Perhaps the title is not that clear, but I was curious about what would be faster : CPU 4.05 and Memory at 1456 6-6-6-20vsCPU 4.2 and Memory at 1600 7-7-7-24 Running the memory at 1456 6-6-6-20 is faster than 1600 7-7-7-24. The question is if letting the cpu run faster and the memory slightly slower FSX would benefit from this as the clockspeed from the cpu has a direct influence on the framerate ?With that I mean that perhaps from 1333 mhz memory and up the influence of the memory is less than the influence of the cpu. Before doing all kind of tests I thought I would ask you guys if anyone of you already did some tests ? Here a link from 2008 about the same discussion : http://www.overclock...p/t-542844.html

4.2 and 1600 anyday.

4.2 and 1600 anyday.

It's not that simple.Cas latency has a big impact on memory performance.See the attached memory card. Currently I am doing some tests with 4.19 Ghz and Memory set to 1520 6/7/7/25 Normally I have it set to 4.05 Ghz and memory set to 1456 6/6/6/24 The reason that I want to do these tests is that on my pc I have NL2000v4, REX clouds , PMDG737NGX and AS Schiphol installed.As that area has many waters : sea, canals, lakes and the fps eating Schiphol it brings the pc down to its knees. I can have a fps of 24 ( locked ) and above when I set Water to 1x.With water set to 2x the fps goes down to 12 sometimes. Already I set the screen resolution back from 5040x1050 to 4320x900 what gave a boost of 10% in normal circumstances, but up to 20% in heavy detailed scenery.I cannot see the quality difference between those 2 resolutions so I am fine with that.Minimum fps with water set to 2x is now 14.6.Only now from time to time the photoscenery of Nl2000v4 gets blurried ( altitude 2000ft / speed 200knots ) I will be using the FSX test flight ( Seatle area ) that came with FS Fraps.Later I will post my results here.

A lower Cas latency is better than the higher RAM frequency, don't know about CPU frequency.

Findings up to now : CPU set to 4.05 Ghz and Memory set to 1456 6/6/6/24 1T---> lowest fps 14.6 / sometimes blurried scenery / FFF set to 0.3CPU set to 4.19 Ghz and Memory set to 1520 7/7/7/25 1T ---> lowest fps 15.3 / no blurried scenery / FFF set to 0.5I tried with memory timings set to 6/7/6/24 , but then after several minutes I got a blue screen First I am going to try with timings set to 7/7/7/25 1T again , but the CPU again slightly faster and with timings set to 6/6/6/24 but 2T instead of 1T.I don't know how much the difference is between 1T and 2T.It is about memory bandwith and as far as I have read about it most Games do not need the extra bandwith.But I will give it a try.

In FSX, higher CPU and higher ram frequency is more important than RAM timings.

Where are your findings from? Just asking.

Where are your findings from? Just asking.

+1....NGX I liked to know that too any supporting reviews you can share with us? Usually, the CPU freq and the timing of the memory goes hand in hand to get the most performance. While memory frequency is just as important, the performance is very minimal, even if you are running at 1:1 ratio, but if the timing isn't tight, you can still get bottlenecked.

Both cmeeks and dazz are running their ram at 2133MHz with CL9 and CL8 respectively. They're the most tech knowledgeable guys in these forums. If latency was more important, they'd run at 1600MHz CL6

See thats a bit of a compromise. Its not the same as saying CL7 1600 to CL8 1600.

dazz, on 07 March 2011 - 01:29 PM, said: I just tested a couple different configs:2133 CL8Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg10670, 300000, 23, 50, 35.5672133 CL9Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg10669, 300000, 23, 49, 35.5631600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg10428, 300000, 23, 49, 34.7601600 CL9Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg10099, 300000, 22, 47, 33.6631333 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg10047, 300000, 22, 46, 33.490 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My memory runs normally at 1800mhz with timings 9/9/9/27 and 2TNow they are running at 1512mhz with 6/7/6/25 and 2T That gives a better performance. GamingGames are arguably the most demanding applications that enthusiasts run on their PCs on a regular basis. To find out whether faster memory affects in-game frame rates, we collected a handful of titles and ran them through two sets of tests. The first batch was conducted at a modest resolution and with low in-game detail settings to remove the graphics card as a potential bottleneck. For the latter, we pushed the resolution to 1920x1080 and cranked the detail levels as high as we could while maintaining playable frame rates.We tapped each game's built-in benchmarking component to test its performance. All four titles were run in DirectX 11 mode, even when using low detail settings. For Civilization V, we used the full render score, which should be the most representative of real-world performance. That score has been converted to frames per second to make the graphs easier to understand.

At low resolutions and detail levels, we're not seeing much of a case for faster memory. A higher memory frequency buys a few frames per second here and there, but that's pretty much the extent of it. Our low-latency DDR3-1333 config doesn't really separate itself from the pack, either.

With the exception of competitive Counter-Strike players trying to purge any potential for performance hiccups—real or imagined—most folks use the highest resolution and detail levels they can when playing games. That tends to make one's graphics card the bottleneck, which is why we see even less separation with this round of tests. At best, the difference between our fastest and slowest memory configs amounts to a few FPS. What do we see here ?Running 2133 mhz memory at timings 9/11/9/27 gives about the same performance as 1333 mhz at timings 7/7/7/20.This proves that timings are important. So I conclude that running my 1800mhz memory at 1512mhz with timings 6/7/7/25 and 2T gives a better performance than running it at even 1866 mhz and timings 9/9/9/27 2T. The Latency card I posted above shows that too. ConclusionsEven before we consider the results of our performance testing, it's interesting to note that Sandy Bridge makes higher-speed memory more and less appealing. On one hand, the unlocked memory multiplier present in K-series CPUs makes setting a higher memory frequency almost as trivial as changing any other BIOS setting. At the same time, the fact that base-clock overclocking is essentially a dead end for Sandy Bridge CPUs means that faster memory isn't required to keep up with higher base clock frequencies. The only reason to buy faster memory for a Sandy Bridge rig is if it's going to improve performance. So, is it? That depends. If you're running memory benchmarks all day long, then yes, faster memory will improve bandwidth and access latencies substantially. In fact, Sandy Bridge CPUs extract more performance from the same memory configuration than their Lynnfield- and Clarkdale-based counterparts. However, as we learned when exploring the affect of memory speed on the performance of Intel's first Core i7 processors, finding games and applications that make effective use of the extra memory bandwidth and faster access latencies can be difficult.Among the tests we ran, only the Euler3d fluid dynamics simulation enjoyed a substantial benefit from faster memory configurations. Video encoding and file compression ran a little bit quicker with higher memory frequencies and tighter timings, but most of our application tests showed little or no improvement in performance. Neither did the games, which only managed to squeeze a few extra FPS out of our fastest memory configuration.Although there are certainly cases where pairing Sandy Bridge processors with low-latency or high-frequency memory can yield impressive gains, it's hard to find a common desktop application or game whose performance improves enough to justify the additional expense. If you're looking to set benchmarking records or to compensate for personal shortcomings, K-series Sandy Bridge CPUs at least make it easy to run exotic DIMMs at blistering speeds. Everyone else can rest assured that using relatively inexpensive DDR3-1333 memory won't cost them much performance in the real world

Good find. I hope when I get my 8GB 1600 CL8 I may see a little perf boost. Probably only from having spare memory.

Sounds like if you get 2133 memory at the same price as 1333 then who cares...Mark

But thats the key thing. You are throwing all these game benchmarks at us. FSX is not a game, its a sim. What you see in these game benchmarks is almost definitely not the same as what you see in FSX.

Dazz came to the same results as what you can see in the Latency chart. That's why I posted it.....And my findings are the same also. FSX does not use maximum memory bandwith and therfore the latency timings have a very big impact. There is nothing more to it. Lets wait for 2500mhz with 4-4-4-15 timings.......