It "doesn't matter" because a CAS value is presented in absolute clock cycles and is the number of cycles between sending command to a column address and the start of the return of said command execution. Once the row is open and your asking for a long string of data it doesn't matter much. tRCD & tRP may be more impactful but the only value that is absolute (always the same cycles) is the CAS value. Everything is is minimal clock cycles if I am reading the white paper correctly. You can type in 10 tRCD, doesn't mean it will execute it that fast.

@@theodanielwollff if you punch in tRCD 10 the RAM/IMC will try to do it in 10 cycles and crash.

@@ActuallyHardcoreOverclocking Maybe bad example, but you get the point right?

@@theodanielwollff no I don't there's a few timings the IMC will just ignore if you punch in impossibly low values but anything the IMC/RAM is able to try run will cause a crash if it's too low.

​@@ActuallyHardcoreOverclocking Hmmm.. Yes I agree. I guess I'll rephrase my statement a bit. Since CAS is the only absolute value. Any other primary value "can" miss its cycle. Say a tRCD is 40, it could excluate at 60 (on its own). I agree that if its too low, it simply will not run/boot. But whatever the "base" value is, that is the lowest cycle count allowed / set, but not guaranteed per x cycles unlike CAS.

Yeah, genuine lol out of me too.

I mean, is there a better reaction?

The silence and anticipation where he was imagining what he could do... Then he just says he'll make another video. Lmao this ia gold.

Kids are acting up. . . "Don't make me come back there and make a video!"

'The pen is mightier than thy sword'

With an error bar of +/- 11% he is correct, where as "16 and 12 are basically the same number" has an error bar of +/- 33%

@@andersjjensen 11 and 33 are basically the same number

Anyway, buildzoid, I know you actually read your comments, and if you read this I just wanted to say I love your videos and I'm not making fun. I 100% understood what you meant by this, but it's a funny observation when taken out of context

@@werewolfmoney6602 Well absolutely. Given the right error bars everything but false boolean expressions can be true :P

Buildzoid right and wrong. There is mathmatical eqautions for proof for ram timings and mhz.

2 are a treat, the 3rd one was a threat 😂

Yeah tuning timings to get more performance is cool and all but not actually knowing what any of the said timings do in terms of real-world performance is an entirely different matter.

He tried doing that for DDR4. It's a mess. There are many "if this happens, then this happens but only if this happens to be X, otherwise that happens..." and it gets too deep in complexity real fast.

yup....lolz

there's also an order of magnitude more tertiary timings to tweak, so there's that. Honestly an hour on primaries is like, 3x more than necessary.

Shame on you people if you don't have the dignity and/or the wisdom to maturely acknowledge this: You are either so misguided as to think that you'll be getting practically perceivable performance gains through all these memory overclocking efforts, or you are just lunatics who actually value the 1% better performance you'll perhaps be able to achieve after hours of work; either way, you have way too much free time on your hands

@@AndyU96 Or maybe, this is a hobby, and we enjoy the tinkering and tweaking, and you shouldn't judge what other people choose to do with their free time.

@@AndyU96 we are the equivalent of car guys, we want peak performance from the hardware we have. I mean if you memory has some free performance on the table why not run with it?

@@AndyU96 Why are you here?

He was still talking during my reboot 🤯

That's a tall order

He did a nice live-stream on that topic (or multiple?) and by watching some of his videos you will learn more than in a condensed tutorial I guess...especially since buildzoid likes to to get lost in details (which I really enjoy sometimes and it's already a meme 😄). I don't think tutorials are his strong suit but that's what makes it more interesting imo...just watch more stuff :)

