The listed timings for my new ram make my system crash:2-3-3-6. And what does each number stand for as listed above, just in case they are listed in a different order in my bios?

What are some good timings to attempt with the following ram?

2GB (2 x 1GB)
Speed DDR 400 (PC 3200)
Cas Latency 2
Timing 2-3-3-6
Voltage 2.75V

Also, on my second computer, what should I attempt here?

1GB (2 x 512MB)
Speed DDR 400 (PC 3200)
Cas Latency 2
Timing 2-3-3-6


So, far, after a few attempts and crashes, I have given up and used SPD settings, but I know I can do better than that. Both systems are running ABIT NF7-S motherboards. It is a pain when the siren goes off and I have to reset my bios.

i have the same ram, the XMS and 2-3-3-7 will prob be the best you can get, i think mine might even be 2-3-3-8 and ive got a decent OC on it.

i have the twinx2048-3200C2PT. i think thats the same as you.
my mobo by default had it at 3-3-3-8, 2 T command rate. i set mine to 2-3-3-6 with a 1T command rate at 2.80V and it works fine.

are you sure you have the voltage set high enough.

To answer your question about what the numbers stand for: in a 2-3-3-6 timing, the first number (2) stands for the CAS latency, and the smaller the number the better. The second number (3) is the RAS to CAS timing. The third number (3) shows the RAS precharge. The fourth number (6) shows the timing between active to precharge. Generally speaking the smaller these numbers are, the faster the ram works. There is also a 1T and 2T variable, and the 1T is preferred. I usually get 2-3-2-6 timing on my computer with Corsair XMS, but that's no gaurantee that you can do so with yours.

Part of your problem may be that you are using older motherboards with modern ram sticks and the old mobos may not recognize or be able to take advantage of the new ram. I don't know for sure. You need to list exactly what the configuration of your computers are for best help. Carefully check the manuals that came with you motherboards to find out what is allowed and what measures for overclocking are allowed. You may have a conflict between the ram and the motherboard, or the mobo may just not allow what you're trying to do. Therefore, it crashes.

I have been reading about 2,3,3,11 timings. I know the magic number of 11 is a two year old topic, but I never got that figured out back then.

Magic number is 11? I've never heard that. I always was told the lower number was better. At the same time, maybe I've missed something in my education.

I remember thinking that, too, about the number 11. Perhaps it was an ABIT thing back when the NF7-S v 2.0 was the 5hit, but it was all the talk two years ago. I am sure someone will comment on it that knows why.

Neither did I, but for SocketA, synthetic benchmark says so. [/shrugs]

Intel DDR1=8
AMD64 DDR1=7
SocketA DDR1=11

Have you got a link to show that 11 is better?

There were no actual article written on it. It's just a common knowledge overclockers back then inlcuding myself have been testing on nForce2 based rig and found tras=11 was the sweet spot.

Just search for "nForce2 2-2-2-11" on Google and you'll see what I mean.

Later on Anandtech tested EVERY S478 and S754/S939 motherboard they reviewed to find the tras sweet spot (shown above).

Just search for "nForce2 2-2-2-11" on Google and you'll see what I mean.

Ok, read the article and part of it makes sense, at least the references to how long a book page is open for reading before its turned. But that seemed to apply only to the nforce2 chipset, not to anything else. Even then it was only for a few tests, like Sandra, and not necessarily for real world applications. So it was a bit of education for me, but I'm not sure that it really helps, especially since we're long past using nForce2.

We ARE working with a nForce2 here in this thread.

Sorry to offend. I had just typed in a quote and then added my comment that had learned something in reading the article about both the timings and the nForce2. As to being past using nForce2, my thought was that what worked good concerning it would not necessarily apply to modern motherboards. Didn't mean to come down against anyone who is still using one of those boards.