Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DDR2 800 vs 1066?

Last response: in Memory
Share
August 20, 2007 7:23:43 AM

So im getting a q6600 and i dont know what ram to get.

My current machine is this

Intel Pentium 4 1.6
512mb SDRAM 133
AGP 4x

I love to game and everything and im wathing a future proof gaming pc. I know PCI2 is commng out soon. and i will upgrade later its not a big deal to me. I just want to know is there much advantage to 1066 and if i should get it. I dont care about money im just wondering if it will make much difference and if its worth the money.

More about : ddr2 800 1066

August 20, 2007 7:59:56 AM

The only advantage DDR2 1066 is if your going to overclock your processer. Now if your not going to OC, then DDR2 800 is fine and even DDR2 533 is good but not all new mainboards support it anymore. Also the Q6600 is a very good choice. As for mobo's Asus & Gigabyte P35 boards are great, but if you can wait till next month the new Intel X38 comes out.
August 22, 2007 3:54:21 PM

I've got pretty much the same question. It's been a couple years since I last researched and built a system so I'm out of the loop and have forgotten a bit.

My plan is to get a Q6600 and OC it to 3.0 GHZ, which would give it a 1333 MHz Bus. Since that number is 'quad-pumped' (or whatever) the real bus speed is 333 MHz. That would mean I only need DDR2-667 MHZ RAM to give me a 1:1 RAM:FSB ratio, correct? Other than the possibility of tighter timings from better RAM chips, is there any reason to get RAM that's faster than DDR2-667? How does the Intel memory controller deal with non-1:1 ratios?

Thanks.

Related resources
August 22, 2007 10:23:19 PM

over_c said:
I've got pretty much the same question. It's been a couple years since I last researched and built a system so I'm out of the loop and have forgotten a bit.

My plan is to get a Q6600 and OC it to 3.0 GHZ, which would give it a 1333 MHz Bus. Since that number is 'quad-pumped' (or whatever) the real bus speed is 333 MHz. That would mean I only need DDR2-667 MHZ RAM to give me a 1:1 RAM:FSB ratio, correct? Other than the possibility of tighter timings from better RAM chips, is there any reason to get RAM that's faster than DDR2-667? How does the Intel memory controller deal with non-1:1 ratios?

Thanks.


The Q6600's have a 1066 FSB bus not 1333, buying good ram (Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 or DDR2 1066) allows you to tighten up your timmings. I have Crucial Ballistix 1066 and they'll do case 3 latency which is faster than cas 4. You can lower your multiplier and raise your FSB to 400 and still be at 3.0-3.2GHz and 1:1 FSB. Theres so many ways about doing it.
August 22, 2007 11:15:41 PM

systemlord said:
The Q6600's have a 1066 FSB bus not 1333,











He meant 1333 after overclocking. over_c you are correct that if you plan is to get to 1333 then 667 is all you need. The gain you get from premium RAM is usually tighter timings and more headroom for overclocking. Look at your goal speed and get RAM which is rated for that speed and you will be able to get any companies value product and it will work fine. If your goal is FSB1600 then getting DDR2800 of something like Corsair Value Select is fine or if you would like something with slightly better timings you could go for something more expensive. Your best bet if your goal is to get to 1333 is buy some high quality DDR2667 and run them at stock and then if you want to increase the FSB a little more you can just loosten the timings and/or increase the voltage and keep the RAM running 1:1. If your target is closer to FSB1600 you would be better off with DDR2800 with which you could decrease the timings a little if running under 1600 and depending upon the modules they can be run up to and over FSB2000.

There are a lot of options and as I said the best thing to do is to look at your target FSB speed and get RAM rated for that speed.

As for the OP's question the only real benefit from running RAM rated that fast is if you have a CPU with a very low multiplier (think E63*0, E64*0) and you want to run the FSB really high, if your running the FSB at 1600 there is no need for RAM rated higher than DDR2800. systemlord does have a point though with the timings and if you buy quality RAM you should be able to tighten the timings a little when running slower than it's rated speed. Don't expect a night and day difference though when going from cas4 to cas3 but your system should be slightly more responsive.
August 23, 2007 8:00:35 AM

ausch30 said:
He meant 1333 after overclocking.


I must have missed that, oops. The Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800, 1066 can do a wide range of speeds & timings. I can run them at 800MHz 3-3-3-8 @ 2.1v or 1200MHz 5-5-5-15 @2.2v and I probibly can go higher to maybe 1250+. AUsch30 is right about value ram being good for non-overclockers and just a few days ago I saw Crucial's value ram DDR2 800 OC'ed 182MHz = 982MHz in a review, not to bad for value ram.
August 23, 2007 10:39:55 AM

Is 1600mhz considered as strain on the DDR2-800 modules? And how 'normal' is it?
I'm thinking of building a system with 400fsb OC'd 24/7
August 23, 2007 11:30:04 AM

hminh87 said:
Is 1600mhz considered as strain on the DDR2-800 modules? And how 'normal' is it?
I'm thinking of building a system with 400fsb OC'd 24/7


As long as your running at the rated speed that the ram can handle, then its fine. My system is at 400x9 FSB with my ram running at 800MHz 1:1 ratio. If your going to OC then getting good quality ram is a must, Crucial's Ballistix is great ram. For now I am running my Crucial Ballistix Tracer's 1066 at DDR2 800 until I have my ram fan I ordered, then I'll run them at 1200MHz 5-5-5-15 @2.2v. If your running a 400x9 FSB = 1600MHz then DDR2 800 is running at a 1:1 ratio.
August 23, 2007 12:32:22 PM

The Q6600 will allow the Q6600 to be OC'd to 3.6 Ghz before you need to start OC'ing your RAM. Good DDR2-800 should be able to be OC'd atleast a little which should you let you push your system to the max potentical of this CPU which is likely somewhere just above 3.8Ghz but 3.6Ghz may be the perfect sitting spot since that will likely give you plenty of power.