RAM OC, to me, is tedious. It's very repetitive and timeconsuming. So you want to cut down on the time it takes to test. Pick a program or two from here: github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/oc-guide/DDR4%20OC%20Guide.md#memory-testing-software Try out a couple, see which one you like. Because you are going to run the program(s) thousands of times and you want to know what timings and speed gives errors, as fast as possible. So not within an hour, more like within a minute or 5. I picked Testmem5. Why? Because, once I have selected the config-file to run, to start the program it is only a doubleclick. I do not want to insert RAM amount, or start 12 instances of the program, like HCI Memtest requires (unless you pay). And because Testmem5 kicked out errors faster for me and on top of that, each test is different. So if test 10 kicks out errors, I can open the config file and make sure it runs test 10 first, instead of after like 20 minutes of other tests. So I just saved 20 minutes times a dozen, over and over again. Because timings will react differently to different tests. Next timing might kick out errors on test 16. Then I would run test 16 first, maybe even a couple times in a row. Or in-between the other tests. But where do you start? I think I got this from BZ. I have bad memory. Set primaries to very loose, add 10 or 15 to each of them, rest on Auto. Add 200 Mhz to RAM speed, see if it boots. Keep doing that til it no longer boots. Drop clocks by 66-100 Mhz til it boots again. That would be the max speed. If you drop by another 100 Mhz, it might be more stable, with lower timings or something. Bleeding edge can be sensitive. Then tighten 1 timing at a time. Maybe start with dropping a timing by 2 to begin with, see if boots. And eventually move to dropping a timing by 1. When it no longer boots, it's too tight, loosen it by 1. Save to profiles constantly, you will have to load em numerous times when PC fails to boot and you have to reset CMOS/BIOS. Do a quick stability test with the RAM stability program you chose. What does quick mean? Until you are satisfied that you never have to touch that timing again, in my case. That can be 20-30 minutes in TM5, it could be 1 whole cycle. For me it will also depend on the RAM capacity. I once worked on 48 gigs of RAM. I wasn't testing anything for 1 cycle, that would have taken way too long. 3 times longer than testing 16 gigs. At the end I ran 3 cycles to make sure it was stable but during dialing it in, absolutely not. I have worked on my RAM kits for years, I know what timings they can do at this stage so I don't start at zero, at any speed. That saves a lot of time. Knowledge saves a lot of time. When it comes to voltages, I wont recommend any numbers. I don't have DDR5. Never owned an Intel-platform. Check overclocking subreddit www.reddit.com/r/overclocking, search the web, ask around. At a certain point it will have to be a judgment call by you. Is the performance gained worth possibly destroying hardware over? How high voltages are you willing to go for? What voltages will the IMC, RAM, SA etc tolerate and for how long? DDR5 hasn't been out long so I assume it is very hard to answer. Will DDR5 last when running daily for a year or 5 years? It hasn't been out long enough. What do we know about the longterm, daily settings of voltages? What about the PMIC? Things I would look into. If I am wrong about something, I would gladly be corrected.

do things you think is good >confirm you get more performance >post results and ask others for their opinion ♻️

yeah, no wonder DDR5 is so much faster than DDR4

The latencies are provided unitless, in the number of clock cycles. You need to divide then with the clock speed (or in other words, multiply with the clock interval) to get the speed in absolute time terms. A 3200 CL16 (1600 Mhz clock speed) CAS latency is (16 / 1600000000) seconds = 10 ns. A 6000 CL36 (3000 MHz clock speed) is (36 / 3000000000) seconds = 12 ns. As you can see, the actual time is not double.

I only play fps games so I need a low latency witch ddr5 will be the best for my build please ?

That's a 50% increase bro...

​​@@TheHighbornDecrease. We're talking about latency.

@@nexxusty ? 2x1.5 is 3. CL3 ram has 50% more latency than cl2 no? He mentions as speed increases, the bigger number means less but still.

was this supposed to make zero sense? This is gibberish.

It comes down to models and manufacturer rankings + a bit of research really. I don't think you actually need to pay attention to those factors as much as who is actually making the RAM and how nice mfr thinks it is

If youre on AMD, I don't think sub timings matter if left on XMP. AGESA auto adjust crap based on internal code per sticks.. at least on ASUS/MSI boards. For example. Micron B single rank auto adjust to 550Nns TRFC on MSI boards even tho the XMP profile has 350NS writen to it.. Latency tanks hard, but AGESA code is modifying based on density.. lol There are XMP kits that are absolutely horrible for INTEL though.. Kingston Renegages with DJR @ 3600 have insanely high TRC.. fine for AMD, (auto adjust anyway), but horrible on intel. Memory vendors are just completely lost regardless IMO.

Two questions: 1. Why can't RAM be automatically tuned, via some software algorithm? 2. How much does that difference vs XMP + auto timings that you mention affect game performance (when the target is Vsync-locked 60 fps)?

@@bricaaron3978 1. Think of tuning RAM like tuning a car's ECU for maximum engine efficiency, performance and safety. Sure, software can do that to a point or at least try and sometimes fail miserably(while most likely corrupting the OS its running from(the biggest risk when tuning RAM)) ... but nothing can replace human intellect when you are pushing the edge of the tune. 2. As far as raw FPS increase(w/o caps), its not insane or anything, but the lows I believe are what see the biggest gains, at least seems that way ... ultimately diff with every game and also depends on how good or bad Auto vs XMP results are on your mobo and RAM.

@@RandoTark Regarding FPS, the 1% low is, as you know, what is important when trying to maintain a Vsync-locked framerate. So if that's where the biggest improvement is, it sounds like tuning RAM could be worth it. Do you have any recommendation for a tutorial on learning how to manually tune RAM?

Your GPU VRam latency is more important than the entire System's main RAM. Go ahead and try DDR4 3600 Mts CL18 vs CL12 makes visually no difference at all in video games. The only noticeable difference is your GPU's VRam timing latency.

@@ClayWheeler Back in the DDR2 days i got couple FPS more when i tightened latencies actually. But as noted RAM has got more faster in basic level its not so much matter on these days sure if you go so small steps as steps were much huger back then in %. There was two ways.. tighten latency or go higher mhz.. in the end i went higher mhz just... 667MHz --> 914Mhz.

