Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

My RAM is not at the correct frequency. Whats up?

Last response: in Memory
Share
July 10, 2008 5:51:16 PM

Hey Guys,

So I just got a new system set up and finally got it going(had some problems with a stick of RAM!!). After installing the drivers and some overclocking utilities I was feeling pretty good about this new rig. Well, I went into AMD's Overdrive utility and noticed my Memory frequency was rated at around 400mhz... Is this normal for memory to have a lower freq. when idle? How can I tell it's going up to the correct Mhz under load? I've heard a lot of people say that their 1066mhz sticks only reach 800mhz on some mobos.

I have one stick of Corsair Dominator memory, rated at 1066Mhz, it's a 2 gigabyte stick.

Just wondering if this is all correct or if somethings wrong here. The other stick that came with this package didn't work at all so im a bit worried about this one. It may be normal, i dont know I need someone to help me out here so I can have some peace of mind. Any tips or advice would be great!!

Thanks :) 
July 10, 2008 6:09:55 PM

I've heard of that same problem when looking around for mobos. One way to fix it is find the stock voltage for the RAM on Corsairs website, and check the voltage of yours in your BIOS. If the voltage shown in the BIOS is lower, just boost it up, and the frequency should be 1066mhz... :??: 

Hope this helps!
July 10, 2008 6:33:05 PM

There is no such thing as DDR2 1066.

JEDEC sets the standards for memory and their specifications for DDR2 are 400, 533, 667 and 800 all @ 1.8v. Some memory is sold at different ratings than this but all that is is a guarantee from the manufacturer that you memory will overclock to those speeds. Download and run CPUZ and check the SPD (Serial Presence Detect) tab and it will show the different speeds and voltages that your memory is rated for. There should be a few different ratings, some of them listed as JEDEC and some EPP (Enhanced Performance Profiles). The ratings that were listed when you bought it will be listed under EPP and you will have to maually go into the BIOS and change it to those settings. When you first install memory it defaults to it's JEDEC specifications.
Related resources
July 10, 2008 7:48:23 PM

the 400 you see on the utility is the base freq, so it really is running at 800.

don't forget to bump up the voltage as well when changing the settings...
a b } Memory
July 10, 2008 7:52:30 PM

And I disagree with Pains. DDR2-1066 is like SATAII. There is no official standard for either one. Companies sell products calling it DDR2-1066/SATA2, but the official standard doesn't exist.

What your ram will be running at depends on how you have it set to run in the bios. For example, if you have your FSB:RAM ratio set to 1:1 and you have your FSB set to 400MHz, then your ram will be running at 400MHz. (or 800MHz DDR speed.) It doesn't matter what ram you put in there, the bios will try to run it at 800MHz. Check your bios settings to see how your ram is supposed to be ran.
July 10, 2008 8:05:20 PM

What is wrong is that you didn't search out existing threads on this topic. How many times will the same topic be discussed in new threads when the OP could just do a quick search educate themselves.

Bet this guy will start a new thread trying to figure out why windows only reports ~ 3 gig of ram...
July 10, 2008 8:06:56 PM

painsfaith said:
I have to disagree, there IS such thing as DDR2 1066
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=ddr2+1066&x=0&y=0

However, these may be just stock memory, which is then OC'ed and with a warranty slapped onto it. But for me, as long as its got a warranty on it, that's fine by me :D 


You can disagree all you want because it's a fact. Companies make up these numbers to sell more memory at higher prices.

I have Mushkin DDR2 1066 and this is a shot of CPUZ from it

It is sold as DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 but as you can see it is actually DDR2 800 5-5-5-18
July 10, 2008 8:10:14 PM

hairycat101 said:
What is wrong is that you didn't search out existing threads on this topic. How many times will the same topic be discussed in new threads when the OP could just do a quick search educate themselves.

Bet this guy will start a new thread trying to figure out why windows only reports ~ 3 gig of ram...


