Wow CAS 2 / 2.5 /3.0 only very small diff?

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 26, 2004, 12:48 PM

As you can tell by my recent posts I'm brushing up on my memory

I was under the impression CAS has a decent affect on memory performance
I ran across some articals like this one...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1637781,00.asp

It' turn out cas dosn't have a big of impact as they (mfg's) may lead you to belive here is a the tiny sniplet from the end.. how important CAS is for non overclockers?....

Quote:

Our tests show that improving RAM latency only makes a small difference in the performance of modern high-end PCs. The amount of improvement varies greatly depending on the application you're running, but it's safe to generally characterize the improvement by saying that, compared with CAS 3.0 RAM, CAS 2.5 will give you a 1% to 2% speed boost, and CAS 2.0 will give you 2% to 4%. Those are definitely small numbers, to be sure. System manufacturers often fight with their competitors over performance variances that small, though, so it shouldn't be viewed as insignificant. In fact, it's not uncommon for a new high-end CPU to be released that's just a couple hundred MHz faster than the previous best, giving you a performance advantage of 5% or less.

The real question is this: Is the marginal speed improvement of low-latency RAM worth its higher price? For most users, the answer is no. In a broad survey of online prices, we found that CAS 2.5 RAM costs about 30% more than CAS 3.0. If you're building a system with 1GB of RAM, you'll pay an additional $60 more for only one or two percentage points. You're much better off spending that money on a slightly better video card or buying a good sound card instead of relying on integrated audio. Heck, even a really good mouse would probably be a better investment toward making your computing time more enjoyable.

For extreme enthusiasts and the overclocking set, the story is a bit different. CAS 2.0 RAM can cost up to twice as much as CAS 3.0, adding $150 to $200 to the cost of a high-performance PC. If you're the type that spares no expense to get the very fastest machine possible, lowering RAM latency definitely does help. What's more, low-latency RAM generally stands up better to running at higher clock frequencies (sometimes with a slight increase in latency settings), and the biggest performance improvement almost surely comes from running some combination of lower-latency, overclocked RAM. For those who spend well over $2,000 building their dream machine, the cost increase of high performance RAM is a worthwhile investment.

Becouse If you begin to weight haveing 1 GB of CAS 2 or 1.5 GB of cas 2.5 and playing roughly the same price the differance may be NIL...

Their is also performance to be gained by haveing more memory does it not? Especally with this next generation of resource hogging games

what do you guys think?

~~REGENERAT1ON~~ · Sep 26, 2004, 12:56 PM

great article

Asmoday · Sep 26, 2004, 01:01 PM

I agree with the article, because you won't notice a big difference other when benching using cas 2, 2.5 or even cas3...i've played with my RAM and couldn't notice much difference when running cas2 or cas3, in regular apps and games...

mkk · Sep 26, 2004, 01:17 PM

I haven't read the whole article but I definitely agree with the sentiment. Most users eagerness for supertweaking RAM latencies come from using theoretical benchmarks like SiSoft Sandra, in wich a substantial difference in score does not relate directly to real world performance gains. Outside specific overclocking needs a user can safely discard thoughts about getting expensive low latency memory.

I do prefer to pimp the value if having an ample amount of RAM instead. While I haven't seen any game yet that needs more than about 768-1024MB RAM to run at optimal speed, having been running with 1,5GB RAM for about a month has been a nice experience (three budget-line sticks). The longer the system is running, the more it utilises the RAM for various things, some of wich become noticeably slower in a fresh bootup situation. Now that might not be quite the way one generally thinks about fresh booting Windows.

dipstick · Sep 26, 2004, 01:30 PM

Good read! I've been saying it forever that timings make absolutely no difference on the A64s but no one wanted to listen. Never played with a P4(seems its like the A64 though) but timings did make a notable difference on the AXPs. Not much but the hit was definitely bigger than the A64 and P4.

~~REGENERAT1ON~~ · Sep 26, 2004, 02:06 PM

on my barton the performance difference between CAS 2.0-3.0 is around 100mb of bandwidth

Shinjikun · Sep 26, 2004, 04:37 PM

I think a lower CAS latency doesn't dramatically alter system performance; but for the die hard gamers who want *everything* out of their system then the lower CAS latency is prefered. The difference in-between 2/2.5/3 won't be seen in most cases unless you actually do testing to tell the difference. I won't go to my friend's house, watch him play so and so game, and then be like "hey you're running CAS 2 aren't you, it's so smooth!".

In any event it's one of those things where it isn't required; but most people still want it for "improved performance". I won't lie to anyone here either; if I can get my memory down to CAS 2 then I want to, will do so, and will buy memory that's CAS 2 rated.

Judas · Sep 26, 2004, 05:31 PM

....it's most likely true... going from a untweaked default of cas 3.0 and all other settings to the tightest cas and other setup settings will give you a massive improvement..

