wait a minute, the world record was done with 332 mhz ram? somethings not right there
that would be ddr2 664 in actually, and the reason for lower speed was to tighten timings.
i think its still a misconception that frequency speed, like ddr2 800 runs at 400mhz, is WAYY faster than ddr400 running at 200mhz. but.. its not. it is faster yes, but often not as night and day difference as people think seeing as how most ddr2 800 modules have pretty crappy timings of 5-5-5-15 or 4-4-4-12, and ddr400 is as low as 2-2-2-5
compare really loose timed ddr2 800 (3-3-3)ram to very tight timed (note: frequency deprived) ddr400 ( 2-2-2 or so) and you'll see that ram's actual speed depends highly on timings, not frequency.
for your viewing pleasure....
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2741&p=5
as you can see, ddr400 is very close for the most part to ddr2-677, which is also not far behind ddr2-800.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2741&p=4
But please, if im out to lunch, someone correct me. cause it wouldnt be the first time i've been wrong, and im sure it wont be the last.
rather be told than to continue to be mistaken.
i was gunna say, now if they could get pc 10000 on those timings, DAMN
Heya,
I just grabbed aquamark and ran it on my laptop
Is that any good?
H
Hell yes, thats good for a laptop.
Got up to 2,900 with the old ****bucket
Coffee is love, coffee is life.
I get the same problem as dave. It happens after the big explosion. Cant get past that no matter what...
You Dont Spread Democracy Through The Barrel Of A Gun.
lol just ran it with current and got 150,1xxx forgot the last 3, wish i could get that in 3dm06