Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1:1 FSB : Ram ratio. Is it necessary for Q9550?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 13, 2008 4:42:46 PM

Hello everyone. This is my first post at toms hardware.

I am currently trying to get Q9550 Yorkfield and 8GB of RAM ( ddr 6400 ).

I;ve heard that 1:1 ratio is necessary to maximize your performance.

I have few questions regarding this issue.


1. When not overclocking

FSB of Q9550 at the stock setting ( I believe its around 333mhz )
is not equal to ddr 6400 ( 400mhz)

Do I have to adjust the fsb or ram to make it equal to 1:1 despite the
fact that im not overclocking it?


2. When Overclocking

Ive seen some post where people have 4:5 ratio or 5:4. What will be the performance difference for not having 1:1 ratio? 20%-40%?
Is 1:1 ratio really necessary?

3. Is Q9550 capable for OC?

Im not sure whether q9550 is a good cpu for overclocking. Looks like I have to go all the way up to 400mhz ( 3.4ghz). Is it possible on stock cooler or should I get an aftermarket cooler like arctic freezer 7 pro?

More about : fsb ram ratio q9550

a c 127 à CPUs
August 13, 2008 4:56:17 PM

A 1:1 ratio is optimal for stability. Right now it would be at 667MHz for a 1:1. But if you go to say a 800MHz memory you will run it at a higher ratio and that normally allows for a bit better performance at the loss of stability.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 5:03:47 PM

There's lots of reasons for running 1:1... One is less stress on the motherboard because it doesn't have to deal with dividers. Two is generally lower latency, because when you go through a divider, you take a memory performance hit, but I don't think it is 20 to 40%. For example, no one with ddr3 1333 ram , are running 1:1. You would need a fsb of 666mhz, just isn't achievable with today's hardware. I wouldn't worry about getting 1:1, if you do great, if not, don't worry about it.

What I like to do is play around with frequency, timings, and dividers, until I get the lowest memory latency in Everest.

Optimizing an overall overclock, and particularly the memory, is all about settings, than testing the settings for stability and speed.

That cpu can make it to 3.4 no problem on a decent mobo, however the temperatures may be a little high with stock cooler.
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
August 13, 2008 5:28:38 PM

^Thtas funny considering Iam runnin a 1:1 FSB with my memory on a 333MHz FSB x 4 @ 1333MHz. And CPU-Z states it too.
August 13, 2008 5:32:44 PM

That's impossible jimmy, sportsfanboy said so lol
August 13, 2008 5:32:53 PM

Yeah but that just means your ram is running at DDR2 667 speeds. He said nobody runs ram at 1333 speeds at 1:1 because it would take a 667mhz FSB.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 5:39:21 PM

Guys, DDR2 800mhz requires a fsb of 400mhz to get 1:1!

DDR2 1000mhz requires a fsb of 500mhz to run 1:1!

DDR2 1200mhz requires a fsb of 600mhz to run 1:1!

DDR3 1333mhz requires a fsb of 666 to run 1:1!

Get your head out of your azzes before giving me crap, I'm right
August 13, 2008 5:40:38 PM

Um.. the missing key word is rated fsb. :p 
August 13, 2008 5:41:55 PM

So I guess I should go with Q9550 and ddr 6400 ( ddr 800mhz ) +Artic cooling freezer 7 pro ( just to be safe )
then overclock it all the way to 3.4 gbz so i can have 1:1 ratio with ddr 800

I hope this combination is good. And btw I don't have to buy any thermal compound since artic cooling freezer 7 pro comes with preapplied grease. Right?

August 13, 2008 5:42:24 PM

sportsfanboy said:
Guys, DDR2 800mhz requires a fsb of 400mhz to get 1:1!

DDR2 1000mhz requires a fsb of 500mhz to run 1:1!

DDR2 1200mhz requires a fsb of 600mhz to run 1:1!

DDR3 1333mhz requires a fsb of 666 to run 1:1!

Get your head out of your azzes before giving me crap, I'm right


Heh... I remember thinking the same thing.

Well, you can still run DDR800 at 533 for a 1:1 ratio. But for argument sake, yes @ advertised speed.
August 13, 2008 5:51:25 PM

hohyss said:
So I guess I should go with Q9550 and ddr 6400 ( ddr 800mhz ) +Artic cooling freezer 7 pro ( just to be safe )
then overclock it all the way to 3.4 gbz so i can have 1:1 ratio with ddr 800

I hope this combination is good. And btw I don't have to buy any thermal compound since artic cooling freezer 7 pro comes with preapplied grease. Right?


Well you have a few options:

1) You could leave the processor at stock speeds and by default your ram will run at DDR2 667 speeds. This wouldn't be the end of the world if you're not comfortable overclocking.

2) You could change the ratio and run your ram at DDR2 800 speeds but leave the processor at its stock speed. I probably wouldn't bother with this since if you're already messing around in the BIOS you might as well overclock the processor. ;) 

3) Do as you say and overclock the processor so that it uses a 400mhz (x4) fsb. This would allow the ram to run at DDR2 800 with a 1:1 ratio.

4) Overclock the processor as far as you can and overclock the ram as well.

Personally I'd go with option 1 or 3.

Edit: nice info there, Computronix. I swear your post was originally above mine but moved somehow!
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 5:52:50 PM

You can Grimmy, but I think the op was talking about maximizing his ram and trying for a 1:1 ratio without having to down clock his ram.

I always thought true 1:1 meant: FSB frequency x 2 = rams rated speed. So ddr2 800mhz should be 400mhz.

But you can run your system slower without a divider, however I believe the performance hit of seriously under clocking the ram, is greater than running it at full speed using a divider.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 5:54:57 PM

Guys,

I posted the following on an earlier thread - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247906-29-ratio#t1765...




Ah, but wait... there's more! :pt1cable: Let's consider some of the additional variables involved in the memory big picture: :o

A ratio of 1:1 provides the best level of stability, since the memory controller, which is an integral part of the northbridge chipset for Intel processors, does not need to translate data flow across the FSB between the memory modules and the processor(s). Also, since memory and processor FSB clocks are synchronous at 1:1, (400:400 or DDR 800), there is no additional latency introduced.

If a minimal ratio of 4:5 (400:500 or DDR 1000) is used, then the resulting increase in memory frequency is effectivey cancelled out by the latency introduced in translation across the FSB between memory and processor clocks, and no increase in memory performance can be noticably detected in benchmarks. Also, asynchronous or mismatched clocks, create an element of potential instability within the memory controller, so depending on the chipset, an increase in northbridge and memory voltage is required for stability, which results in more heat, and less FSB overclock ceiling.

If a more aggressive ratio of 2:3 (400:600 or DDR 1200) is used, then the increase in memory frequency can marginally overcome the latency introduced in translation across the FSB between memory and processor clocks, resulting in a marginal increase in memory performance, which typically yields an increase in memory benchmarks of 2 to 3%, and is relatively negligible in terms of overall system performance.

In the case of expensive DDR3, where a ratio of 1:2 (400:800 or DDR 1600) or 2:5 (400:1000 or DDR 2000) is used, even with the tightest timings, an increase in memory benchmarks of only 3 to 4% is yielded over DDR2 800, which once again, is relatively negligible in terms of overall system performance. It's also noteworthy to consider that memory timings of 4-4-4-12 compared to 5-5-5-15, will yield an increase in memory benchmarks of less than 2%. However, for those of us who have the need for speed, we'll take whatever we can tweak.

Additionally, at equal specifications, 4 memory modules offer less FSB overclock ceiling than 2 modules, since more northbridge and memory voltage is required to maintain stability, and 4 slots require twice the current of 2 slots, again resulting in more heat, which typically is pulled into the CPU cooler, where it can increase processor temperatures by a few unwanted degrees.

I hope this helps to provides a greater degree of perspective (no pun intended). :D

Comp :sol:

Incidentally, I run my rig at 1:1. said:


Ah, but wait... there's more! :pt1cable:  Let's consider some of the additional variables involved in the memory big picture: :o 

A ratio of 1:1 provides the best level of stability, since the memory controller, which is an integral part of the northbridge chipset for Intel processors, does not need to translate data flow across the FSB between the memory modules and the processor(s). Also, since memory and processor FSB clocks are synchronous at 1:1, (400:400 or DDR 800), there is no additional latency introduced.

If a minimal ratio of 4:5 (400:500 or DDR 1000) is used, then the resulting increase in memory frequency is effectivey cancelled out by the latency introduced in translation across the FSB between memory and processor clocks, and no increase in memory performance can be noticably detected in benchmarks. Also, asynchronous or mismatched clocks, create an element of potential instability within the memory controller, so depending on the chipset, an increase in northbridge and memory voltage is required for stability, which results in more heat, and less FSB overclock ceiling.

If a more aggressive ratio of 2:3 (400:600 or DDR 1200) is used, then the increase in memory frequency can marginally overcome the latency introduced in translation across the FSB between memory and processor clocks, resulting in a marginal increase in memory performance, which typically yields an increase in memory benchmarks of 2 to 3%, and is relatively negligible in terms of overall system performance.

In the case of expensive DDR3, where a ratio of 1:2 (400:800 or DDR 1600) or 2:5 (400:1000 or DDR 2000) is used, even with the tightest timings, an increase in memory benchmarks of only 3 to 4% is yielded over DDR2 800, which once again, is relatively negligible in terms of overall system performance. It's also noteworthy to consider that memory timings of 4-4-4-12 compared to 5-5-5-15, will yield an increase in memory benchmarks of less than 2%. However, for those of us who have the need for speed, we'll take whatever we can tweak.

Additionally, at equal specifications, 4 memory modules offer less FSB overclock ceiling than 2 modules, since more northbridge and memory voltage is required to maintain stability, and 4 slots require twice the current of 2 slots, again resulting in more heat, which typically is pulled into the CPU cooler, where it can increase processor temperatures by a few unwanted degrees.

I hope this helps to provides a greater degree of perspective (no pun intended). :D 

Comp :sol: 

Incidentally, I run my rig at 1:1.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 6:00:31 PM

Man... I'm gonna shut up from now on, and let Computronix, do the dirty work.

Nice Comp
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 6:06:01 PM

Thanks sportsfanboy. I couldn't help but notice since you've been here at Tom's, that you know your stuff. It's always nice to have someone new aboard who can help us contribute to the Forums.

Keep up the good work!

Comp :sol: 
August 13, 2008 6:08:35 PM

Ladies and gentlemen why don't we stick to industry convention for the newbies sake.

Eg: An E8400 is 3Ghz and rated 1333 FSB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

RAM is available for said cpu, also rated at 1333 FSB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Sure along the way there are things known as multipliers, clock cycles and quad pumping etc. If we chose to be silly about we could say our E8400 is really at 333 Mhz, along with our RAM at 333 Mhz, but we don't do we?

Like my friend might say "Wakey wakey, hand off snakey"
August 13, 2008 6:15:08 PM

Umm Vertigon, you don't need DDR3 1333 to run the E8400. If your going to run it stock, DDR2 667 is all you really need.

667/ 2 (double rated) = 333.5

333.5 x 4 = 1333 rated FSB

333 x 9 = 3ghz CPU speed

That is as simple as I can put it.

Edit:

Which would be a 1:1 ratio.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 6:18:31 PM

Vertigon,

I agree with Grimmy. Additionally, as I have no desire to spend hohyss's money for him, DDR3 motherboards and memory are still quite pricey, and aside from slightly lower memory power consumption and temperatures, the difference in performance is too small to justify DDR3 parts for a cost effective build.

The funds saved would be much more useful elsewhere.
August 13, 2008 6:29:59 PM

HOLD ON ONE SECOND

i coulda SWORN ddr3 1333 was for a cpu speed of 333mhz

as ddr2 667 was for a cpu speed 333mhz

that's why ddr3 1600 is STANDARD for a cpu speed of 400mhz

im pretty sure of this guys... im gonna go link hunting
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 6:31:25 PM

Vertigon here's a few lines from the above paragraphs

In the case of expensive DDR3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM , where a ratio of 1:2 (400:800 or DDR 1600) or 2:5 (400:1000 or DDR 2000) is used, even with the tightest timings, an increase in memory benchmarks of only 3 to 4% is yielded over DDR2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2_SDRAM 800, which once again, is relatively negligible in terms of overall system performance.

If money grows on trees, than ddr3 is ok ,however for most people it doesn't seem to make any practical sense to use ddr3 with the current platform.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 6:44:03 PM

eklipz330 said:
HOLD ON ONE SECOND

i coulda SWORN ddr3 1333 was for a cpu speed of 333mhz

as ddr2 667 was for a cpu speed 333mhz

that's why ddr3 1600 is STANDARD for a cpu speed of 400mhz

im pretty sure of this guys... im gonna go link hunting


Not at all close man...This is the math behind this shizil. FSB x Multiplyer=Cpu frequency, DDR2(double data rate) is FSB x2 (for double data rate)= effective ram speed with no divider.

So DDR2 1600 would need you to set a FSB of 800 in your bios in order to run 1:1
August 13, 2008 6:48:44 PM

sportsfanboy said:
Not at all close man...This is the math behind this shizil. FSB x Multiplyer=Cpu frequency, DDR2(double data rate) is FSB x2 (for double data rate)= effective ram speed with no divider.

So DDR2 1600 would need you to set a FSB of 800 in your bios in order to run 1:1



omg are you serious lol im in disbelief

is this why nehalem doesn't use fsb?
August 13, 2008 6:50:20 PM

CompuTronix said:
Vertigon,

Additionally, as I have no desire to spend hohyss's money for him..


lol.. dude...
I'd be quite suprised if stranger is willing to actually spend money on stranger. Just like I'd never be willing to spend a money on a you ;p jk

Btw will the price of core 2 duo/quad drop after Nehalem comes out? It seems like ddr 3 is way to expensive.and same goes for x58 mobo
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 6:55:51 PM

You're welcome! :p  Just looking out for your interests. :) 
August 13, 2008 6:58:41 PM

hohyss said:
Btw will the price of core 2 duo/quad drop after Nehalem comes out? It seems like ddr 3 is way to expensive.and same goes for x58 mobo



no reason it shouldn't, unless of course they discontinue them and supplies run short... but i don;t see that happening for at least a year

the q9550 just went down like $200+ in the past week, ima wait for the q9650 to hit the poor price range before i change my e4500 =P
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 7:02:27 PM

eklipz330 said:
the q9550 just went down like $200+ in the past week, ima wait for the q9650 to hit the poor price range before i change my e4500 =P
That's where I'm at with my Q6600. I want the 9x multiplier for the overclock, but not for $559.99.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 7:06:33 PM

Well yes and no... Nehalem is going with an on chip memory controller, that way they can significantly lower memory latencies. If you look at the test results from even two years ago, regarding AMD's memory latency, you will see they still have the edge in this, mostly because of the built in memory controller. I also believe it has helped AMD stay alive in the server segment,
even if their processors are slower clock for clock. Reason why is the massive amount of memory being accessed.

So to answer your question... Intel's new chip (Should)will have the best of both worlds, a fast chip with equally fast memory latency.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 7:11:29 PM

Man... I'm gonna shut up from now on, and let sportsfanboy do the dirty work.

Nice sportsfanboy!
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 13, 2008 7:25:12 PM

Haha, thx Comp
August 14, 2008 1:02:02 PM

"Umm Vertigon, you don't need DDR3 to run the E8400. If your going to run it stock, DDR2 667 is all you really need."

C'mon now grimmy since when did I say you did need it?

People, people, people.....I am in no way promoting DDR3, I am simply stating that the industry has a convention, sure alot of it serves advertising purposes but that's what the newbies are use to. The last review I read that put DDR2 against DDR3 had DDR3 in front by less than 5%.

Aside from all that I hope you got your problem sorted out hohyss.
a c 127 à CPUs
August 14, 2008 1:12:28 PM

sportsfanboy said:
Well yes and no... Nehalem is going with an on chip memory controller, that way they can significantly lower memory latencies. If you look at the test results from even two years ago, regarding AMD's memory latency, you will see they still have the edge in this, mostly because of the built in memory controller. I also believe it has helped AMD stay alive in the server segment,
even if their processors are slower clock for clock. Reason why is the massive amount of memory being accessed.

So to answer your question... Intel's new chip (Should)will have the best of both worlds, a fast chip with equally fast memory latency.


While this is true I think that Phenoms L2 cache is not as fast as Core 2s L2 cache.

Nehalem will have a faster L3 cache than Phenom and unless that has changed, than Deneb.

I think its going to get interesting in the next few months when Nehalem gets released.
August 14, 2008 1:57:25 PM

Vertigon said:
"For example, no one with ddr3 1333 ramhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram , are running 1:1. You would need a fsbhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSB of 666mhz, just isn't achievable with today's hardware."

huh?


Sportsfanboy's statement was correct, yet you seemed to misread or misunderstand it judging by your "huh" response.

jimmysmitty said:
^Thtas funny considering Iam runnin a 1:1 FSB with my memory on a 333MHz FSB x 4 @ 1333MHz. And CPU-Z states it too.


Jimmy also misread or misunderstood Sportsfanboy's statement judging by his reply.

Vertigon said:
That's impossible jimmy, sportsfanboy said so lol


You again indicate that Sportsfanboy has made a mistake.

Vertigon said:
Ladies and gentlemen why don't we stick to industry convention for the newbies sake.

Eg: An E8400 is 3Ghz and rated 1333 FSB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115037

RAM is available for said cpu, also rated at 1333 FSB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820220278

Sure along the way there are things known as multipliers, clock cycles and quad pumping etc. If we chose to be silly about we could say our E8400 is really at 333 Mhz, along with our RAM at 333 Mhz, but we don't do we?

Like my friend might say "Wakey wakey, hand off snakey"


You then link DDR3 RAM as your reasoning, but DDR3 generally runs at 2:1, and not 1:1 which is what the OP was asking about. To run DDR3 1333 RAM in 1:1 you'd have to overclock the FSB to 667mhz which, without reducing the multiplier on the processor, would result in a 6ghz clock speed (and would probably melt your northbridge before you even got close).



a c 127 à CPUs
August 14, 2008 2:51:07 PM

^The OP never states weather its DDR2 or DDR3 RAM and considering that he was talking about DDR 6400 which is the code for DDR2 800 and DDR3 starts at DDR3 1066 I just stated that a 1:1 is optimal for stability.

I currently have my Q6600 on a 333MHz FSB quad firing makes it a 1333MHz FSB and DDR2 1066 running at 667MHz dual channel giving it a 1333MHz FSB for a 1:1 ratio with the CPU FSB. Thats all I stated.

Now yes its impossible to get a 100% 1:1 ratio but you can get close.
August 14, 2008 3:06:13 PM

I run my Q6600 with the same exact settings you do, though my ram is natively DDR2 800 instead of 1066, but I still run at at 667.

Sorry if I misunderstood but when I was going through reading the posts it looked to me like you were disagreeing with Sportsfanboy's comment about nobody running DDR3 1333 at 1:1.
August 14, 2008 3:08:28 PM

Vertigon said:
"Umm Vertigon, you don't need DDR3 to run the E8400. If your going to run it stock, DDR2 667 is all you really need."

C'mon now grimmy since when did I say you did need it?

People, people, people.....I am in no way promoting DDR3, I am simply stating that the industry has a convention, sure alot of it serves advertising purposes but that's what the newbies are use to. The last review I read that put DDR2 against DDR3 had DDR3 in front by less than 5%.

Aside from all that I hope you got your problem sorted out hohyss.


OOOOHHHHH.. okay.

What newbies are used to.

:whistle:  . o O (what evah... ya lets tell the newbies to buy the expensive stuff)
August 14, 2008 3:36:39 PM

"You then link DDR3 RAM as your reasoning"

What I find interesting about your post uguv is that you quoted my other posts, other than my last one, where I say ".I am in no way promoting DDR3, I am simply stating that the industry has a convention"

This is interesting because you made your post 55 minutes after I made my last one, did you not see my last post, or did you simply not want to see it? Perhaps you need to make yourself feel clever but misrepresenting someone else.

I find amusement in some posts, I don't know why people think being able to divide the fsb speed into the memory spec is equivelant to einstein's E=mc2, but they do and I find it funny. In a recent post by a guy complaining about his cpu, I said he might have a chicken mcnugget stuck between the core and the plate. Now did I really mean that? You be the judge.

The way jimmysmitty refers to 1:1 is the industry convention. This is how the entire market refers to the 1:1 spec. Sure if you want to be a purist you could suggest that nothing really runs faster than the FSB, but this would be stupid and a dismissal of technological development. Memory has bandwith, cpu's have multipliers which both tie into the FSB speed. DDR2 has double the data rate or should I say it transfers data not only when the memory clock goes from low to high, but also from high to low. Hence my earlier post:

"Sure along the way there are things known as multipliers, clock cycles and quad pumping etc. If we chose to be silly about we could say our E8400 is really at 333 Mhz, along with our RAM at 333 Mhz, but we don't do we? "

So for the next insecure person who needs to misinterperet someone, I am talking about INDUSTRY CONVENTION, not the merits of DDR3.

If you'd like to talk about the merits of RAM like tCL, tRRD and IC's, start another post rather than waffling about a mute point.
August 14, 2008 3:48:52 PM

Eerrrm, just a point about what people refer to as being "expensive" is a little subjective and often out of context. If your pov and can barely afford to eat, sure computer gear is expensive. If your machine makes your very comfortable living for you, then even some of the higher end equipment can still seem a "bargain". Sure we can argue about Dollar Vs Performance, but some people actually love computing and know they are going to stick with their workstation for a while.

". o O (what evah... ya lets tell the newbies to buy the expensive stuff) "

Just so you know I don't sell computer hardware or software, so I have no agenda in telling people to buy higher end gear, I advise them to buy good gear, not gear just because it's expensive. Are you pov grimmy? Sorry if you are but I am always going to buy the best I can afford, that's cos I worked hard enough to get an education and a worthwhile skillset people pay good money for.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 14, 2008 4:17:29 PM

Ok, I'll bite... Vertigon, Half of your posts in this thread have either been condescending, or insulting, all the while you were the one not capable of understanding plain english.

The ops question was if 1:1 was necessary for optimal performance, while clearly stating he will be using ddr2 800 ram. I believe I accurately addressed that question, and what I didn't, Computronix did (a lot more elegantly than me I should add).

I also find it laughable that in your ultimate ignorance you can say that my multiplying of a few factors makes me feel like Einstein. The way I explained it was with numbers and letters to make a point, so the guy asking the question could understand.

Get a grip
August 14, 2008 4:27:50 PM

Vertigon said:
Eerrrm, just a point about what people refer to as being "expensive" is a little subjective and often out of context. If your pov and can barely afford to eat, sure computer gear is expensive. If your machine makes your very comfortable living for you, then even some of the higher end equipment can still seem a "bargain". Sure we can argue about Dollar Vs Performance, but some people actually love computing and know they are going to stick with their workstation for a while.

". o O (what evah... ya lets tell the newbies to buy the expensive stuff) "

Just so you know I don't sell computer hardware or software, so I have no agenda in telling people to buy higher end gear, I advise them to buy good gear, not gear just because it's expensive. Are you pov grimmy? Sorry if you are but I am always going to buy the best I can afford, that's cos I worked hard enough to get an education and a worthwhile skillset people pay good money for.


Says the guy:

Vertigon said:
Just so you know grimmy I don't like having long winded arguements with people, whatever degree people choose to take their computer too is up to them, I am simply expressing the tasks I would undertake.


You know what... just don't talk to me anymore. Please.
August 14, 2008 5:21:49 PM

Sportsfanboy in your very first post you said:

"For example, no one with ddr3 1333 ram , are running 1:1. You would need a fsb of 666mhz, just isn't achievable with today's hardware. I wouldn't worry about getting 1:1, if you do great, if not, don't worry about it."

You make me laugh sportsfanboy:

"if you do great, if not, don't worry about it." ...lol

Some of the best overclockers around can't get a FSB that high and your saying "if you do great, if not, don't worry about it." ?????????????? to hoyss who doesn't even understand how memory spec works?



Since when has anyone in the ENTIRE industry claimed to be running DDR3 with an FSB of 666 at a ratio of 1:1 ? If you can show one official link advertising this I will applaud you. The reason no one but you suggests this is because this isn't the convention hohyss is refering to. This isn't the convention industry uses when it it refers to a RAM/CPU ratio of 1:1, and that is EXACTLY what hohyss is trying to understand.

Jimmy's explanation is good enough, and he is right, no need for me to go through it again unless you want me to explain bandwith x bit rate blah blah.

"all the while you were the one not capable of understanding plain english"

I think your the one that doesn't understand english or industry convention:

"Guys, DDR2 800mhz requires a fsb of 400mhz to get 1:1!

DDR2 1000mhz requires a fsb of 500mhz to run 1:1!

DDR2 1200mhz requires a fsb of 600mhz to run 1:1!

DDR3 1333mhz requires a fsb of 666 to run 1:1!

