RAM in Mhz and Cpu in GHZ

[RockSolid1106]

I don't understand. Why are RAM speeds advertised in MHz while CPU clocks advertised in GHz? I know 1000MHz is equal to 1GHz. And RAM speeds are already enough to be measured in GHz.

 

Spoiler

EDIT: I came back to this thread and realized the answer I'd previously marked wasn't actually answering the question. So Oshino, if you're wondering why your answer is marked as solution, this is why.

 

[mahyar]

for easier reading

[Tan3l6]

1000Mhz is 1Ghz

[CommanderAlex]

MHZ and GHZ is the definition of frequency something occurs in 1 second...so RAM only goes up to MHZ right now and CPUs run at GHZ, which is a lot faster. 

[CADGuy23]

I'm just taking a guess here but it would be a bit long winded to say certain speeds like 1866 mhz as 1.866 Ghz or 3866 as 3.866 ect. 

[Deslumo]

Because 3600Mhz sounds better than 3.6 Ghz. I really don't know why one is Mhz and Ghz, but it's probably for marketing. Once DDR5 comes out though, maybe we'll switch to Ghz because it's clocked way faster than DDR4. 

[PlayStation 2]

More than likely, at this point, for readability purposes. Especially when it comes to some more unusual speeds, like 2666MHz, that's a bit more pleasing to read than "2.66GHz".

[Tan3l6]

OK. actually, RAM has 2133; 2666 etc. Mhz , that probably why the RAM  needs a bit more precise numbering.

[jaslion]

Quote

I don't understand. Why are RAMs advertised in Mhz while CPUs advertised in Ghz? I know Mhz can be converted to Ghz by dividing it by 1000. Can someone explain me this thing?

Pretty much as simple as ram runs at odd speeds. 2666mhz is kinda hard to put as 2.666ghz :p. Cpu's are rounded out so it's a lot cleaner to use ghz there.

[svmlegacy]

Quote

I don't understand. Why are RAMs advertised in Mhz while CPUs advertised in Ghz? I know Mhz can be converted to Ghz by dividing it by 1000. Can someone explain me this thing?

It was a big deal when CPU's 1 GHz, and everyone started comparing them at the "GHz" level. Never happened with memory, so we just kept using MHz.

[Deslumo]

Also, remember that 3600 is actually 1800 because it's DDR memory, so just think about what would happen with more absurd numbers. 

[Deslumo]

Just now, svmlegacy said:

It was a big deal when CPU's 1 GHz, and everyone started comparing them at the "GHz" level. Never happened with memory, so we just kept using MHz.

Poor memory. Pat, pat. 

[Jurrunio]

CPUs typically end with clean numbers after 100MHz BCLK became the norm, but memory still run on 66MHz increments usually.

[Oshino Shinobu]

CPUs used to be measured in MHz, but they've generally been consistently in the over 1 GHz range for long enough now where it's easier to quote the frequency in GHz. 

 

RAM's only fairly recently reached the point of the majority of modules available being clocked at over 1GHz. Due to how DDR works, RAM's clock speed is actually half of what you see advertised, which is the "effective" speed and isn't actually quoted in Hz. RAM's effective "speed" is in MT/s which Mega Transfers per second. 

 

When you take this into account, any RAM below 2000MT/s effective speed wasn't actually running at 1GHz, which holds true for quite a lot of DDR3 RAM. It's only with DDR4 that we've reached a point where even base speeds (2133MT/s) are actually running over 1GHz. 

[svmlegacy]

6 minutes ago, CADGuy23 said:

I'm just taking a guess here but it would be a bit long winded to say certain speeds like 1866 mhz as 1.866 Ghz or 3866 as 3.866 ect. 

 

5 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

More than likely, at this point, for readability purposes. Especially when it comes to some more unusual speeds, like 2666MHz, that's a bit more pleasing to read than "2.66GHz".

 

5 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

OK. actually, RAM has 2133; 2666 etc. Mhz , that probably why the RAM  needs a bit more precise numbering.

 

5 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Pretty much as simple as ram runs at odd speeds. 2666mhz is kinda hard to put as 2.666ghz :p. Cpu's are rounded out so it's a lot cleaner to use ghz there.

 

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

CPUs typically end with clean numbers after 100MHz BCLK became the norm, but memory still run on 66MHz increments usually.

All these posts are conviently ignoring that CPU's used to have odd numbers in them, but were still called by GHz.

 

Case in point: Core i7 870: 2.93 GHz https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/41315/intel-core-i7-870-processor-8m-cache-2-93-ghz.html

This goes all the way back to the Pentium 4: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27443/intel-pentium-4-processor-2-66-ghz-1m-cache-533-mhz-fsb.html

[Tan3l6]

1 minute ago, svmlegacy said:

 

 

 

 

All these posts are conviently ignoring that CPU's used to have odd numbers in them, but were still called by GHz.

 

Case in point: Core i7 870: 2.93 GHz https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/41315/intel-core-i7-870-processor-8m-cache-2-93-ghz.html

This goes all the way back to the Pentium 4: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27443/intel-pentium-4-processor-2-66-ghz-1m-cache-533-mhz-fsb.html

2,933333333333333333333333333333333333...3 to be precise?

[jaslion]

Just now, svmlegacy said:

 

 

 

 

All these posts are conviently ignoring that CPU's used to have odd numbers in them, but were still called by GHz.

 

Case in point: Core i7 870: 2.93 GHz https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/41315/intel-core-i7-870-processor-8m-cache-2-93-ghz.html

This goes all the way back to the Pentium 4: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27443/intel-pentium-4-processor-2-66-ghz-1m-cache-533-mhz-fsb.html

I was aware of that hence the 2.666mhz ram as those cpu's all did cap out at 2 past the decimal. That and it ghz became a huge thing with the first cpu's back in the day that were running past 1ghz.

 

Also hi there my first personal computer cpu :p. Nice and toasty little p4.

[svmlegacy]

Just now, jaslion said:

I was aware of that hence the 2.666mhz ram as those cpu's all did cap out at 2 past the decimal. That and it ghz became a huge thing with the first cpu's back in the day that were running past 1ghz.

 

Also hi there my first personal computer cpu :p. Nice and toasty little p4.

They did not cap at 2 digits. Technically speaking, it's 2 2/3 GHz.

[PlayStation 2]

11 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

 

 

 

 

All these posts are conviently ignoring that CPU's used to have odd numbers in them, but were still called by GHz.

 

Case in point: Core i7 870: 2.93 GHz https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/41315/intel-core-i7-870-processor-8m-cache-2-93-ghz.html

This goes all the way back to the Pentium 4: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27443/intel-pentium-4-processor-2-66-ghz-1m-cache-533-mhz-fsb.html

I know there was, I'm not an idiot, but still, it'd look quite odd. 3.06GHz

[Jurrunio]

14 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

All these posts are conviently ignoring that CPU's used to have odd numbers in them, but were still called by GHz.

 

Case in point: Core i7 870: 2.93 GHz https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/41315/intel-core-i7-870-processor-8m-cache-2-93-ghz.html

This goes all the way back to the Pentium 4: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27443/intel-pentium-4-processor-2-66-ghz-1m-cache-533-mhz-fsb.html

I guess that explains why I usually only mention down to the first decimal point, so I call my Q9400 a 2.6GHz CPU.

 

Mhz is also often used when these CPUs are FSB overclocked btw since the numbers are really messy after that.

[Tan3l6]

12 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

They did not cap at 2 digits. Technically speaking, it's 2 2/3 GHz.

"Yeah, Math, bitch" 

[Jurrunio]

14 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

"Yeah, Math, bitch" 

Technically the bitch is the way we use to describe time. 1/3 Hz means 3 seconds per work cycle, or 20 work cycles per minute.

 

why they dont go in 1/4GHz or 1/8GHz increments instead is beyond me

[Tan3l6]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Technically the bitch is the way we use to describe time. 1/3 Hz means 3 seconds per work cycle, or 20 work cycles per minute.

 

why they dont go in 1/4GHz or 1/8GHz increments instead is beyond me

Isn't Hz 1000th of a second?

[Jurrunio]

Just now, Tan3l6 said:

Isn't Hz 1000th of a second?

that's KHz

[Tan3l6]

Nvm.