Potential performance hit?

[FPS_Sage]

I am going to a Q6600 (1066mhz FSB), and I was wondering just how much of a performance hit I would take if I use DDR2 800 instead of DDR2 1066 (basically RAM clock out of sync with the FSB vs. in sync)? Will it be a noticable difference in performance?

Do you have any links to benchmarks that can provide an answer? Thanks.

 

[Scarchunk]

A 1066mhz FSB is actually quad pumped so it is truly 266mhz x 4. To get a true 1:1 ratio on you would use DDR2 533, as DDR means "double data rate" i.e. 266 x 2. As far as performance, it is best to use a 1:1 ratio but if you get a high enough clock speed on your RAM it will counter any performance hits that an asynchronous ratio might introduce. DDR2 800 will outperform DDR2 533 even though it isn't 1:1. Personally I underclock my RAM to 667mhz in order to run 1:1 with my overclocked cpu. In memory tests my RAM at DDR2 800 outscores it at DDR2 667. But in games and graphic benches the 667 @ 1:1 performs better.

 

[FPS_Sage]

What about if don't plan to overclock my CPU? Just how significant will the performance difference be?

 

[turboflame]

Probably not much of a performance hit if any, the 1066fsb only needs DDR2 533 to be in sync. DDR2 667 takes a slight performace hit while DDR2 800 and higher overcome being out of sync due to their higher speeds. Most people only use DDR2 1066 if they're overclocking (it's running 2:1, not in sync (1:1))

Edit: wow i'm really that slow?

 

[BMFM]

This article is a bit old but not yet outdated, and will give you a clear picture of what everyone is talking about.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=472