Does anyone know, is it better to have the processor speed higher and sacrifice the ram speed for it. For example run the ram not 1 to 1 with system speed and underclock the ram, so ddr 400 runs at 333. so there is room for the processor to scale and the memory won't tie it down. Is that better or would it be better to leave the processor speed lower and have it run with higher ram frequencies. Is there any kind of well known fact, that lower ram speeds will dissolve any benefit of higher processor clock speeds.
In general you'll be better off with a faster processor and slower ram. This is because a processor has its own ram called "cache". Cache is to system ram as system ram is a harddrive; the more cache a processor has the less it has to hit the system ram.
Processors with large cache like Conroe are effected less by system ram speed than processors with a small cache like AM2 processors. But processors that have to access data larger than the size of their cache in quick succession like a GPU* benefit from faster ram the most.
*Faster system ram will not benefit a GPU; it has its own onboard memory that has the same relationship to it as system memory has to your processor.
Like the other said , more processor speed is better...
i had the same problem ,but i used the faster processor speed ... now my memory is running at 185MHz ( DDR 370 ) insted of 200MHz ( DDR 400 ) but my CPU is running at 2700MHz (225x12) insted of 2400MHz , & the performance is much better :twisted: