Is this netbook ram special?

Link Is this any better than the 2GB OCZ DDR2-800 ram I have in my EEE 901?

 

The biggest performance increase you will see using that will be that your benchmarks for "useless ramsinks" will increase tenfold.
Lower latency will increase benchmark performances a little, but in day to day use, you won't notice a difference.
In short, no. It's a marketing thing.

 

you won't notice the latency difference.

 

OK, thanks.

 

No it's not, it'd DDR2.
http://shop.kingston.com/PartsInfo.asp?ktcpartno=KHX4200S2LL/2G
Straight from Kingston.

EDIT:
Sneakiness. You edited your post.

 

That RAM is nothing special. 533 3-3-3-8 = 667 4-4-4-12 = 800 5-5-5-15 in baseline performance.

 

I have no idea what that means.

 

S/he means: The slower the RAM runs, the better it's specifications are. That RAM is nothing special or different than any other run-of-the-mill stuff.

 

I think Jayayess is confused about what those timings actually mean.
Those are the CAS to RAS latencies.
Here's the wikipedia article on CAS latencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

Here's an explanation of the process in still technical, but more laymen terms.
http://www.motherboards.org/articles/tech-planations/1484_2.html


Also, @StratCat:

That is NOT true. The lower the clock you run memory, the lower its latency and therefore, less wasted clocks. That does not mean clocking down your memory to get a better latency will increase its performance; instead, performance will primarily even itself out. Memory performance increases as 1) speed increases and 2) latency decreases. It's kind of like how PC3-10600 was performing very similarly to PC2-6400, since when PC3-10600 first came out, the CAS latency was usually 9, which most PC2-6400 has a CAS of 5. (Now it's usually more like 6 and 4 respectively).

 

I used the generic term "specifications" rather than the more specific "timings" because, as you stated, I didn't want to (possibly) confuse Jayayess with technical jargon.

But yes, your explanation is accurate. It comes down, firstly, to adequate b/w, followed by lowest latencies. Agreed.

 

My bad, misunderstood your post's intent.

 

Oh, NP at all.

I could have been a bit clearer, too.

 

DDR2-800 RAM timings are not standard like that. For example, this is what CPU-Z shows for my OCZ 2x2GB DDR2-800 dual channel kit:





--

 

Your pic shows about the same as he stated. 266Mhz = 533Mhz @ cl3, 333Mhz = 667Mhz @ cl4, 400Mhz = 800Mhz @ cl5.. The other latency paramters are nothing to even argue about, because the first one is the one that makes the most difference (even though that difference isn't noticeable from the beginning) so why even confuse this thread anymore

All those ram-specs will yield about the same equal performance.

 

Yeah ramgen, all that picture proves is your memory timings are worse than what's generally considered standard.