It's funny you said that because I have written this same thing countless times and I was thinking of writing something up in hopes of being a sticky so it could be used as reference but most people don't bother to read the stickys so I just felt it wasn't worth the effort.
July 10, 2008 10:29:45 PM

OP, you see the correct speed of your RAM. The memory controller is on die for AMD CPU's. All AMD CPU's run at a base clock of 200Mhz. However, the AMD operates at 2 signals per clock cycle (200Mhz*2) so the FSB is actually 400Mhz. The RAM operates at the same speed as the FSB but it is DDR (Dual Data Rate) so the RAM operates at 2*FSB which is 800Mhz. But it is still detected as operating at 400Mhz with the FSB. And, DDR2-1066 is just DDR2-800 RAM overclockable to 533Mhz (DDR2-1066) supposedly. And the only way to get the RAM to 533Mhz is to bump up the FSB to 267Mhz and up the voltage for the RAM. But it's worth having the memory controller on die in my opinion. and if you can overclock your AMD that fast then you're doing alright.
July 11, 2008 12:20:16 AM

My mistake ausch30, I suppose I should have looked into the topic more.

However, I'm a bit confused. You're saying DDR2 1066 is DDR2 800 running at a higher frequency? Or am I mistaken?

So if I popped in some DDR2 800 with a low CAS latency ~3, would that be faster than DDR2 "1066" with a CAS of 5?
July 11, 2008 12:48:57 AM

painsfaith said:
My mistake ausch30, I suppose I should have looked into the topic more.

However, I'm a bit confused. You're saying DDR2 1066 is DDR2 800 running at a higher frequency? Or am I mistaken?

So if I popped in some DDR2 800 with a low CAS latency ~3, would that be faster than DDR2 "1066" with a CAS of 5?


The thing is that companies do a lot of shady things. A lot of RAM sold as DDR2 800 is actually DDR2 667 and so on. The things to look for when buying RAM are the timings but more importantly the voltage. A lot of companies try to hide the fact that they are using lower quality chips by hiking up the voltage to achieve better timings.

This is just one example but you can see that the first set are at the industry standard 1.8v while the second set need 1.9v to achieve the same timings.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Here is another example

The first one is from my old RAM which was sold as DDR2 800 4-4-3-10 2.1v while the second is from my current RAM which was sold as DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.05v

As you can clearly see they are both DDR2 800 but at the standard 1.8v the set sold as slower memory is actually capable of better timings 5-5-5-15 instead of 5-5-5-18. Most quality DDR2 800 is capable of reaching as high or higher overclocks as RAM sold as DDR2 1066.
July 11, 2008 1:17:55 AM

Ouch.... I never noticed that. I assumed that each memory stick on the market was original, guess that shows how ignorant I was :lol: 

Anyways, ill keep that in mind when I build a new rig.

Thanks for the clarification!
July 11, 2008 3:03:49 AM

Ok, thanks guys!

So it seems i really have some ddr2 800 RAM that I just need to overclock to achieve 1066mhz. That'd be great if i could get my Base clock of 200Mhz past 208Mhz before my system crashes!! I've heard some strange things with higher voltages and the AMD Phenom processor... I don't think that problem will arise though. Is the AMD Overdrive auto tune total crap?

And hairycat10 1 don't be such an ass. I got much more specific help from these guys!
July 11, 2008 3:28:48 AM

austinman said:
And hairycat10 1 don't be such an ass. I got much more specific help from these guys!



Not really... I've read these same things about 10 times and I've only started frequenting these forums about two weeks ago.
July 11, 2008 4:04:10 AM

Hmm, I've looked around the forum and agree with your point, but you must realize that a few people are new to this forum (such as me :hello:  ). I'll keep in mind to not repeat any posts.
July 11, 2008 4:30:01 AM

Painsfaith, glad you got the answer you needed.

There is something amusingly ironic about an idiot who keeps clicking on a thread just because they are sick of posters not first searching existing posts.

At minimum, don't read the thread if it seems to be redundant to you. And if for a brief second you realize that it is redundant after you are "tricked" into reading it, click back.

Newbies are often more comfortable rephrasing old topics because they may not be confident enough to know if the original post covered their issue, just as regulars seem to like to take the time to answer redundant posts.
July 11, 2008 4:31:24 PM

husky mctarflash said:
Painsfaith, glad you got the answer you needed.

There is something amusingly ironic about an idiot who keeps clicking on a thread just because they are sick of posters not first searching existing posts.

At minimum, don't read the thread if it seems to be redundant to you. And if for a brief second you realize that it is redundant after you are "tricked" into reading it, click back.

Newbies are often more comfortable rephrasing old topics because they may not be confident enough to know if the original post covered their issue, just as regulars seem to like to take the time to answer redundant posts.



I'm glad you felt the need to post without actually adding anything useful. Please go back on your meds and stop posting needlessly. The rest of us would appriciate it.

Thanks :heink: 
July 11, 2008 5:02:34 PM

Hello Hairycat101

Don't take this with hard feelings, but I don't have a reading rate of 800 wpm at the moment. Therefore, it is not possible for me to read each post on this forum...not yet at least.

Pardon me if I'm lowering the "efficiency" of this forum.

Also, I do not find it necessary to look down upon someone who makes a mistake. It's only my opinion however.
July 11, 2008 6:38:17 PM

painsfaith, there is a difference between making a mistake, not knowing something and being a dumb@$$. It appears that there are many in this forum who fall in the third catagory. I know I do from time to time. I think some are stuck there, though. You might be one of these persons. I suspect you are.
July 11, 2008 8:34:52 PM

Yo hairy, there's a big difference between getting a point across and being a d1ckhead, and you're being a d1ckhead. You've been a little b1tch and starting **** ever since you first posted in this thread. If you don't like the fact that the OP didn't find his answer from previous threads, then go start another thread, bitch about it there, and stay the f*ck out of this one.
a b } Memory
July 11, 2008 11:17:25 PM



It is probably best if if we stop this from happening. Learning is learning, lets not b1tch (too much) how it occurs.

As for the OPs lastest question, I'm not sure. I haven't heard about the increased voltage problem, but I have heard that Phenoms don't usually overclock well. Just hope that Overdrive doesn't go the way of the Avivo. As long as they keep updating it, you'll be able to overclock the chips at some point in time.
July 11, 2008 11:43:36 PM

arson94 said:
Yo hairy, there's a big difference between getting a point across and being a d1ckhead, and you're being a d1ckhead. You've been a little b1tch and starting **** ever since you first posted in this thread. If you don't like the fact that the OP didn't find his answer from previous threads, then go start another thread, bitch about it there, and stay the f*ck out of this one.


Big difference between you and a toaster-oven is that the toaster-oven is more likely to make out with a real girl... that, and its smarter, smells better, contributes more to humanity... etc. Come to think of it, you aren't really a valuable member to society at all... are you? :hello: 
July 12, 2008 7:24:14 AM

I hope you guys leave it at this, I don't want WW3 to break out from my stupidity.
July 15, 2008 12:57:11 AM

austinman said:
Hey Guys,

So I just got a new system set up and finally got it going(had some problems with a stick of RAM!!). After installing the drivers and some overclocking utilities I was feeling pretty good about this new rig. Well, I went into AMD's Overdrive utility and noticed my Memory frequency was rated at around 400mhz... Is this normal for memory to have a lower freq. when idle? How can I tell it's going up to the correct Mhz under load? I've heard a lot of people say that their 1066mhz sticks only reach 800mhz on some mobos.

I have one stick of Corsair Dominator memory, rated at 1066Mhz, it's a 2 gigabyte stick.

Just wondering if this is all correct or if somethings wrong here. The other stick that came with this package didn't work at all so im a bit worried about this one. It may be normal, i dont know I need someone to help me out here so I can have some peace of mind. Any tips or advice would be great!!

Thanks :) 


DDR2 1066 will only run at spec with the Phenom integrated memory controller. If you have an AMD dual core microprocessor the BIOS and integrated memory controller will 'default' the DDR2 1066 to 800MHz. The IMC of the dual core is not capable of the higher 1066mhz speed.

If you are running a Phenom quad core you may have to enter the BIOS and set the memory freq to 533mhz (double-pumped in AMD systems to 1066MHz) and adjust your voltage and timings to spec for your sticks.
April 17, 2009 5:59:20 PM

arson94 said:
OP, you see the correct speed of your RAM. The memory controller is on die for AMD CPU's. All AMD CPU's run at a base clock of 200Mhz. However, the AMD operates at 2 signals per clock cycle (200Mhz*2) so the FSB is actually 400Mhz. The RAM operates at the same speed as the FSB but it is DDR (Dual Data Rate) so the RAM operates at 2*FSB which is 800Mhz. But it is still detected as operating at 400Mhz with the FSB. And, DDR2-1066 is just DDR2-800 RAM overclockable to 533Mhz (DDR2-1066) supposedly. And the only way to get the RAM to 533Mhz is to bump up the FSB to 267Mhz and up the voltage for the RAM. But it's worth having the memory controller on die in my opinion. and if you can overclock your AMD that fast then you're doing alright.


Hey dude, that was right on!!! I was just going through looking for another util besides CPU-Z, to see if it was just the util giving me a false report. I have an Intel, but that shouldn't make any difference.

I just got my new, way cool Lenovo with DDR3-8500F RAM (4GB) and it's reporting it at 533MHz. So your response was right on time!

I really like the Lenovo Y530-40516GU that I bought, but I'll tell you guys, if you want options in CMOS, DO NOT buy this laptop!!! It is completely barren!!! You can't even change power settings in it and have to use the Windows util! It runs fine, but forget about CMOS options!

And to the guy who said he wanted to make a sticky, but nobody pays attention to them and he's tired of writing the same thing over and over, I have two suggestions:

1) Create a folder on your Desktop for text files and then create texts files for each subject, by using copy & paste each time you respond to someone and then, from there, the next time, just copy & paste from the text file for your response.
a b } Memory
April 20, 2009 6:50:07 AM

Quote:
I have an Intel, but that shouldn't make any difference.


Actually it does. First, what Arson wrote for AMD64 processors is wrong. That info is fine for AthlonXPs and the like, but incorrect for modern AMD CPUs. Seeing as Intel CPUs used to have the FSB, this does apply to them. Some of the numbers sometimes will need to be changed seeing as Intel went up to the 1333MHz effective FSB, but the math is correct.
April 21, 2009 6:55:42 PM

Hi "Ancient Poster"! :) 

Please allow me to begin by clarifying what it was that I was commenting on, as it was obviously and wholly my fault and I can see how I made it look completely different than what I meant to reply about. Sorry about that!

What I meant to specifically respond about, was that I was grateful for the information regarding the reported speed of the RAM and that (and that only) is what I was speaking to, regarding his accuracy, which to me seemed obvious, given what he said and what I also saw.

I.e., It reports 533MHz for my 1066MHz RAM. His explanation of how it effectively gets doubled, which would mean that what CPU-Z is reporting is in fact correct, saved me from having to do a lot of work tracking down other utils, thinking that maybe this one (CPU-Z) was giving me a false report!

Do you know more about this and how this works? Are you saying that he's still wrong? If so, then do you know why my system is reporting 533MHz, instead of 1066MHz?

I would really appreciate your expertise here! I am a tech and do understand these concepts, so don't be afraid of technical jargon. I simply have not been keeping up for the last number of years, due to being down physically and unable to function most times and the "chip evolution" has unfortunately, left me far behind!

Also, do you know anything about the /userpmtimer switch with the Intel?

If you do and could please enlighten me and please explain to me why you say what you say about it, I would greatly appreciate that as well, as it seems that there are no definite answers out there, period!

I have installed the V4 Intel patch from MS (just for my "FYI", is that only for Intel???), which sadly, only goes on SP2, which means if one installs XP with SP3 slipstreamed in, one cannot apply it. Crazy, huh?. And so, I did that. But as for the switch, no one seems to know for sure.

I did notice a big difference with the switch applied in the Boot.Ini on my desktop PC, but now that I no longer have that and am using a brand new laptop (Lenovo Y530-40516GU) I have to admit, I really didn't notice any difference with it. I do love the laptop! It is really nice! Except if you're looking for a bunch of CMOS options. Or any at all, for that matter! CMOS on this thing is as barren as a 90 year old woman in the desert without water for 2 weeks! :) 

It comes with Vista from Lenovo, but since I would rather stab myself in the heart than run Vista, I wiped it and installed XP Pro 32 bit instead. I would have went for 64, but I wasn't sure about all the drivers, since I couldn't find some of them and I run some apps that should be 64 bit (such as a firewall app,. etc.) that I like and didn't want to switch from and XP64 seems to have been abandoned, as far as development of apps/utils is concerned, now that Vista64 is here. Sad, really! (:

So anyway, I put XP32 on it and pulled one of the 2GB RAM modules out of it and while that takes away the "dual channel" feature, I saw no point in leaving it in, just to get a half a GigaByte more of RAM that is usable to me while running XP. So maybe I'll sell the other 2GB module, since XP32 runs great on 2GB and let's face it, even if the CPU is dual core, a 2.13 GHz P7450 is not a gaming chip anyway, especially not when coupled with an nVidia 9300M GS! :) 

Anyway, I am really looking forward to your reply and as much information as you feel inclined to be bothered to give me! <lol!> :) 


Thanks!

Dave
a b } Memory
April 21, 2009 7:38:20 PM

I'm not in the habit of playing with boot switches. This means I haven't used /userpmtimer. (I'm assuming its a boot switch, I don't normally use them at all.)