Although, when i was running Cas1.5 vs 2.5 i had previously with the same tight settings, according to various benchmarks.. my throughput went up from 2500 to just around the 2900+

CDsDontBurn · Sep 26, 2004, 05:45 PM

i run cas2 in my rig. for windows use, i don't see any big deal about it. it's all the same as when i run cas2.5. but when i play games, going from cas2.5 to cas2 is a big difference especially in games like doom3 and farcry. I get about 10FPS higher w/cas2. those extra 10FPS makes a HUGE difference when my framerate drops significantly in certain areas of both games.

Nacht · Sep 26, 2004, 05:54 PM

meh. stuck with my 2.5-4-4-8 pc2100.

/waits patiently for his paycheck

CDsDontBurn · Sep 26, 2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

meh. stuck with my 2.5-4-4-8 pc2100.

/waits patiently for his paycheck

yea dude, if you got yourself some better ram you could OC that 2.4 of yours like no other. Get some and see how much better specs you can get your p4 2.4 at. Bet you could do at least 2.8Ghz w/ddr 400.

Sep 26, 2004, 01:01 PM	#3
Asmoday Demonic Join Date: May 2002 Location: In the cold, dark north... Posts: 5,198 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	I agree with the article, because you won't notice a big difference other when benching using cas 2, 2.5 or even cas3...i've played with my RAM and couldn't notice much difference when running cas2 or cas3, in regular apps and games... __________________ How You can help Hardwareheaven by using Digg

Sep 26, 2004, 01:17 PM	#4
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,490 Rep Power: 132 System Specs	I haven't read the whole article but I definitely agree with the sentiment. Most users eagerness for supertweaking RAM latencies come from using theoretical benchmarks like SiSoft Sandra, in wich a substantial difference in score does not relate directly to real world performance gains. Outside specific overclocking needs a user can safely discard thoughts about getting expensive low latency memory. I do prefer to pimp the value if having an ample amount of RAM instead. While I haven't seen any game yet that needs more than about 768-1024MB RAM to run at optimal speed, having been running with 1,5GB RAM for about a month has been a nice experience (three budget-line sticks). The longer the system is running, the more it utilises the RAM for various things, some of wich become noticeably slower in a fresh bootup situation. Now that might not be quite the way one generally thinks about fresh booting Windows. Last edited by mkk; Sep 26, 2004 at 01:27 PM.

Sep 26, 2004, 04:37 PM	#7
Shinjikun 第3 子供 Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Nerv HQ Posts: 1,319 Rep Power: 0	I think a lower CAS latency doesn't dramatically alter system performance; but for the die hard gamers who want everything out of their system then the lower CAS latency is prefered. The difference in-between 2/2.5/3 won't be seen in most cases unless you actually do testing to tell the difference. I won't go to my friend's house, watch him play so and so game, and then be like "hey you're running CAS 2 aren't you, it's so smooth!". In any event it's one of those things where it isn't required; but most people still want it for "improved performance". I won't lie to anyone here either; if I can get my memory down to CAS 2 then I want to, will do so, and will buy memory that's CAS 2 rated. __________________ Xfire: [Shinji1225 \ Status] A7N8X-E Deluxe Athlon XP 2500+ (@ 2.2 GHz 11x200 MHz FSB) Corsair TwinX XMS 1GB PC3200 Dual Channel (2-2-3-5) [color=red]ATi [/color][color=white]Radeon 9500 Pro (@ 330\310) \ [/color][color=white]Omega Catalyst Drivers v2.5.90[/color] [color=white]Ultra X-Connect 500W PSU[/color]

Sep 26, 2004, 05:45 PM	#9
CDsDontBurn Lurking DriverHeaven Join Date: May 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 22,779 Rep Power: 235 System Specs	i run cas2 in my rig. for windows use, i don't see any big deal about it. it's all the same as when i run cas2.5. but when i play games, going from cas2.5 to cas2 is a big difference especially in games like doom3 and farcry. I get about 10FPS higher w/cas2. those extra 10FPS makes a HUGE difference when my framerate drops significantly in certain areas of both games. __________________ Her First Day \| A year later

Sep 26, 2004, 12:56 PM	#2
~~REGENERAT1ON~~ NGO Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 409 Rep Power: 0	great article

Sep 26, 2004, 01:30 PM	#5
dipstick HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,609 Rep Power: 71 System Specs	Good read! I've been saying it forever that timings make absolutely no difference on the A64s but no one wanted to listen. Never played with a P4(seems its like the A64 though) but timings did make a notable difference on the AXPs. Not much but the hit was definitely bigger than the A64 and P4.

Sep 26, 2004, 02:06 PM	#6
~~REGENERAT1ON~~ NGO Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 409 Rep Power: 0	on my barton the performance difference between CAS 2.0-3.0 is around 100mb of bandwidth

Sep 26, 2004, 05:54 PM	#10
Nacht ein Krieger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Clemson Uni Posts: 3,127 Rep Power: 0	meh. stuck with my 2.5-4-4-8 pc2100. /waits patiently for his paycheck