We all know that systems run better when the memory clock is set at the same as the CPU FSB. If my computer is a non overclocked setup with them memory at 200Mhz and the CPU at 166Mhz, would my system run better if I actually lowered the memory clock down to 166Mhz? I know that I should just try to up the CPU's speed a little bit but just theoretically, would my system run better if I slowed down my memory clock?
More aboutslower memory faster
yes the latencies are such that it's better to run in sync than out, for AMD chips for P4s you'd see higher performance (in single channel) by leaving it out of sync - but judging by your nickname, that doesn't apply here try sandra and see how your performance varies
<A HREF="http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/ayb2.swf" target="_new">411 UR 84$E R 8E10NG 2 U$</A>
Yes, in most cases it will run faster at 166/166. Unless your 200MHz RAM can handle the fastest timings and the latency created by the async clock is small enough.
My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on
its like with my system pc133 at cl3 is slower than pc100 cl2(2-2-2). so if you wanna cheat get slower 400ddr than set it too 333 and have agressive timings on it, it will more than likely outperform it at its normal speed even if it is running slower by mhz. but even an amd fanatic should know performance is only loosely tied to clock speed.
Beer and fragging can never be one.
So... say if I overclock to a 185mhz BUS (thinking about the 2500+), I should set my memory at that rather than leave it at 200?
yes. most of the time you will get better results for running them in sync.