He is correct that many tools list the actual speed (400MHz) and not the effective speed. (800MHz.) Yes, DDR2 does get doubled. He is wrong because modern AMD CPUs (and now current Intel CPUs) have the memory controller on the CPU and not the north bridge. This means the "FSB" never comes into play. For AMD, the speed the memory runs at is half of the CPU multiplier, rounded up if need be. I'm not so good with this myself, here is some reading on the matter.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/347/1/

The memory controller on the chip changes things. What Arson wrote is fine for the AthlonXP's, but for newer chips its wrong.
April 21, 2009 8:17:53 PM


Just FYI, I have DDR3, PC3-8500 (1066MHz) RAM in my laptop.

And thanks for the quick response and the manual, even if you admit
that you don't know a thing!

I'm just kidding, dude! :)  Seriously, thanks for being helpful!

Dave
a b } Memory
April 21, 2009 9:02:01 PM

DDR3 is slightly different. You take the same actual clock, but instead of doubling you need to quadruple it. A 200MHz base clock for DDR2 will give you DDR2-400MHz, but will give you DDR3-800MHz. A 533MHz base clock will be DDR2-1066MHz or DDR3-2132MHz. This is all assuming a 1:1 ratio of course.

Know nothing? See if I ever reply again! ;) 
a b } Memory
April 21, 2009 10:08:55 PM

4745454b said:
DDR3 is slightly different. You take the same actual clock, but instead of doubling you need to quadruple it. A 200MHz base clock for DDR2 will give you DDR2-400MHz, but will give you DDR3-800MHz. A 533MHz base clock will be DDR2-1066MHz or DDR3-2132MHz. This is all assuming a 1:1 ratio of course.

Know nothing? See if I ever reply again! ;) 


Nope.

DDR2 is Double Data Rate, generation 2. The Double Data Rate is the part to be concerned about - it means the data rate (effective clock) is double the true clock.

DDR3 is also Double Data Rate memory, it's just generation 3. Therefore, the effective clock is still double the true clock. Therefore, DDR3-1066 still has a 533MHz base clock, just like DDR2-1066, and DDR3-1600 is 800MHz true IO clock.
a b } Memory
April 21, 2009 10:44:36 PM

Uh oh, not this again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM

Look at the chart about half way down.

Memory clock I/O bus clock Data rate
100 400 800
133 533 1066

Data rate is x8 the memory clock, or times 4 because its DDR?
April 21, 2009 10:57:53 PM

The "memory clock" in that chart relates to the internal workings of the module and has nothing to do with how the external bus transfer data between the memory controller and the module. This bus is "double pumped".

So cjl is right.
a b } Memory
April 22, 2009 12:04:29 AM

4745454b said:
Uh oh, not this again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM

Look at the chart about half way down.
  1. Memory clock I/O bus clock Data rate
  2. 100 400 800
  3. 133 533 1066

Data rate is x8 the memory clock, or times 4 because its DDR?

Actually, data rate is double the I/O clock, which is the one that matters. The I/O clock is exactly what it sounds like - the true clock rate for all I/O operations. Data rate is always double this for DDR memory (no matter what generation of DDR it is).
April 22, 2009 2:15:56 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
I have an Intel, but that shouldn't make any difference.


Actually it does. First, what Arson wrote for AMD64 processors is wrong. That info is fine for AthlonXPs and the like, but incorrect for modern AMD CPUs. Seeing as Intel CPUs used to have the FSB, this does apply to them. Some of the numbers sometimes will need to be changed seeing as Intel went up to the 1333MHz effective FSB, but the math is correct.



Ya know 4745454b, I didn't realize the mistake I made long ago when I made this post. I will admit, I called you a few names in the book before I figured it out myself lol... I was wrong when I said it ran at the speed of the FSB * 2. I don't know where the f*** that came from, but yea that was old school methods.

Just to redeem myself:

The RAM speed is determined by [(cpu speed/ram divider) * 2]. The ram divider is half the cpu multiplier rounded up to the nearest whole number.

I remember when the Athlon 64 X2's first came out you needed to do a little calculation to see if your X2 was going to run your RAM at 800Mhz by default or if you were going to have to up the FSB a little to keep from running at 750Mhz or something.

Don't worry 4745454b, I took all those dirty names I called you back lol. Thanks for catching my mistake.
!