Im just curious, has anyone ever pushed their DDR2 RAM to 1333?

Also is it better to have, say, 1200 and latencies of 5-5-5-15 or 1600 and 6-6-6-18?

I know that was short but i have nothing else to really say.

It is reported that there are some applications where lower RAM timings would be more beneficial, but seriously, like what Zenosincks said, running your RAM at 1600mhz and higher timings would be much better.

Btw, I won't be able to tell you in what situations that would be better. I just read it somewhere, and there's that. Don't quote me on that.

About pusing the RAM to that speeds, I think I might have surpassed it. I haven't quite got to 1600mhz, but I think I've got 1540 or thereabouts (slightly lower if I recall).

However, I throttled it back somewhat, I can't remember why. Probably because it wasn't 100% stable.

thats what i used to think until i kept reading people complaining about latencies and preffering DDR 2 over DDR 3 because of it. But that helped

WOA!! is this DDR2? were did you buy?

I'm using a pair of OCZ RAM, which was known to overclock quite well... I can't really remember which ones by now. Besides, its old, and you probably can find better sticks of RAM out there now.

Also, latencies are measured in the number of clocks. DDR3 may have better latencies than DDR2, even though they have bigger numbers. A latency of 7 on DDR3 is still faster than a latency of 4 on DDR2 at half the DDR3's speed. On this alone, I believe most people who complain about latencies don't know what they're complaining about.

yeah thats me, i just brushed through a wikipedia article.

So the actual latencies compared to the said latencies are dependant on the clock speed of RAM?
Does OC ram actually LOWER latencies?!!?

Latencies are measure in the number of cycles it takes for the RAM to respond to an instruction.

So that means, if it takes a DDR3 RAM 7 cycles to respond to an instruction, that RAM has a latency of 7.

A DDR2 RAM with a latency of 4 takes 4 cycles to respond to an instruction.

Now, the tricky part is this: how long is a cycle?

A DDR3 RAM running at 1600mhz has a cycle time of 1/1,600,000 sec, which is 0.000000625 seconds. (notice, 6 zeroes)

A DDR2 RAM running at 800mhz has a cycle time of 1/800,000 sec, which is 0.00000125 seconds (notice, 5 zeroes) (which is twice as long).

A simple calculation would show that:
a) for the DDR3 RAM with latency of 7 about 0.000004375 seconds to respond to an instruction; and
b) for the DDR2 RAM with a latency of 4 about 0.000005 seconds to respend to an instruction.

So as you can see, we're dealing with incredibly small numbers here, which is why latencies aren't measured in seconds. However, this does cause problems when less educated people start comparing latencies between different speed RAMs....

I don't claim to be very educated about this, and I'm sure that this is a huge simplification of the whole thing.

Nice explanation CMH, you've made it pretty clear IMO.
@hellokitty[hk], you might be able to push the RAM to 1600MHz by increasing the Vdimm in the BIOS. Only increase the voltage when you see the PC getting unstable with the current RAM frequency, and do it in the smallest increments possible, since too much voltage will fry your RAM.

Usually, good-quality sticks from Micron and Hynix OC pretty decently. My buddy has a 2GB Crucial Ballistix 1066MHz kit that he OC'd to 1200MHz with Vdimm at 2.2V, which is the maximum rating for that kit.

Lastly, while it depends on the RAM itself as well, a good OC also depends to a large extent on the motherboard. Some motherboards may overvolt the RAM too much, causing it to fry. Others may not allow you to OC past a set limit, which limits the RAM's potential. Just research about the motherboard you want if you're looking to OC.

oh...heh heh

im not planning on OC DDR2 ram much... just curiouse lol