@@ClayWheeler personally cl16 3600mhz ram feels much more smoother than cl 18 3600mhz

CAS latency will tell you the quality of the dies. A low CAS at a certain speed means that it was a better binned chip. That means more overclocking and tuning headroom. So you can still look at it when you buy it for overclocking, but it won't really tell you the performance level, since XMP profiles will still be made by the vendors and they can be really bad. So in the end, the buying patterns remains the same.

It's not irrelevant. Go look at a test. But the memory quality has other factors that can change between two products.

this ^

the fun thing for DDR4 SB-die is, sub timings are relativly uniform for 24/7 settings. 3200 or 4266Mhz... doesnt really matter.

@@mauriceelet6376 is 11th gen Intel bad at ddr4 overclocking? To me 9th gen I was getting 31ms in aid64 and with a 11900k I get 45ms. I have Samsung b-die dual rank 32GB 3600mhz but I can’t overclocking it on 11th gen.

@@Typhon888 yea. the 11gen has the same crap rizen got: gear mode. 10th gen is the last without where you get the full "gear 1" up to 5000Mhz. I think 11 Gen can do 3800-4000Mhz with gear 1. everything over that is meaningless. thats why you can hit +5000 on there so easy. gear 2 no problem. but you will still suffer at gear 1 as its not the same as the earlier gens have.

Damn me too!!!!

Let’s comment and upvote so they get their wish!

actually-hardcore-overclocking.creator-spring.com/listing/ram-oc-desktop-V2?product=953

@@ActuallyHardcoreOverclocking Thank you!

You generally notice it more in the 1% lows, which is not exactly an issue at those kinds of FPS.

3600Mhz and fast timings seem to be more stable in the lows on my am5 system.

@@Syphirioth Off course, that`s why it`s made. Just saying that it doesn`t matter doesn`t make it so. This vid is crap.

i was thinking the same thing. i currently have 32gb of DDR3 with 11-11-11-8 timings somehow. When i play unreal tournament at a very low resolution, the response time is spectacular, leading to some nasty headshots that make people wonder if im cheating. Now im going to build a 13700ksystem with 32gb DDR5 6400mt but with 32 latency and im really wondering of i'll ever have that response time again. it really is a head scratcher for me, i'll just have to test and see

@@afti03 please let me know , when will your build be done ?

@@afti03hey man did you ever go to am5 ? Did it effect input lag for your unreal ?

Hello! I've recently upgraded my computer with an Intel Core i7-13700K and 32GB of DDR5 memory from Corsair, running at a speed of 6400MT/s. The motherboard I'm using is a Gigabyte Aorus Z690 Elite AX. With Unreal Engine installed on my new Crucial T500 SSD, I've noticed a significant improvement in gaming performance. The higher CAS Latency of CL32 does not seem to be an issue, as the newer generation of hardware compensates for this and performs better overall. Upgrading to newer hardware has reduced render latency in games, which enhances the responsiveness and overall experience. For the lowest render latency, I play on low settings with all unnecessary features turned off. I've also switched to using a mouse with a 1000Hz polling rate, a substantial improvement over the standard 125Hz mouse, which feels laggy by comparison. Additionally, to optimize mouse input, I assign the USB Hub host processing to one of the better CPU cores via an affinity mask. Take it from someone who's dived deep into the world of input lag and render latency optimizations-there's a whole world of upgrades that could make you dizzy with potential and sometimes lead to a 'smashing' time with Windows, if you catch my drift! 😆@@TheOneGhost12

@@afti03 hey thank you for the update , I’m not sure if intel boards are like amd and have a usb directly to cpu and not the controller , also why not 8k polling ? Two insane improvements for input lag is disabling hdcp and using bandwidth that will not enable DSc and will be native so hdmi 2.1 depending on resolution and refresh rates

It's about time to throw it in the bin bro. I changed from my 3770k to a 9900k in 2019 and the jump was amazing. Now we have 2022... soon to be 2023. Get a new computer.

@@TehShiaT11einself throw your hot garbage in the bin, "bro". I don't need a stronger cpu. The 5700xt at 1440p isn't limited by it

What a complete LOL comment.

Latency is better, but it depends from game to game. However games doing better with lower latency is much more likely then a game doing better on bandwith.

@@TehShiaT11einself Thanks..

28 is faster, so there is your logic...you OK?

@@bryanbowling1857 You’re missing the point of what I’m saying and the video and the point is, in the real, it doesn’t matter too much.

If you've been arguing tightening CAS does nothing then you've been arguing incorrectly for a LONG time.

This won't increase your gaming performance, just your cpu. Gaming is usually limited by your gpu. Even then you're not going to increase your frame rate by more than like one or two FPS which really doesn't matter.