Divider = RAM FSB ratio to ( CPU FSB

Lets say you've RAM that will work DDR800 = FSB400 on 5-5-5-15 timings.

You've overclocked your CPU/MOBO FSB to 333MHz, thus making RAMs run 666/667MHz on 1:1 divider.

When you change to divider to 5:6 your RAM runs 667 * 5/6 = 556MHz

There's hardly idea running your RAM that slow, you'd want to set them 7:6 divider or something that would make your RAM run 667 * 7/6 = 778MHz which is closer to 800MHz.

Thing is, when you do some "serious" overclocking you might set your FSB to 500MHz. For DDR memory this would mean 1000MHz speed. Unless your RAM can run that fast (you can make em run faster, by lowering timings), you might need to use a divider, 5:6 in this case.

This way CPU/MOBO = FSB 500 = 500MHz
And RAMs = 500 * 5/6 = ~416MHz *2 (DDR -> Dual Data Rate) = ~833MHz. This is such a minor OC for the mems (under 5%) that they probably can take that.

Err. I've hard time believing you're getting proper info from that Lavalyst product. Get cpu-z instead. Idiotic info from that one, though it's correct.

Your normal FSB for memories is 400MHz. Which would be 1:1 (8:8). You're running your mems at 600MHz = 12:8 compared to normal clocks. 600:400 MHz. That's why you're seeing 12:8. Naturally latency is less when your mems run 1200MHz instead of 800MHz.

I got the 5:6 number from CPU-Z which according to the first poster is incorrect becuase my RAM is running at 800Mhz so I am not sure what the correct divider is, but CPU-Z seems to be showing the incorrect ones.

So it seems once your OC'ed your CPU and your happy with it, then you should choose a divider to run the RAM at least asclose to its stock speed?

1:1 is still best and more stable. Just stick with 1:1 and instead of freq. try to lower the latencies as much as possible.

You dont have to take advice you can do whatever you want. Lower latency's to that extent isnt enough to make up for that decrease in frequency, but its still best to go 1:1.

If 1:1 is better then what the heck is the PC world doing creating something called DDR3 @1800MHz, shame on them.

Take a look at the following guide;
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpu [...] cking.html

It suggests that 1:1 may not be the best with some explanations. Seems the controversy continues.

A simple benchmark proves at least in terms of memory bandwidth that 1:1 is not optimal. But what is missing is the overall picture how how it effects the system as a whole. I have not noticed any significant increase or decrease in performance between 1:1 or some other divider. I have mine at 1:1 simply becuase it seems the "safe" and "accepted" thing atm.