How high can I OC E6600 with Mushkin 4GB(2x2GB) DDR2-533?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

gentrinity

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
334
0
18,780
Here is my situation;

I plan on getting an E6600, or a Xeon 3050 if DaSickNinja's benchmarks show that this CPU can perform just as well with the added cache.

I want to get this RAM

Mushkin 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2-533

I would obviously get a really good MOBO, preferably either Asus or MSI. Gigabyte is out of the question because there have been compatibility issues reported with this RAM.

Obviously I would like to keep it at 1:1, so the question is, how high could I OC with this current rig?

Would I see any performance hit from not keeping the 1:1 with the memory lagging?

Also, since Im a bit of a noob, if you throw a FSB frequency at me, please state what the resulting range of CPU increase in frequency would be. Like if you say I can only get up to a 1333 FSB, would I get around 2.6GHz, 2.8GHz, 3.0GHz?

Notice that the RAM linked is refered to as EM2, and its probably because of the heatsinks, which I would imagine would help with OC, but not 100% sure.

THANKS!!!!!
 
Heyyou27

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
The E6600 will outperform the Xeon 3050 thanks to the higher clockspeed, seeing as they have the same sized L2 cache. I don't think 2GB sticks of DDR2 will overclock very well, and you may be better off with four 1GB sticks.
 
G

gentrinity

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
334
0
18,780
No I wont, im getting 8GBs. Cant do that with 1GB sticks.

Obviously the E6600 will run faster, but not necesarily if im OCing. Plus itll be a good deal cheaper. The idea is to see how high I can go.
 
E

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
3050's got 2M cache, I spread FUD earlier (though, my sources weren't reputable *ahem*) and fully retract claims of same L2 cache... since some people actually got 3050s and they show up as Allendales.

E6600 all the way.

Your RAM will probably take you to 3.15GHz (FSB 350, memory 1:1) on the E6300 with a voltbump and relaxed timings, but the RAM isn't specced to be overclocked. You'd need to get DDR2 667 or 800 to get to extreme FSB speeds (400+).
 
E

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
Goal:
Maximum performance, 8GB RAM.

You should:
1. get an X6800
Most E6600s can hit 3.6 easily, which corresponds to DDR2-800+.
Then, you could run slow RAM without worrying.
or
1. get awesome RAM
DDR2-533, especially 2G modules, aren't going to overclock very well.
You could get a E6600/Xe3050, but you'd have to spend a crapload on RAM.

2. Go into massive debt. :-D
 
G

gentrinity

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
334
0
18,780
Sorry, I should have stated this before.

The reason why I want 2GB sticks is because Im getting 8GBs.

Thanks for the info. I would be more than happy with 3.1GHz.

Now, the question is, how much of a performace hit would I take if I increase the FSB higher than the RAM?
 
E

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
If you're rich enough to get 8GB of RAM, an X6800 should be just another drop in the bucket.

Running the RAM slower than the FSB incurs a stiff performance hit, as far as I've seen (Anandtech has an article on this, http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800)
 
G

gentrinity

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
334
0
18,780
Problem is that OCing is second to 8GBs of RAM. I really want 8GBs. I think that I will probably use up about 5GB or 6GB, but since I cant get 6GBs without getting a severmobo, thus no conroe for me.

In my heavy multitasking workflow, I will value the ability to run all my apps at full speed without swapping. I do not want my HDs doing anything memory related.

@evilr00t

thanks for the article, ill read it now. And sadly im not rich, so the idea is to get 4GBs of front, and do the second kit when I get the money. I also should add that itll be a while before I actually order anything so maybe ill be lucky and get DDR2-667 by the time I actually decide to buy. The Mushkin RAM in question is actually around $115 a GB, which is actually pretty cheap considering.
 
G

gentrinity

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
334
0
18,780
From that article posted, I really didnt see how it affirms your statement that running memory slower than FSB makes a performance hit. I think I would have to do research elsewhere. I have heard of better system stability if you run 1:1, Id appreciate it if anyone could confirm this.

Since Im not trying to suck every last drop from the CPU when I OC, I would be happy with 3.0 and anything above it.

The question is this, is there any decrease in memory performance (latency, memory bandwidth) if the FSB isnt 1:1 with the memory. Cause logic tells me that the RAM performance should stay around the same, but with computers, logic isnt always the case.
 
E

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
RAM performance SHOULD scale linearly with memory speed. We see that this is not the case for the 4:3 and 3:4 FSB:MEM ratios, where they tank horribly (loss of ~10% SYSTEM performance!!). This corresponds to a DDR2-400 and DDR2-667 memory speed, with a FSB speed of 266MHz. To reach 3GHz on a E6600, you need to be running the FSB at 333MHz. That corresponds to a memory speed of DDR2-500 (4:3 divider), DDR2-667 (1:1), and DDR2-889 (3:4 multiplier)

I see, 8GB is a necessity. I hope you're using an OS that can take advantage of it (namely: Vista X64 / WXP X64). Other Windows Desktop OSes are limited to 4GB.

If your overclocking target is 3.0, you need to find DDR2-667 modules, or pray for the Overclocking Gods for good luck in memory overclocking. You would be able to hit 3.0GHz with a E6600 without overclocking the RAM at all.
 
G

gentrinity

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
334
0
18,780
Yeah, youre right. I saw some similar benchmarks last night that are inline with what you just said. 667 is slower than 533 and 400 also takes a pretty hard hit when the FSB is 1066.

I guess that my only option is to wait for some unbuffered ddr2-667 or above in order to OC. The Kentsfield is just around the corner so Im pretty sure that thats the way to go since one of my main apps, Photoshop will get a 25% increase in performance. The Quadro got up to 3.3GHz with 1333 FSB, so that would be splendidly fast for me. Maybe if 2GB DDR2-800 comes out then I could get the Kentsfield up and above that.

I guess I just have to sit and wait. And save up a whole bunch of money cause this system is gonna be one expensive son of a whore.
 
BMFM

BMFM

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
162
0
18,680
Honest question:

With already 333MHz clocked, 2GB sticks you won't be able to take it much furtherer, right?

I'm only saying this because motherboard manufacturers explicitly state their mobos don't support 8GB at speeds over 333MHz. Although I guess they might as well just be covering their @sses with that statement (just a matter of "official" support).

:idea: You know what? I think I’ve just answered my own question… :oops:
 
G

gentrinity

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
334
0
18,780
I want to thank everybody for contributing so well to this thread, but Im going to do the following;

1.) Surrender all hope of having 8GB within the next month. Ill keep my eye out for any manufacturer that releases 2GB sticks that clock at 667MHz and above at a good price.

2.) Start looking at inexpensive DDR2-800 2GB kits. I think that OCing will improve performance in more scenarios for me than 8GBs. 4GBs should be enough if I dont get too ambitious with my multitasking. Plus, Im already gettting two Raptor 150 in RAID 0 so Ill have one hell of a scratch disk option anyway.
 
E

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
They're plenty fast, I assure you. However, I don't see you actually NEEDING the scratch space, though (As soon as you go over 4GB, performance will tank, regardless of how fast the hard drive, unless you get a SSD). 4GB is going to be enough for pretty much all general computing through 2007.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom