Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for that

Author: Aaron Gordon

Date: 16:47:57 04/28/03

Go up one level in this thread


On April 28, 2003 at 15:04:58, Keith Evans wrote:

>On April 27, 2003 at 10:40:10, Aaron Gordon wrote:
>
>>On April 27, 2003 at 01:52:41, Keith Evans wrote:
>>
>>>On April 27, 2003 at 01:38:15, Aaron Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 26, 2003 at 22:52:42, Keith Evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On April 26, 2003 at 22:25:47, Aaron Gordon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On April 26, 2003 at 21:11:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I checked Aaron's story with his contact at AMD. The guy said that AMD didn't
>>>>>>>allow performance testing with the memory _overclocked_, but it certainly isn't
>>>>>>>underclocked. This makes perfect sense to me. (If you allow overclocking memory,
>>>>>>>why wouldn't you also overclock the processor? Then all your benchmarks are
>>>>>>>worthless.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So SPEC is comparing non-overclocked Intel to non-overclocked AMD and Intel
>>>>>>>wins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When I ran the tests I recalled seeing some information where the P4 was running
>>>>>>CAS2 and the like. The settings I was told to use put me at CAS 2.5.
>>>>>>How would this be 'fair'? Same thing happens on some review pages, but to a much
>>>>>>larger degree. As I have proven in the past tomshardware has actually run the
>>>>>>memory lower than the bus on the athlons tested, put the AGP to 1x, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, running CAS2 with all tweaks enabled isn't "overclocking". Especially when
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that the main point is that the manager basically was trying to prevent
>>>>>memory (and maybe other components) from being run out of specification. This is
>>>>>what I suspected. He probably felt that if AMD ran components out of spec and
>>>>>quoted the numbers, then Intel could get nasty.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your argument is with him. Determining that memory is being run in spec is not
>>>>>as simple as quoting a single parameter like "CAS 2.5." Download a memory
>>>>>datasheet, a chipset datasheet, see how the BIOS is programming the chipset,
>>>>>draw waveforms, and check all of the parameters. It is painful, but anything
>>>>>else is handwaving.
>>>>
>>>>What I'm trying to point out is the ram was Corsair PC2400XMS CL2. Rated for
>>>>150MHz(300DDR) at CL2.0. I was told to run 133MHz fsb stock (which I have no
>>>>problems with) and CL2.5, bank interleaving off, other timings slower than usual
>>>>which IS much below the rams normal speed.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing was overclocked, nothing would have been overclocked. Even with maximum
>>>>timings, the ram would be still running UNDER spec. If you'd like to see for
>>>>yourself, here is the PC2400XMS CL2 datasheet from Corsair.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.corsairmicro.com/main/products/specs/cm64sd256.pdf
>>>>
>>>>The numbers off of the dimm = CM64SD256-2400C2
>>>>
>>>>If for some reason you'd like to see the DIMM, go here..
>>>>http://www.newageoc.com/pics2/corsair2400cl2.jpg
>>>
>>>Then the question remains, why did the manager apparently believe that something
>>>would be operating out of spec? That corsair datasheet doesn't have enough
>>>detail. See page 50 and associated diagrams in the following:
>>>
>>>http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/dram/128Mx4x8x16DDR_D.pdf
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Keith
>>
>>Running 150MHz CL2 ram at 133MHz CL2 isn't going to put it out of spec.
>
>Looking at the JPEG that you posted it looks like the part number for the Micron
>DDR SDRAM is 46V16M8-75B. Without any "Z" after the "75".
>
>That part is not rated for 133 MHz CL2 operation, you need to run it with CL=2.5
>for 133 MHz. If you want CL=2 then lower the frequency to 100 MHz.
>
>This is from the cover sheet of the Micron specification which I posted.
>
>If there is a "Z" on the package after the "75" that I missed, then I agree with
>you.
>
>Regards,
>Keith

So Corsair is selling overclocked ram? The ram itself is rated by Corsair for
150MHz opteration at CAS-2.0. It runs 166MHz CAS-2.0 (but I consider THAT
overclocking, not 150MHz CAS-2.0). 133MHz CAS-2.5 would be extreme
underclocking. It wasn't rated PC2400 CL2 for nothing.



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.