Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Memory Frequency Multiplier

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
June 29, 2008 7:06:56 PM

Hello,

I am wondering how does changing memory frequency multipler effect my processing speed?
I am using GA-EP35C-DS3R + E8400 + Nirvana NV120 + Cruciall Ballistix PC6400 2x1GB.

It seems like using a lower memory frequency multiplier I can make my memory frequency to match a higher FSB, and I have a better overrclock. Does that mean I should always use the lowest frequency muliplier? (This seemed to have improved my SuperPi calcuation speed from 12.5 seconds to 11.5 seconds)

Thanks
June 29, 2008 7:12:38 PM

Yes, 1:1 ratio is synced, and provides best performance. If ratio is higher, the ram would be running faster than cpu, yet the cpu can only access it on its own lower clock, thus, the extra is wasted. There's more going on than that, but that's the basic idea.
June 29, 2008 9:49:17 PM

yes from the current situation by Intel 1:1 multiplier is the best to use.
Related resources
June 29, 2008 10:05:29 PM

strange colours.... pretty....
June 29, 2008 10:11:54 PM

IMO, 1:1 is overrated. Sure, if you can run the FSB to match the RAM at 1:1 then by all means run 1:1, otherwise it doesn't make much real world difference either way. I would say that you are better off with RAM at it's rated speed and not 1:1 unless the RAM will run with tighter timings to offset the difference.

The whole thing with 1:1 is that the MCH doesn't have to work as hard and thereby runs cooler and more stable at high OC's.

The core2 arch isn't heavily affected by the RAM bandwidth anyway, assuming it's not an Allendale.
June 29, 2008 10:16:30 PM

Zorg said:
IMO, 1:1 is overrated. Sure, if you can run the FSB to match the RAM at 1:1 then by all means run 1:1, otherwise it doesn't make much real world difference either way. I would say that you are better off with RAM at it's rated speed and not 1:1 unless the RAM will run with tighter timings to offset the difference.

The whole thing with 1:1 is that the MCH doesn't have to work as hard and thereby runs cooler and more stable at high OC's.

The core2 arch isn't heavily affected by the RAM bandwidth anyway, assuming it's not an Allendale.

You don't get any real performance increase with higher ratio. Higher clock rate ram cost more and tend to have looser timings.
June 29, 2008 10:18:38 PM

And your point?
June 29, 2008 10:21:35 PM

Zorg said:
And your point?

Why should people use higher ratio, which in turn force timings looser, when they can just keep it at the optimal 1:1 and get tighter timings? And if they buy more expensive new ram for the higher clock speed, it makes even less sense. :p 
June 29, 2008 11:25:35 PM

dagger said:
Why should people use higher ratio, which in turn force timings looser, when they can just keep it at the optimal 1:1 and get tighter timings? And if they buy more expensive new ram for the higher clock speed, it makes even less sense. :p 
Somebody is running around using the thumbs up/down buttons.

I agree if you don't already have the RAM and you know that you won't be OCing then there really is no reason to get the higher speed because the real world benefit, with the core 2, is not that much. RAM is pretty cheap though, and one never knows whether they will get the proverbial hair and decide to OC later, do they? Also, the timings of slower RAM are usually not as tight as faster RAM which is underclocked, I don't think that claim can be made across the board though, and also doesn't have much real world affect. As far as whether running DDR2 800 at 667 or 533 1:1 with tighter timings makes any difference I would have to say that it's also negligible.

So the question is, does it really matter if you are running 1333 FSB with RAM at 1:1 and tighter timings or 1333 FSB and RAM at 800 5:6 and looser timings. I've benched it and run it both ways and it is negligible. The benches show some difference, but I can't really "feel" it.

So really the "1:1", that everyone pushes as being the clear choice, doesn't make that much difference if any.

June 29, 2008 11:31:03 PM

zorg i think you shouldnt recomment anyone set anything higher the 1:1. i can understand you as slower the ram it actually create a high latency by running slower speed with the default(high) timing. but even run at a slow latency the actual read/right figure doesnt change to a dramatic difference.

since most people are looking at a 400fsb OC so 1:1 will get them 800mhz anyway. so 1:1 is the right memory multiplier to go. no good to put unneccessary stress on the ram is there?
June 29, 2008 11:41:05 PM

iluvgillgill said:
zorg i think you shouldnt recomment anyone set anything higher the 1:1. i can understand you as slower the ram it actually create a high latency by running slower speed with the default(high) timing. but even run at a slow latency the actual read/right figure doesnt change to a dramatic difference.

since most people are looking at a 400fsb OC so 1:1 will get them 800mhz anyway. so 1:1 is the right memory multiplier to go. no good to put unneccessary stress on the ram is there?
I don't disagree with you and you obviously didn't read my posts.
June 29, 2008 11:53:54 PM

Zorg said:
I don't disagree with you and you obviously didn't read my posts.


well i dont see anything wrong of further stress the point to the OP.dont get offended thats what i say.
June 30, 2008 12:19:49 AM

I'm not offended. I will post the portions of my previous posts that you didn't catch, because you must have missed them or you wouldn't have made the post that you did.
June 30, 2008 1:10:56 AM

i think we both got abit mix up with the two posts we are in:) 
June 30, 2008 1:14:10 AM

Haha, you guys are funny!

I would like to chime in that the only thing really mattering is running your RAM with the FSB. So 1:1, or in sync.

Why? because if you use 1066 RAM with a 400 FSB, you sure the hell are not gonna get 533 Mhz worth of data per channel through that 400 Mhz FSB.

So I would guess that 1st you try and tighten the timings as said above, but barring that, why not run your ram at a slower rated speed with less voltage just for GP?

As in, wouldn't your 1066 RAM @ 2.1 v. Be better off running at 800 Mhz @ 2.0 with even the bonus possibility of also getting tighter timings, especially if having it at 1066 and 2.2 volts does nothing over the lower setting.

Thats just my guess.

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 1:15:46 AM

good morning lupi. so you got internet now or now?dont see you online anymore.:( 
June 30, 2008 2:36:38 AM

Been moving!
June 30, 2008 3:30:00 AM

alright. you settle down now?lol

the OP seem lik sleeping now!lol
June 30, 2008 4:07:42 AM

iluvgillgill said:
i think we both got abit mix up with the two posts we are in:) 
I wasn't mixed up. Go back and check the other thread, I figured out the VID thing.
June 30, 2008 4:11:44 AM

Get him, Zorg!

:) 

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 4:26:36 AM

Lupiron said:
I would like to chime in that the only thing really mattering is running your RAM with the FSB. So 1:1, or in sync.

Why? because if you use 1066 RAM with a 400 FSB, you sure the hell are not gonna get 533 Mhz worth of data per channel through that 400 Mhz FSB.

So I would guess that 1st you try and tighten the timings as said above, but barring that, why not run your ram at a slower rated speed with less voltage just for GP?

As in, wouldn't your 1066 RAM @ 2.1 v. Be better off running at 800 Mhz @ 2.0 with even the bonus possibility of also getting tighter timings, especially if having it at 1066 and 2.2 volts does nothing over the lower setting.

Thats just my guess.

--Lupi
All I said is that the "1:1" timing doesn't make any major difference. Everyone has been posting like it's the Holy Grail. It doesn't really get you anything except the reduction of voltage. I say go either way It doesn't matter.

If you are going for the record then the reduced load on the MCH and consequent heat is a great idea, otherwise it don't matta.

Also if you want the RAM and the FSB to be truly in sync, then you would need QDR RAM not DDR.
June 30, 2008 4:27:12 AM

Lupiron said:
Get him, Zorg!

:) 

--Lupi
how about you? :lol: 
June 30, 2008 4:38:16 AM

I agree partly! As long as your FSB is at least equal to your memory speed is what matters. But it is a waste to have any ram and a 266 Mhz FSB.

That part has been proven again and a again. Take your 800 Mhz Ram and have a 266 FSB with a 2:3 divider and test away.

