Anybody have idea about the meaning of CL9 9-9-9-24 for RAM

[capa06]

I know it is kind of related to latency but is the number the smaller the better?? I can not get bothered going through the whole article in Wiki.

[kalniel]

The wiki article is an easy read actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

And as it says there, in general the lower the better. See the link for more details.

Reviews like this one from XBitLabs test the difference:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mem...idge-ddr3.html

[jackvdbuk]

personally, id not bother unless the RAM looks nice spending any more than a few quid extra. for me it doesnt make a blind bit of difference.

[cmndr_andi]

Yes, smaller number is better. But as jackvdbuk points out, the real-world benefit for going with lower latency ram can be pretty small and highly dependant on applications.

For example, Anandtech recently did a test on a range of RAM kits on the new Intel Haswell platform - using RAM modules with a range of latencies and frequencies http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/m...g-on-haswell/3 ). As you can see there is some significant benefits from low latency ram in certain applications (the same can be said for high frequency modules), however for each of these features you tend to pay a high price. Also when you significantly increase one, the other usually suffers (eg. very low latency ram tends to be lower frequency and vice versa).

Therefore, unless you are mainly using one type of application that consistently and significantly benefits from low latency RAM then I would just get a kit that is middle-of-the-road and well priced. For example CL9 1600/1866Mhz kits tend to be well priced and offer good performance all round.

[Bonebreaker777]

Crucial is the only one around who supplies CL8 1600Mhz memory modules at 1.35V for affordable price.

But true, the benefits of lower timings will be virtually none-existent, the results indistinguishable from CL9 1600Mhz memory modules. Playing with timings can be only beneficial (and even then the gain is microscopical) if you can't increase your memory frequency, but you still would like to gain some extra speed (basically if you have any other chipset but the Zxx from Intel).

[robredz]

@cmndr_andi

I would agree with this, just get what appears the best vaule/performance balance.

[Turkle]

Yes, lower timings are better but you will be hard pressed to notice anything in real world terms. It used to matter quite a bit when overclocking, but not so much any more with the use of cpu integrated memory controllers. Probably other important reasons too but I am too tired to think right now! =)

[speaker5]

All I look for is lowest CL number and the speed.

[robredz]

Yes, lower timings are better but you will be hard pressed to notice anything in real world terms. It used to matter quite a bit when overclocking, but not so much any more with the use of cpu integrated memory controllers. Probably other important reasons too but I am too tired to think right now! =)

Sometimes with overclocking it was better to lower the speed to say 1600, from 1866, and tighten the timings, but in the main running at stock is better for reliability and stability

[Dog]

The lower number always seems more appealing but it probably makes a fraction of a difference if you are choosing between different memory with similar timings. I look for low timings but mainly a descent manufacturer, corsair is my favourite.

[aik6980]

the number shows the latency between RAM and CPU, measuring in clock cycles
so yeah, the lower is better in general

[djsarcher]

Anandtech recently did a test on a range of RAM kits on the new Intel Haswell platform - using RAM modules with a range of latencies and frequencies http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/m...g-on-haswell/3 ).

Great article, thanks for sharing the link.