Why would lower latencys = worse performace?!

[nave43]

Recently while cleaning up my 2009 build, after re-flashing the bios i noticed my memory timings were default and way off. (11-11-11-28 @1333 Auto Voltage) so i changed it to stock settings (9-9-9-24 @1600 1.5V in T1) the benchmark showed an obvious performance increase.

I can push the ram to (9-8-8-23 @1600 1.5V in T1) and the system will boot but my benchmark shows a DECREASE in performance... I don’t understand why... Hopefully someone can shed some light on the situation.

 

[Tradesman1]

What CPU? if a 955 or early 965 it is probably laboring to push those sticks at 1600, the 965 3C CPU that was the first that could reliably run 1600 at 9

 

[nave43]

AMD Phenom II X4 955


So my CPU simply cant keep up with timings under 9ns @1600? That would explain alot
Though at (9-9-9-24 @1600 1.5V in T1) i have no problems

In that case would i be better off to down-clock to 1333 and run 7-7-7-21 (In theory it would be faster i think)

 

[Tradesman1]

Might try 1333 9-9-9-24, with a 955 might see better performance than either of the 1600 setups

 

[nave43]

Back with interesting results... I did 3 tests of each setup and screen capped #3 not the best of 3.

According to this it seems 1333 7-7-7-21 1.5V T1 is the best, but with inconsistent readings it makes it hard to tell.

May need to try again with averages or make a new thread in overclocking forum?

 

[Tradesman1]

Try 1333 8-8-8-24 and might want to try Si-Sandra to test the read-write-copy - MaxxMem tends to jump all over the place

 

[nave43]

Any other software suggestions that are XP Pro SP3 or Ubuntu compatible? I will happily rerun the experiment.