[G4] System Performance Memory

[Daniel Brieck Jr.]

Phil,

I am not really talking about latency of the RAM in my case. I am  
talking about the actual interface speed of the ram connecting to the  
System Bus measured in Mhz.

100Mhz vs 133Mhz  which is directly implied by PC100 vs PC133 , the  
latency part is a whole other additional ball game, that I don't want  
to play on this system.

Thank for the interesting article link none the less.


Daniel J. Brieck Jr.



On May 1, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Philip J Robar wrote:

>
> On May 1, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Daniel Brieck Jr. wrote:
>
>> I decided to do some checking of my own and discovered to my  
>> surprise a PC-100 module. My computer is a Power Mac G4  
>> Quicksilver 867 Mhz and it can take full advantage of PC-133  
>> memory with a 133 MHZ system bus. Well, anyway I was wondering if  
>> anyone knew of how much of a real world performance penalty I am  
>> causing myself. To my understanding this computer slows all of the  
>> other ram to 100 Mhz if a PC-100 module is used.
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Philip J Robar wrote:
>
>> A regular question on the lists that I frequent is whether or not  
>> it is worth seeking out low latency memory. Here's yet another  
>> review that definitively says that for most of us the answer is no:
>>
>> "Although tighter memory timings and a 1T command rate can  
>> certainly improve the performance of the Athlon 64's memory  
>> subsystem, that improvement doesn't always translate to better  
>> application performance. In fact, with the exception of the Sphinx  
>> speech recognition engine, moving to tighter memory timings or a  
>> more aggressive command rate generally didn't improve performance  
>> by more than a few percentage points, if at all, in our tests.  
>> Lower latencies only improved WorldBench's overall score by a  
>> single point, and performance gains in games were generally  
>> limited to lower resolutions and detail levels.
>>
>> So how much does the modest performance improvement brought by  
>> tighter memory latencies cost? Close to twice as much."
>>
>> http://techreport.com/etc/2005q4/mem-latency/index.x?pg=1
>>
>> As they explain in the article lower latency memory is useful for  
>> over clocking.
>
>
> Phil
> --
> "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do  
> because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
> -- Susan B. Anthony