Thread: Separating the Hype of high frequency random access memory with extra overclocking

When it arrives to PC hardware, it is so basic for constructs to extends a series of "Extreme" products in addition to their standard line of products. With video cards, this is frequently in the element of pre-overclocked cards. With CPU boards, extra overclocking characteristics are typically the needs for an extreme CPU boards. With memory, this is commonly in the element of random access memory that functions at so high frequencies.


We have speaked about high frequency random access memory in the last with the blog post Overclocked Memory is a Scam, although much of that post is in considers to the several compatibility troubles we saw when DDR3 was even young. Most of the compatibility troubles have gratefully been settled (although the quicker random access memory even tends to have a higher failure rate), but there are even a some troubles with high frequency random access memory.




The main consequences with high frequency random access memory is due to the truth that at higher frequencies (commonly around 1866MHz and higher), memory manufactures too start to raise the timings in order to maintain the random access memory stable. In this content, we will be expecting to see if random access memory with a higher frequency and raised timings has any function advantages over random access memory with lower frequency and diluted timings in a high-end computer systems utilizing a dedicated video card. The effect of random access memory is so dissimilar when utilizing onboard central processing unit graphics, but we will leave that aspect of random access memory function for a future content.


To decide how this ratio of frequency to timings affects function, we functioned an extensive suite of benchmarks on additional platforms with a rate of random access memory models. But first, let's go by the basic random entrance memory generally to help us make why timings are only as important as frequency.