Best ram speed if I'm not going to oc?

DDR2 800 is the lowest that you should go with a new mobo & CPU. Ram is so cheap right now that spending money for DDR2 800 versus 667 theres so little difference money wise, its a no brainer. A slight OC would allow for a 1:1 fsb:ram ratio, but I no you don't want to OC. Its actually very easy to OC, it took me 20 minutes to OC my PC.

What? to have a 1:1 ratio with DDR2-800, you need a 400MHz FSB which is pretty far from a "slight OC".

Quite honestly, RAM speed makes essentially no difference in performance if you're not OCing or running benchmarks. You won't be able to tell the difference between DDR2-533 and DDR2-1066 in Firefox. It really does take benchmarks to show the 5% speed increace.

But RAM is so cheap now, you might as well get 2GB of DDR2-800. If you're not OC'ing FSB:RAM ratios don't really matter, so don't worry about those.

Hope this helps.

Have a look at this article. Very helpful info.

Specifically, look at the SuperPi 1MB benchmark results. Notice that running DDR2-533 with 4-4-4-12 is faster than running DDR2-667 with the same timings. This is an example where the FSB:RAM ratio comes into play. When (the ratio) is 1:1 (DDR2-533) you get better performance than when it is 4:5 (DDR2-667). You can see by using really tight timings, a 4:5 ratio gets pretty good results. But as you can see with DDR2-800, Using a 2:3 ratio doesn't suffer the performance loss seen with DDR2-667.

On the other hand, When OC'ing DDR2-800 may not be what you need. If you take a E6320 (7x266) and OC the FSB to 300MHz, you will get a 2.1GHz CPU. However using a 1:1 ratio will require DDR2-600! So if you use DDR2-667, it will be downclocked! Same with DDR2-800. This is why DDR2-800 is overkill with moderate OCing.

1:1 is the best ratio to use because your FSB and RAM are syncronized. If one is operating faster than the other, additional efforts have to be made in order to move data. This "additional effort" takes time, which slows things down.

But now take a step back. Look at the charts in the article. They show that the difference between DDR2-400 (5-5-5-15) and DDR2-800 (4-4-4-12) is less than 5%!! This is why the speed of RAM is in significant to most users. You won't notice five percent ever. It only shows up in benchmarks.

Hope this helps. And if you have any questions, please ask!

[quotemsg=1734356,7,142889]The reason I'm upgrading is because my mobo, although it's running it, doesn't officially support my current 400mhz. And I believe I'm experiencing some slowdowns because of this. Also, the POST detects the ram as 667mhz, which is weird, because it's 400. The mobo also doesn't officially support 533, so it's either 667 or 800. I'll probably keep everything at stock. So by the looks of what you just said, 800 would be the way to go for me, correct?

I was thinking along the line of Crucial Ballistix. Isn't that site saying at the conclusion thatthe higher bandwidth in 800 makes up for the loss of the 1:1 ratio? At least that's what I'm getting out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. And thanks for the replies.

Here's a link to my mobo, just in case you want to take a look:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813128048[/quotem sg]

The Crucial Ballistix is great ram! I'm running mine @1200MHz 5-5-5-15 @2.2v with 1:2 ratio. If you were to get the Ballistix DDR2 800 you could most likely reach 1000-1200MHz, even though you not going to OC. You can't go wrong with Crucial's Ballistix!

No, my board supports 667-1066, not 400 or 533 officially. And right now I'm using my 400mhz ram from my old dell. Because my fsb is faster than the ram I have now, shouldn't I be experiencing a decrease in performance because of this?