Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
PC Evangelist
Joined
·
47,371 Posts
For a Q6600 DDR2 800 is all you need. 400FBS will give you DDR2 800 and 450FBS will give you DD2-900 which almost all DDR2 800 Ram can do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,532 Posts
The 8500 (or really good 6400) will allow you to OC the RAM unlinked from the FSB. This has been shown to increase the performance of Intel processors to some extent. Whether or not this makes a significant difference in real life applications, is a hot button issue on these boards. But, it's OC.net, and we're all about squeezing every ounce of performance from our rigs!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
6400 will be good enough to run at a 1:1 ratio, but if you want the extra bandwidth(and a little extra performance), get the 8500.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
This is ridiculous. Could you have BEEN any more cryptic? I mean, you basically just walked in here, and snapped your fingers, and expected everyone to decipher your question and answer it promptly.

This is a supportive, tightly-knit, give-and-take forum, not well-paid tech support.
 

·
QA Engineer
Joined
·
3,016 Posts
He means memory bandwith.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by 18 is # 1
View Post

The 8500 (or really good 6400) will allow you to OC the RAM unlinked from the FSB. This has been shown to increase the performance of Intel processors to some extent. Whether or not this makes a significant difference in real life applications, is a hot button issue on these boards. But, it's Overclock.net, and we're all about squeezing every ounce of performance from our rigs!

Youre absolutely right, bro!

I could never have reached the 3.82mark stable on my rig without upgrading to 8500mHz or at least get some overclockable 6400`s. I installed the sticks and BANG i was able to raise my FSB 100mHz more.


Believe me i tried.
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
CAS 4 at 800MHz will have about the same performance as CAS 5 at 1066MHz. You won't see substantial performance gains from your memory unless you reach speeds in excess of about 1120MHz.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by chessmyantidrug
View Post

CAS 4 at 800MHz will have about the same performance as CAS 5 at 1066MHz. You won't see substantial performance gains from your memory unless you reach speeds in excess of about 1120MHz.

1066mhz is actually going to be a bit faster in most cases. Timings really don't matter that much for intel cpu's.
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
Everything I've seen has shown CAS 5 1066 to be marginally better than CAS 4 800. I'm talking maybe a handful of percentage points.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by 18 is # 1
View Post

QFT
More MHz=more performance

Read this quotation, chessmyantidrug.
This rule was so obvious to me atleast when i upgraded my RAM to 8500`s. Same CAS as before only 15tRAS compared to 18tRAS before.
Higher speed gives you more headroom. On Intel systems atleast. I dont know anything about AMD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
I would like to know what program yall run to test RAM performance. All I have to reference is the Cache and Memory Benchmark in Everest and I can tell you this.

Cas and speeds make a big difference. When I first got my G.Skill DDR2-800Mhz RAM(5-5-5-15-CR2) that I knew people were running at 1000Mhz I was very excited. I had already hit 4Ghz with my Corsair DDR2-667 with 4-4-4-12-CR1 timings, so I thought this would give me a chance for something a little higher.

I was shocked at how bad the RAM benches were at stock speeds. I had my Corsair at 700Mhz with the tighter timings and it beat the G.skill by 1000MB/s on Read/Write and was about 500MB/s better on copy. Cossair 9500 MB/s read, 9000MB/s write, 7200MB/s copy, G.Skill was around 8500/8000/ and 6700.

So I bumped the G.skill to 1000Mhz and re-ran it. It just barely beat my Corsair(9550/9200/7100, but latency was like 69ns). So I tried lowering the timings on my G.skill. NO matter what voltage I put to it, I couldn't get it to boot with CR1. I got it to boot with 4-4-4-14-CR2, but it failed Prime95.

I then backed it down to 450 to be 1:1 with my RAM and it was once again worse than my 700Mhz 4-4-4-12-CR1 Corsair. I remembered a secondary setting after you chose to link your RAM, called Sync.

So since my RAM was already running at 450 I tried linked and synced. My Everest Benchmarks then went to 11000MB/s read 9500MB/s write and 7500MB/s copy with a 49ns latency. This is with 5-5-5-15-CR2 timings. It made no sense to me, but my L2 cache was faster as well. When I get home tonight I will put the settings back and bench it with some screens so you can see.

Bottom line? Intel likes linked and synced RAM with FSB. That extra 100Mhz won't make up the difference...pick RAM that you can run 1:1 with your CPU.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,172 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by CuriouslyHigh
View Post

This is ridiculous. Could you have BEEN any more cryptic? I mean, you basically just walked in here, and snapped your fingers, and expected everyone to decipher your question and answer it promptly.

This is a supportive, tightly-knit, give-and-take forum, not well-paid tech support.

it is in the Intel Memory section
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top