CAS2 / CAS3 does it really make a difference

[Sweeper]

On normal usage...gaming, surfing the net, does it really make a difference? Reason I am asking is I am running a stick of 256mb Pc133 Sdram Cas2. I have another stick of Pc133 Sdram 128mb Cas3 (won't run at Cas2). Would I be better off running both sticks at Cas3 or the one stick at Cas2? This is my home pc, and it's just used for gaming, Internet, nothing more.
System specs:
MSI K7T Pro 2a
20g WD 7200rpm ATA100
1.2GHz Athlon
Visiontek GF3
256mb Mosel Vitalic PC133 Cas2 SDRAM
Creative 52x CD-ROM
Sony 8x4x32x CD-RW
Realtek NIC

Thanks,
Sweeper

[Hellmund]

I think at most it can be about %5 in games. What OS have you got, going from 256-384 in Win98 wouldn't be worth it.

[NDC]

You won't see any difference with the naked eye. As for benchmark scores, yes, you will see a difference.

[Sweeper]

Win.98se

[Fingers]

What is the performance difference between CL2 and CL3?

CL2 parts process data a little quicker than CL3 parts in that you have to wait one less clock cycle for the initial data. However, after the first piece of data is processed, the rest of the data is processed at equal speeds. Latency only affects the initial burst of data. Once data starts flowing, there is no effect. Bear in mind, a clock cycle for a PC100 module is 10 nanoseconds so you probably won't notice a significant performance difference. Most systems will accept either latency part. However, there are some systems that require either CL2 or CL3 parts. These requirements are built into our Memory Selector™. - Crucial FAQ (http://support.crucial.com/scripts/crucial.exe/solution?11=000724-0010&130=000964475444&14=&2715=&15=&2716=&57=faq&58=&2900=&25=-1)

*note - 1 nanosecond = 1 billionth of a second.

[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 09-01-2001).]

[otheos]

It depends on the code. Anything that accesses RAM heavily will be A LOT faster. Commont tasks that you mention will not be benefited.

Also Sandra will not show the difference as it only measures the bandwidth not the latency.

For a real life example I'll tell you that a Seti packed used to take 10hours on my system, and the change to CL2 took it down to 8! that's 20%. But Seti is notorious for its RAM usage, not so much the bandwidth (ie PC100 or PC133 would not make a difference) as for the latency (due to accessing RAM constantly).

Photoshop like NDC has demonstrated is not benefited at all (bandwidth is the key here). Also MPEG encoding is not really benefited either. So in a few words, with current prices it's worth going for it, but not "upgrading" to CL2.

[samwichse]

When I was ripping/encoding MP3's, I ran a controlled test and it using 100mhz CAS 2 averaged about 4 seconds quicker than 100mhz CAS 3 with Lame encoder at 128k, jstereo, with quality improvements and psycho acoustics (sp?). The song was 11 minutes long though, so not much difference.