What is better, low latency or more mhz?

N

nimedon

New Member
What do you think is better, low latency or more mhz? for example:

1600 MHZ
# Cas Latency: 7
# Timing: 7-7-7-18
# Voltage: 1.7V

OR

2000 MHZ
# Cas Latency: 9
# Timing: 9-9-9-24
# Voltage: 1.85V

In few words, what's the best memory RAM at this moment?
 
What do you think is better, low latency or more mhz? for example:

1600 MHZ
# Cas Latency: 7
# Timing: 7-7-7-18
# Voltage: 1.7V

OR

2000 MHZ
# Cas Latency: 9
# Timing: 9-9-9-24
# Voltage: 1.85V

In few words, what's the best memory RAM at this moment?
Click to expand...
Just do a simple comparison:

The latencies are measured in clocks so 1 clock takes 1/1,000,000,000 = 0.000,000,001 seconds (1Hz = 1 per second).

0.000,000,001 * 9 = 0.000,000,009

1 / 800,000,000 = 0.000,000,001,250
0.000,000,001,250 * 7 = 0.000,000,008,75

Smaller is better because that means it is less time. So the latencies are faster on the 1600MHz stuff. Does that mean it's better? Not necessarily... thus you are now throughly confused. My work is done :P



At these speeds I'd argue that you aren't bandwidth bound so the lower latencies would be better. But this will depend on the application, some respond better to more bandwidth others don't. Also, both are pretty damn fast ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top