I don't think the timings are going to be that important to worry that much about since the C2D chips are not that sensitive. While the tests done by Toms and a few other sites do show a difference, it's rarely more than 1-2% over the whole range of RAM chips tested.

If you can get better RAM for about the same money, go for it, but don't drop any significant amount of extra money down for what is viewed as extreme memory.

Rather get more HDDs to spread the load to speed up your system, get better cooling to allow more of an OC which give better results, or ....
August 23, 2007 1:16:05 PM

So, the term Overclock isn't even applies for FSB below 400MHz on the DDR-800 modules. At this point, only the processor is being OC'd.
A clockrate of 400x2x2= 1600MHz on dual channel is just a walk in the park for DDR-800. I only start to strain them after FSB 400. It should be safe @ 400MHz FSB as long as the CPU can handle it (Which the Q6600 does).
Is this correct, what I understand so far?

This is good... Being in this forum for just 2 days and I've learned alots :D 

August 23, 2007 1:26:00 PM

If you get the G0 stepping, the it would definately not be the slightest strain on the Q6600. With the older stepping, it may be.
August 23, 2007 1:41:38 PM

What is G0 stepping. Please explain. I'm a noob at this XD
---edit---
Nevermind. It's apparently the revision of Q6600. Heard they will stop manufacture the older B3 after December this year.
Just how big of a chance will I get the G0 if I purchase one now? Maybe it's a safer bet going for a E6850 afterall...
August 23, 2007 2:18:45 PM

Basically, Stepping are revision numbers for CPUs which mark manufacturing changes.

Intel just upgraded their Q6600 processors to a new process that is signified by G0. There is one site, TankGuys, or something like similar that promises to get you a G0. Most major sites it's a luck of the draw.

If you search the forums for Q6600 and G0, you will have 1.3 Million hits that talk about it. (The estimated hits may be slightly high :>)
August 23, 2007 3:07:46 PM

So what are the effects of running memory and FSB at a non-1:1 ratio? If the RAM is running at DDR2-800 and the FSB is running at 333 MHz (1333 quad pumped), the ratio between fsb and RAM is 3:4. Obviously, I could test this out once I buy my next setup (and I probably will), but I'd like some information ahead of time.

Also, to take it a step further, if I could OC the RAM higher than DDR2-800 I might get FSB:RAM ratios of 1:2 or lower. What real-world performance improvements (or degradations) might result from this? As opposed to just getting higher on PCMark.

Thanks again.
August 24, 2007 5:43:03 AM

over_c said:
So what are the effects of running memory and FSB at a non-1:1 ratio? If the RAM is running at DDR2-800 and the FSB is running at 333 MHz (1333 quad pumped), the ratio between fsb and RAM is 3:4. Obviously, I could test this out once I buy my next setup (and I probably will), but I'd like some information ahead of time.

Also, to take it a step further, if I could OC the RAM higher than DDR2-800 I might get FSB:RAM ratios of 1:2 or lower. What real-world performance improvements (or degradations) might result from this? As opposed to just getting higher on PCMark.

Thanks again.


You will not notice real-world difference in most apps. Games however do see maybe 5 FPS more, also benchmarks you will see big diff.
August 24, 2007 11:28:10 AM

systemlord said:
You will not notice real-world difference in most apps. Games however do see maybe 5 FPS more, also benchmarks you will see big diff.



With 1:1 sync or ?
August 24, 2007 2:31:12 PM

hminh87 said:
With 1:1 sync or ?


Games love memory bandwidth, unlinked @1200MHz. I believe that having to much memory bandwidth can't be a bad thing. This means that your ram is now running faster than the CPU FSB, giving the CPU the data cruching info it needs.
August 27, 2007 11:27:21 PM

Quote:
You will not notice real-world difference in most apps. Games however do see maybe 5 FPS more, also benchmarks you will see big diff.

and

Games love memory bandwidth, unlinked @1200MHz. I believe that having to much memory bandwidth can't be a bad thing. This means that your ram is now running faster than the CPU FSB, giving the CPU the data cruching info it needs.

So, hypothetically, for a dedicated gaming uber-machine you would recommend buying 1066 and overclocking it to 600Mhz, the net result being roughly 5fps or so?

Being in the same boat as the OP my own take on this is that it would be better to get decent DDR2 800, OC up to a 1:1 ratio and spend the money saved on a better graphics card. Is this right?

I'm learning all this stuff as well here, you guys here at Tom's certainly know your stuff! :) 
August 28, 2007 2:59:43 AM

jRides said:
Quote:
You will not notice real-world difference in most apps. Games however do see maybe 5 FPS more, also benchmarks you will see big diff.

and

Games love memory bandwidth, unlinked @1200MHz. I believe that having to much memory bandwidth can't be a bad thing. This means that your ram is now running faster than the CPU FSB, giving the CPU the data cruching info it needs.

So, hypothetically, for a dedicated gaming uber-machine you would recommend buying 1066 and overclocking it to 600Mhz, the net result being roughly 5fps or so?

Being in the same boat as the OP my own take on this is that it would be better to get decent DDR2 800, OC up to a 1:1 ratio and spend the money saved on a better graphics card. Is this right?

I'm learning all this stuff as well here, you guys here at Tom's certainly know your stuff! :) 


Theres no reason why DDR2 800 can't OC just as well as 1066, all 1066 is is pre-overclocked DDR2 800. You can see this in CPU-Z, mine even say Crucial DDR2 800 in CPU-Z.

I have seen many DDR2 800 memory OC past or to 1200MHz.
!