{"id":393,"date":"2006-09-18T05:47:14","date_gmt":"2006-09-18T09:47:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/2006\/09\/18\/ddr-vs-ddr2-latency-how-cycles-work-and-dual-channel-marketing\/"},"modified":"2013-11-12T13:48:34","modified_gmt":"2013-11-12T18:48:34","slug":"ddr-vs-ddr2-latency-how-cycles-work-and-dual-channel-marketing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/2006\/09\/18\/ddr-vs-ddr2-latency-how-cycles-work-and-dual-channel-marketing\/","title":{"rendered":"DDR vs DDR2 Latency, How Cycles Work, and Dual Channel Marketing"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve noticed one thing on the Internet, that stands out above almost all others: most people on the Internet have no clue what they are talking about. Case in point, a lot of ricers and gamerz like to say that DDR is lower latency than DDR2 because DDR2 takes more cycles to do things; except they forget one important thing: cycles are not a measurement of time, they are a measurement of iterations.<\/p>\n<p>That said, there is only one case where DDR actually manages to be lower latency than DDR2 (and this doesn&#8217;t mean it has higher performance, or effects benchmarks in any measurable way in favor of DDR), and that is with DDR400 memory vs. DDR2-400 memory: latency is theoretically lower, but you pay a penalty for giving up DDR2&#8217;s larger prefetch buffer and better power efficiency. Also, <em>no one actually uses DDR2-400 memory, only 667 and 800. <\/em>DD2-800 compared to DDR400, latency ends up being similar in impact, and the actual performance is at least twice as much as DDR400, probably even more.<\/p>\n<p>Another thing people say is that DDR2 is slower because it takes more cycles to do things. Yet another thought that hasn&#8217;t been fully thought out, and in a similar manner to the whole latency problem (infact, they are directly related; faster timings usually decrease latency across the same memory archetecture). As I said earlier, cycles do not measure time; however, cycles combined with cycles per unit of time measure time. DDR2 in most, if not all, situtations simply performs better.<\/p>\n<p>So, to anyone out there that says that DDR2 is a step backwards: You&#8217;re an idiot.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve noticed one thing on the Internet, that stands out above almost all others: most people on the Internet have no clue what they are talking about. Case in point, a lot of ricers and gamerz like to say that DDR is lower latency than DDR2 because DDR2 takes more cycles to do things; except [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[402],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=393"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2204,"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions\/2204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adterrasperaspera.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}