# Which is faster? ddr2 1066 or ddr3 1600?



## Q9650 (Mar 22, 2011)

As the title says...which is faster? ddr2 1066 or ddr3 1600 running in dual channel mode?


----------



## overclocking101 (Mar 22, 2011)

LOL ddr3


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 22, 2011)

Whats the latencies?


----------



## Q9650 (Mar 22, 2011)

my ddr3 1600 runs @ 7-6-6-20 1T


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 22, 2011)

DDR3 with that latency.


----------



## micropage7 (Mar 22, 2011)

actually DDR3, but DDR3 has bigger latency than DDR2


----------



## Mussels (Mar 22, 2011)

DDR3. 1600Mhz is also easier to achieve on most boards than 1066 was on DDR2, and it runs a hella lot cooler doing it.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 22, 2011)

Some hard numbers for you:

DDR3 1600
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Cellshock/PC3_15000U_CL8_2GB/3.html
Peak Everst Read: ~10500 MB/s

DDR2 1066
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Corsair/TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF/3.html
Peak Everst Read: ~9700 MB/s


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 22, 2011)

I lol @ this thread.

ddr3 is almost always going to be faster.


----------



## Q9650 (Mar 22, 2011)

Some hard numbers for you:

DDR3 1600
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Cellshock/PC3_15000U_CL8_2GB/3.html
Peak Everst Read: ~10500 MB/s

my Corsair XMS3 DHX CM3X4G1600C9DHX in dual channel and clocked at 1700mhz 7-6-6-20 1T can do 11200mb/s !! on my maximus extreme!


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 22, 2011)

freaksavior said:


> I lol @ this thread.
> 
> ddr3 is almost always going to be faster.



Not to mention the memory controller on the iX series now being on-chip instead of the North Bridge... lower latencies = more better 



Q9650 said:


> Some hard numbers for you:
> 
> DDR3 1600
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Cellshock/PC3_15000U_CL8_2GB/3.html
> ...



Sweet!


----------



## Q9650 (Mar 22, 2011)

thanks to my q9650 running on the maximus extreme 425x9 3825mhz i can reach 1700fsb 1:1 with my ram @ 1700mhz


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 22, 2011)

Q9650 said:


> thanks to my q9650 running on the maximus extreme 425x9 3825mhz i can reach 1700fsb 1:1 with my ram @ 1700mhz



I think my DDR2 is running at some weird divider near 1000...  haven't looked lately, LOL.  1:1 must be better but I've seen tests that indicate odd dividers don't really matter, I suspect that is dependent on the chipset.


----------



## Q9650 (Mar 22, 2011)

hey sasqui i see you have a maximus formula but ddr2...great mobo! and we share the x38 too ROG FTW!!!


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 22, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Not to mention the memory controller on the iX series now being on-chip instead of the North Bridge... lower latencies = more better
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet!



It's not often I see technology go backwards, that was my point.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 22, 2011)

Q9650 said:


> hey sasqui i see you have a maximus formula but ddr2...great mobo! and we share the x38 too ROG FTW!!!



 It's one of the best motherboards I've ever owned, though I've taken TWO of them out plus a graphics card with a bad PSU.    One still kind of works, but part of the PCI bus is fried.  The other won't post.

The third is still humming... they were all flashed with the Rampage bios.  Built like tanks.


----------



## Q9650 (Mar 22, 2011)

my maximus extreme is 3years 4months old and still runs like new! very tough mobo and built to last for years! I love asus ROG boards! Best gaming boards on the planet! when i had my q6600 the same day i got this mobo i OC it to 3.6ghz and it stayed like that for 2years ! now 6months ago i got a new q9650 oc to 3.8 and it is running very happy! it seems this board is hungry for my OC but i dont use watercooling only a corsair h70 which i am quiet happy with the core temps.....watercooling is expensive for me


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 22, 2011)

Q9650 said:


> my maximus extreme is 3years 4months old and still runs like new! very tough mobo and built to last for years! I love asus ROG boards! Best gaming boards on the planet! when i had my q6600 the same day i got this mobo i OC it to 3.6ghz and it stayed like that for 2years ! now 6months ago i got a new q9650 oc to 3.8 and it is running very happy! it seems this board is hungry for my OC but i dont use watercooling only a corsair h70 which i am quiet happy with the core temps.....watercooling is expensive for me



Yea, H2O is definietly for the hobby... best bang for the buck is a good air cooler.  With a decent water setup, I'd venture to guess you may only be able to get another 0.3 Ghz over air... on average, and pay dearly.  Purely anectodal evidence.

Wow, I'm getting way OT here


----------



## Zubasa (Mar 23, 2011)

micropage7 said:


> actually DDR3, but DDR3 has bigger latency than DDR2


Actually that is not how actual latency works.
DDR3 has higher timing numbers than DDR2 but can have lower latency than DDR2.
DDR3 1600 @CL9 is still slightly faster than DDR2 1066@CL6.


----------



## Spectrum (Mar 23, 2011)

ddr3...


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 31, 2011)

As sheakspire said:
ddr2 or ddr3?
3!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mussels (Mar 31, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> As sheakspire said:
> ddr2 or ddr3?
> 3!!!!!!!!



sometimes, i do not understand you.


----------



## Bundy (Mar 31, 2011)

On a 775 board like you have, the DDR2 1066 cas 5 will have lower latency than the DDR3 1600 cas 7 you quote because there is no advantage gained from use on a memory controller on the CPU. That being said, the higher frequency of the DDR3 will provide greater bandwidth. In practice, it's hard to say what would seem faster.


----------



## TIGR (Mar 31, 2011)

Zubasa said:


> Actually that is not how actual latency works.
> DDR3 has higher timing numbers than DDR2 but can have lower latency than DDR2.
> DDR3 1600 @CL9 is still slightly faster than DDR2 1066@CL6.



That's correct. SDRAM latency is not a temporal measurement; it's measured in I/O bus clock cycles, and the number of those cycles per second depends on the module's data rate (e.g. the "1600" in DDR3 1600", which by the way should _not_ be called "1600MHz"). So even though the numerical latency of DDR3 is typically higher, its _actual_ latency as measured in nanoseconds can be lower. For example, F3-16000CL6D-4GBPIS (DDR3 2000, CAS 6) have a temporal CAS latency of 6ns, whereas KVR800D2K2 (DDR2 800, CAS 6) have a temporal CAS latency of 15ns. They have the same CAS latency number, but the DDR2's latency is actually 2.5x higher due to its lower clock rate.


----------



## Bundy (Mar 31, 2011)

I got my calculations arsed up - the DDR3 is slightly less latency, not slightly more. So it definitely would be quicker.


----------



## overclocking101 (Mar 31, 2011)

ddr3 1600mhz CL8-8-8-24 is a tad faster then then ddr2 CL5-5-5-15 but runs at lower voltage and cooler. really the only ddr3 that looses to ddr2 is ddr3 1066mhz and nowadays it is near impossible to find.


----------



## TIGR (Mar 31, 2011)

Bundy said:


> I got my calculations arsed up - the DDR3 is slightly less latency, not slightly more. So it definitely would be quicker.



Yep DDR2 1066 @ CAS 5 would have higher latency (9.4ns) than DDR3 1600 @ CAS 7 (8.8ns). But, Q9650, would that alone make a significant real-world difference? Nope. The DDR3's extra bandwidth would help it further but again, the difference would not be noticed by most people outside of benchmarks.


----------