Then simply raise the FSB, leaving the speed of the RAM alone. It's obviously a chunk faster.

You can always test it for yourself. Take some 1066 and use a 266 FSB and sync it up and test speeds, then do it again at 400 synced. Then again at 400 FSB with that 2:3 divider for 1066. The speed only jumps up when the FSB is raised as well.

Other than that part, doesnt matter what you do, as long as you run the highest safe FSB with it. That's where the performance lies.

Interesting theory, but they prolly will, if that would matter. Since qdr 1600 is FSB 400. Same thing, yes?

But it would be different if all 4 channels was linked for Quad data rate, yes. But everyone would need 4 stix!

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 4:48:03 AM

AMD... integrated memory controller for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and to create less arguments among hardware enthusiasts.

that's their new slogan, the head PR rep over there read this thread... and the 90 other ones like it. :-p

oh, and the person that posted hasn't even re-posted yet. But when he does come back, here's my suggestion. Use a scientific method to figure out what makes the programs you run the most faster/more efficient. something like fraps for games, and a stopwatch for other programs and loading times. :-p
June 30, 2008 4:51:03 AM

Yee Haw!!

Nacho!

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 5:03:45 AM

He is right, though. IMC is gonna put you guys out of an argument. Maybe in a few more months!

Greed is Good!

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 5:49:02 AM

Lupiron said:
I agree partly! As long as your FSB is at least equal to your memory speed is what matters. But it is a waste to have any ram and a 266 Mhz FSB.

That part has been proven again and a again. Take your 800 Mhz Ram and have a 266 FSB with a 2:3 divider and test away.

Then simply raise the FSB, leaving the speed of the RAM alone. It's obviously a chunk faster.

You can always test it for yourself. Take some 1066 and use a 266 FSB and sync it up and test speeds, then do it again at 400 synced. Then again at 400 FSB with that 2:3 divider for 1066. The speed only jumps up when the FSB is raised as well.

Other than that part, doesnt matter what you do, as long as you run the highest safe FSB with it. That's where the performance lies.

Interesting theory, but they prolly will, if that would matter. Since qdr 1600 is FSB 400. Same thing, yes?

But it would be different if all 4 channels was linked for Quad data rate, yes. But everyone would need 4 stix!

--Lupi
I'm just saying that running 1333 and 4:5 @ 800 or running 1333 1:1 @ 667 with tighter timings is very close. It doesn't really matter which you choose, the real world difference is negligible.

Depending on the RAM you may be able to get the timings tight enough to see a gain in the benches but it is really in the wind.

At 1:1 the RAM is technically running at half the speed of the FSB. 400 base clock is an apparent RAM clock of 800, hence DDR2 800, and an apparent FSB of 1600. so technically you would need the RAM to run at four times the base clock to be "in sync".

They were all excited about it back in the old days. :lol:  but it never took off. Here is a post from Crashman.
Quote:
01-13-2001

DDR will be an almost perfect match for the latest Athlon sytstems, as it is available at the same speed as the system bus (Athlons use DDR system bus right now). QDR will only shine when coupled with a QDR-bus processor and adequate chipset (still under developement) or possibly with a 64-bit processor w/DDR system bus and a chipset that supports QDR ram (64-bit DDR is the same transfer rate as 32-bit QDR for a given clock rate.) So DDR is really the only way to go for the next few months on the Athlon system. Right now the P4 is the only QDR-bus processor, and by the time a chipset could be developed for QDR memory the new version will be out. So QDR hold a lot of promise for the next generation of processors from AMD and Intel, but if you need something before then, DDR is the only solution...
I wonder if he will get pissed for me dredging up such an old post. :whistle: 
June 30, 2008 5:50:22 AM

Lupiron said:
He is right, though. IMC is gonna put you guys out of an argument. Maybe in a few more months!

Greed is Good!

--Lupi
You guys? There is always something to discuss.
June 30, 2008 6:19:29 AM

Uhh.. what? No kidding? DDR2 is double the FSB? ::Locks shocked.:: hey, stop talking and do the damn tests yourself and drop some proof!

I watch clowns post random trash all the times. I already know the results. Bench it, and drop the shots with known progies, and then this poor thread can rest!

Or you can just pull up the tests I did long ago, in the dredges of TH postings.

Get to something interesting! Anyone know what the cause of NVidias power spikes within their chipset? Obviously it's there by their massive use of intel spec vdroop and drop.

I was quite shocked when my P5n72-t drop and drooped down like .115 volts! Owww! I didnt believe my 1.2000 VID chip could run at such a low voltage!

But then again. Using uncommon logic, if the VID spec voltage range is .85 - 1.5000 volts. That means that MAX spec VDroop and drop could be down to that .85!

So it MUST be intel spec.

There, see, I showed you all something new, and helpful!

So the lowest VID of a q6x00 series is 1.2000, and the min voltage is .85, and my boards using the max .115 vdrop/droop that can possibly maintain power for my ultra low VID processor.

Makes you wonder if the Voltage archetype chip for testing was 1.2000, the lowest VID, because they can be assured that if the lowest one can take up to 1.5000 safely, the naturally higher voltage using chips could at least take that amount.

If that is the case, then the safe range for 1.2000 VIDs chip would actually be, in fact, 1.5000 volts! So is it harmful to use more on low chips?

There, thats better, F the damn memory thingies!

Heheheh!

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 8:02:38 AM

You da man, you so smart. Do you feel better now?

Why don't you link me to the tests in the dredges of your posts that prove that there is a noticeable difference by running 1:1 as opposed to running some other multi. Not just some memory benches, because I have run my own, but real world programs that show a noticeable difference. All you have to do is give me the link. If that is indeed the case, then I'll gladly jump on the 1:1 bandwagon, however I believe it's unlikely.

Never mind, here is a test I found that shows the insensitivity of the Q6000 to memory timings, and clock crossing delay.
Memory bandwidth tests... any real differences (part 2) - ABXZone Computer Forums

Sure saving some heat by using a lower voltage is always good. But there is very little to no real world performance difference between 1:1 or other settings. It simply doesn't make much difference what the settings are.

As was said, the IMC will hopefully make this all go away. Although, depending on the level of control that Intel is willing to relinquish, we might be wishing we had the MCH back.
June 30, 2008 9:46:21 AM

Now you confused me, I thought I just said the same thing as you, only in a smarter way. RAM speed doesnt matter, just the FSB. 1066 RAM would be very close to 800 Mhz ram if yer FSB is 266.

I am not the one arguing with everyone else. You dig up the facts and back up your arguments. I could care less. I got more gear, and a bigger brain than you anyways. So you just enjoy yer lil comp, have fun, OC till yer heart is content, then blab randomly to people, while showing not a single impressive OC.

That part confuses me as well. Where is yer big numbers, hot shot? Hahaha! Better put in some more work!

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 9:51:48 AM

Okaaaaayyy... at least that thread proved that I was right. Imagine that there was little difference from 1:1 at whatever FSB, to a higher divider for a higher frequency, when leaving the FSB alone.

::Yawns.:: Tough crowd in here.

True about the mem controller. Once intel has full control, who the hell knows what they'll support. And the MoBo manufacturers wont be able to mod it them selves, without some serious time and effort.

Look how long it took AMD chips to just support 1066! Imagine the new chips, I would guess that DDR2 users will be fine. The DDR3 guys might not get along so well with those faster speed RAM.

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 10:17:03 AM

Lupiron said:
Now you confused me, I thought I just said the same thing as you, only in a smarter way....

--Lupi
The really funny thing is that you just said that you agreed with me all along.

You either have a serious problem with reading comprehension or you just wanted to bytch and rant to make yourself feel good. Either way it's fine by me.

It must be a full moon.
June 30, 2008 11:13:41 AM

::Scratches his head.:: I guess so. I only said what I said. I didn't disagree or agree with anyone at all. Your weirdness came out and you assumed I was.

Let me know when you get an OC that proves you have also got a clue, hehe. I have no need to feel better. I already feel that way about most things!

To the poor person whos thread you clowns are ruined, Sorry about that! be careful who you take advice for, and when all else fails, it just takes a small amount of time, and a few simple tests to see for yourself.

Then you will know what works for you on your collection of gear that comprises your computer!

Basically, thats what I had to do as well.

And I have the screen shots to prove I know what I am doing!

Enjoy, all!

Hey Shadow! Where is my 1st place banner! I think I need to wrap myself up in it so I will feel better about things!

--Lupi
June 30, 2008 12:24:23 PM

Your right, you didn't agree or disagree with anyone about anything. All you did is go on a self serving rant. I hope you had fun.

If you had bothered to read the first three posts, instead of trying to prove your manhood then you would know that the OP got his question answered. I guess you were too busy being master uberclocker cool dude.

Or maybe you did read them and just didn't comprehend what you read there either.
June 30, 2008 12:29:36 PM

my fsb runs at 956.33333 gigahurtz!

but really, i did help the discussion int he best way possible. I suggested scientific method to solve the problem on his end. :-p
June 30, 2008 12:43:39 PM

:lol: 

True, that is the only way to do it and be sure your getting anything at all.

Or just run everything as hard as you can and replace it when it cooks. :lol: 
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
June 30, 2008 2:11:33 PM

Zorg said:
Somebody is running around using the thumbs up/down buttons.


offset :ange: 

***


1:1 is theoretically 'best'. But depending on what you need your computer for and the components on hand it may not provide the greatest possible throughput. Some memory benchies will show the difference from running your memory faster. So if you have an app that demands such throughput (you won't see any difference in games, BTW), then it may be worthwhile to spend the extra on faster memory. But for most people, on Intel FSB-based systems, it doesn't matter much.
June 30, 2008 3:15:10 PM

Agreed. Moreover, the difference in bandwidth makes a small difference with regards to the core 2 i.e., the memory benches don't reflect the real world gains. It sounds like I'm pro 1:1 and that is because I'm not against it.

The only thing that I was commenting about is that it appears that many people think that 1:1 is the Holy Grail. I have said several times in this thread, several different ways, that the difference between 1:1 and using a different a multiplier is negligible.

I've even run benches, if my memory serves me correctly, that got a little better benches at lower frequencies. That's all well and good. There is very little difference between running DDR2 800 at 667 with tighter timings or at 800 with looser timings, in terms of usable performance, or wear and tear on the RAM and MCH. Maybe a little additional electricity. If your talking about running RAM high enough that it requires raising the Vmch etc. then that is another story, and I'm not an advocate of that, unless of course it's for fun.

If you want to run your CPU at 1333 and the RAM at 800 as opposed to running it at 667 it is no big deal, it's just that there is very little real world performance difference.

See, now I said the same thing a few more times.

I'm not saying 1:1 is bad, it's fine, just not the be all end all, with other choices being "wrong".

If the FSB clock you want to reach the desired OC happens to be 1:1 with the RAM then great. If not, then you can choose to run the RAM at 1:1 or Run the RAM at it's rated speed. I probably would run the RAM at either 1:1 or a multi that would be 800 max, because at 1066+ things do tend to heat up. The only reason I would go over 800 is if it was needed for the FSB OC, just my preference.
June 30, 2008 5:43:05 PM

Lupiron said:
Get him, Zorg!

:) 

--Lupi


Zorg said:
how about you? :lol: 


AH!!!RUN!!!!

PS going back to china tomorrow.:D  wont be on here so often then!:( 
June 30, 2008 6:03:58 PM

Why not?
June 30, 2008 6:36:17 PM

lol prolly you dont wanna see me here so much!:p 
June 30, 2008 9:15:55 PM

That's certainly not the case.
June 30, 2008 11:45:24 PM

haha only joking.

my place in china dont have internet at the moment. so gonna take some time to install. but i will try be active and giving help in the forum.
July 1, 2008 12:26:56 AM

Hope to see you back soon.
!