"Downwards" scaling of CMX12GX3M3A2000C9

I'm considering getting the XMS3 12GB 3x4GB CMX12GX3M3A2000C9 kit for my main workstation setup, but before I take the plunge I'd like some more information besides the top rated speed and the matching voltage/latencies. Unfortunatly I cannot find any decent reviews of this kit online, let alone any with latency/speed/voltage scaling information

This platform has its RAM frequency sweet spot at 1600Mhz, so I'd like to know what kind of latencies can be expected from this set at that speed? I was hoping for 7-7-7-ish @ 1.65v, but 8-8-8-ish would be aceptable for such a high density kit. Perhaps somebody has a cpu-z spd screenshot of this kit? Especially the available XMP profiles would be very interesting to see.

/me dreams about low latencies at 1600Mhz with no silly and tall heatsink fins... Aaaa

FWIW my testing shows almost no system performance gains with change in latency from 11-11-11-30 2T to 8-8-8-24 1T with DDR3 RAM. If your software can show some significant advantage great but the lower latencies on DDR3 seem to only show possible benefit in benchmark results.

The CMX12GX3M3A2000C9 should provide excellent performance and stability @ 1600 MHz. as long as your CPU is happy running RAM @ 1600 MHz. This will be a significant OC as the i7-920 officially only supports 1066 MHz. The increased frequency (50%), will show more system performance gain than lower latency IME.

FWIW my testing shows almost no system performance gains with change in latency from 11-11-11-30 2T to 8-8-8-24 1T with DDR3 RAM. If your software can show some significant advantage great but the lower latencies on DDR3 seem to only show possible benefit in benchmark results.

 

The CMX12GX3M3A2000C9 should provide excellent performance and stability @ 1600 MHz. as long as your CPU is happy running RAM @ 1600 MHz. This will be a significant OC as the i7-920 officially only supports 1066 MHz. The increased frequency (50%), will show more system performance gain than lower latency IME.

Hey - I like my not very useful and absolutely non-realistic synthetic benchmarks thank you very much. Then again already at 1066Mhz 3 channels is more than bandwidth than a poor current generation quad core i7 is able to consume with most real world workloads.. So why bother with high bandwidth RAM at all right. ;):

1600Mhz is fine on my D0 i7-920, its been running at that speed 24/7 for a year or so now. Only problem is that my data sets no longer fit in 6GB (3x2GB), and running more than one stick per channel at 1600Mhz quickly gets kinda shakey. The workload is not very sensitive to latency however (other than when benchmarking of course), but going significantly up in latency just rubs my inner hardware geek the wrong way. Going from 7 to 9 would add a <irony>whopping</irony> 2.5ns of latency at "1600"Mhz :eek: Even though the added capacity alone would speed up the workload significantly even with that much added latency my inner geek simply would never accept it.

Speaking strictly in nanosecond latency 8-8-8 is a less tight timing at 1600 (10ns) than 9-9-9 is at 2000 (9ns), so it should probably work. In (over simplified) theory.. 7 could work, perhaps, but thats 8.75ns.. At 1540 possibly.. Hrms, a proper review would put those theories to the test ;)

Anyway, the price is good. The upgrade would be very much worthwhile even with cas 9 @ 1600. Not sure why I'm holding back really. :confused: