Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

CPU frequency is always much higher than RAM frequency (which is the cause of the memory latency problem). So does it mean that, for a given CPU frequency, any RAM frequency can work, and there is no lower bound on RAM frequency?

share|improve this question

closed as too broad by Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams, Michael Hampton, Moses, Kevin Panko, Heptite Dec 27 '13 at 3:27

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

That is why there is processor cache to compensate for the speed difference. – sawdust Dec 26 '13 at 7:46
up vote 4 down vote accepted

No. There are a number of factors that impose a lower bound on RAM frequency. For example, however many frequency divider options are available, one of them is the lowest divider, and there is no way to generate a frequency lower than that.

Also, when people talk about matching the CPU frequency to the RAM frequency, they don't mean the CPU's internal core frequency, they mean its bus frequency. On some older CPUs, performance was a bit better if the divider for the CPU's front side bus to the memory clock was 1:1 rather than something like 3:2.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. BY "divider", do you mean ratio? – T... Dec 27 '13 at 2:45
Essentially, yes. – David Schwartz Dec 27 '13 at 3:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .