Ram in Sync over extra MHZ

[Slasher42]

So... Is it better to have ram running 1:1 then to get an extra 200mhz?

Abit IS7-E
Geil Golden Dragon PC3500 running 2-6-2-2 at 400mhz right now.
P4 2.6C running at stock
Stock intel HS/Fan

Since the RAM is only rated for PC3500 I could assumably OC to 216fsb and run it at 1:1 no problem. But to go above that I would need to change the ratio to like 5:4 or something similar. Is it more important to have the ram run in Sync or to get a more Mhz?

 

[addiarmadar]

The system overall will work more efficiently at the 1:1 ratio. Your system clock really is the MAJOR factor of how fast the comp will run. Have you tried upping the system clock to 215? It will give you a 2.8ghz system but those timmings will have to go back to stock which is nothing to cry about. I got My barton 2500 doing 220 clock with the Geil Golden Dragon kit with timmings as listed below.

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.8)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/720)

 

[pjordan]

Do benchmarking both ways. Then see which is faster.
Then tell us the results.

 

[Coyote]

My understanding is that for AMD systems it is very important to run cpu/ram in sync. However, you appear to have a Intel system. From what I read, running out of sync is not a problem with Intel systems. Hence, go with the higher FSB and run the 5:4 divider.

Benching it both ways for yourself is good suggestion too

XP 2000+
MSI KT3 ULTRA-2 KT333
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB PC2700
9600 Pro
Win98SE

 

[tombance]

Yeah since you have an intel system bandwidth is more important than latency. Keep it on 1:1, up the timings as far as they will go (3-4-4-8 should do) and then see how far you can push it. When you start getting mem errors try upping the mem voltage a bit.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>