

[Millyons]

a while ago i was playing with that and all results were in margain of error on old CH-5 and old bh-5 chips..........in PI, everest, and hexus pitfast but was all writen down on paper dont have any digital results

[HousERaT]

@HCC,

0.040s in 1M is not really what I would call "faster"

Indeed. I can get that much variance using the same system. I dare say in the end there will be little to no difference. At least in speed.

[largon]

AMD doesn't support CL < 2?

If CL 1.5 is actually 2, then what is CL 1?
Definately not 2.

[HARDCORECLOCKER]

AMD doesn't support CL < 2?

If CL 1.5 is actually 2, then what is CL 1?
Definately not 2.

Also Cas2 - even You could set 0.5 it would be 2 cause the mem controller is programmed only to support Cas2 as the lowest setting.

All other settings are only "visible" in BIOS or A64 tweaker but at last on ly a fake........

[largon]

Why does CL 1 cause instant boot if set with A64Tweaker and no boot if set in BIOS?

[Der_KHAN]

Also Cas2 - even You could set 0.5 it would be 2 cause the mem controller is programmed only to support Cas2 as the lowest setting.

All other settings are only "visible" in BIOS or A64 tweaker but at last on ly a fake........

then why is it that my rig boots fine with cas 2 and 1.5 but doesnt even post with 1.0?

[Eldonko]

Have to thank You mate - You showed me somethin' I did not know.

BTW I really feel pissed about the GEIL test done by THG - it is a big amount of what they did post there...........

Heh no prob. I don't like that test by THG either, maybe if they tried to tell us that the RAM did DDR600 @ 2.5-3-3 people would believe that but saying DDR650 with those timings is basically impossible at this point with any RAM.

I think the reason those settings < cas2 are in the BIOS/tweaker is just to allow tweaking for stability, not extra speed/performance. I know if I can get 1 more mhz with cas 1.5 or tras00 I am going to use it

[guess2098]

later i will try 10 time super pi 1M both CL1.5 & CL2 , today is hot again...........

[guess2098]

after my 1M tests, i think CL1.5 and CL2 are almost same. but CL2 is a bit faster

CL1.5


32.422; 32.458; 32.469; 32.531; 32.453~~ average is 32.4666


CL2


32.469; 32.437; 32.485; 32.453; 32.438~~average is 32.4564

you can see CL2 is 1.000314268 time faster than CL1.5 on 1M
but for 32M, CL1.5 will be slower then CL2.... easy to tell.

wish someone can post 10 time 32M result

[Puni Puni Poemy]

This may be a little off topic but falls around the same category.

Will DDR2 Ram Latencies ever come down to levels DDR is at now? Will we see DDR2 - 667 2-2-2-5-1T?

I understand that the lower latency dosent effect performance all that much, while higher speeds does, espically for the Intel side of the house. I was just wondering. I mean, lower latencies certainly cannot hurt.

[STEvil]

DDR2 667 @ 3-2-2-x is already reality and CAS latency holds nearly no performance benefit (though 3 is slower than 2 or 2.5).