So your saying this is what industry talks about when it refers to RAM/CPU ratio's as being 1:1??????? Is this what hohyss is asking you????????? Where have you seen those numbers advertised????????? Who do you know that runs DDR2 1200 with a 600Mhz FSB or DDR3 1333 with a FSB of 667????????? No one, no where, no how. So why don't you simply admit you didn't grasp the question and lets move on.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 14, 2008 5:42:10 PM

actually I said in simple words: don't worry about 1:1 ratio, if you achieve it, great if not don't worry. I was referring to the the 800mhz ram that he very clearly was talking about. You again are having problems with the english language.

I used 1333 ram as an example, simply to put him at ease, so he wouldn't think going "true 1:1" was necessary. Again you take things way out of context.

Listen you can run 1:1 slower than the ram's rated speed, again I already said that in a post targeted towards Grimmy. You either forgot or didn't understand.

You are also not capable of putting things into perspective... The op has a 333 bus, yes? The op has ddr2 800mhz ram yes? The goal of this thread was to explain 1:1 to the poor guy that has run for his life, as to maximize his performance with the hardware he has. Running 1:1 with down clocked ram isn't doing that, and in my opinion and a lot of the what you think are know it all's on this forum, believe as well, as not really 1:1 as the ram is not at it's rated speed.
August 14, 2008 5:47:34 PM

Vertigon said:
What I find interesting about your post uguv is that you quoted my other posts, other than my last one, where I say ".I am in no way promoting DDR3, I am simply stating that the industry has a convention"

This is interesting because you made your post 55 minutes after I made my last one, did you not see my last post, or did you simply not want to see it? Perhaps you need to make yourself feel clever but misrepresenting someone else.

I find amusement in some posts, I don't know why people think being able to divide the fsb speed into the memory spec is equivelant to einstein's E=mc2, but they do and I find it funny. In a recent post by a guy complaining about his cpu, I said he might have a chicken mcnugget stuck between the core and the plate. Now did I really mean that? You be the judge.

The way jimmysmitty refers to 1:1 is the industry convention. This is how the entire market refers to the 1:1 spec. Sure if you want to be a purist you could suggest that nothing really runs faster than the FSB, but this would be stupid and a dismissal of technological development. Memory has bandwith, cpu's have multipliers which both tie into the FSB speed. DDR2 has double the data rate or should I say it transfers data not only when the memory clock goes from low to high, but also from high to low. Hence my earlier post:

"Sure along the way there are things known as multipliers, clock cycles and quad pumping etc. If we chose to be silly about we could say our E8400 is really at 333 Mhz, along with our RAM at 333 Mhz, but we don't do we? "

So for the next insecure person who needs to misinterperet someone, I am talking about INDUSTRY CONVENTION, not the merits of DDR3.

If you'd like to talk about the merits of RAM like tCL, tRRD and IC's, start another post rather than waffling about a mute point.


Actually I didn't quote your last response because it was just an effort to cover for your lack of knowledge about the subject.

Perhaps English isn't your primary language but you seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you are reading. You scoff at Sportsfanboy but his posts have all been acurate.

While Jimmy's post was accurate, it didn't do anything to counter Sfb's statement.

Quote:
Sportsfanboy in your very first post you said:

"For example, no one with ddr3 1333 ram , are running 1:1. You would need a fsb of 666mhz, just isn't achievable with today's hardware. I wouldn't worry about getting 1:1, if you do great, if not, don't worry about it."

You make me laugh sportsfanboy:

"if you do great, if not, don't worry about it." ...lol

Some of the best overclockers around can't get a FSB that high and your saying "if you do great, if not, don't worry about it." ?????????????? to hoyss who doesn't even understand how memory spec works?


This further illustrates your problems with reading comprehension. Sfb obviously meant that if he couldn't run his DDR2 800 ram at 1:1 in his last sentence and was no longer referring to DDR3 1333. He used the ddr3 1333 example to show that people do not always run RAM at 1:1.
Finally...
Vertigon said:
...start another post rather than waffling about a mute point.


What the hell is a "mute point"? Did you mean moot point?
August 14, 2008 5:49:55 PM

<--clicks on his mute pointer...

I can't hear you... I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!
August 14, 2008 6:11:10 PM


Perhaps English isn't your primary language but you seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you are reading. You scoff at Sportsfanboy but his posts have all been acurate.

While Jimmy's post was accurate, it didn't do anything to counter Sfb's statement.

ahahahaha finally the penny has dropped for you uguv and you have some idea of what I am on about. First you were saying:

"Jimmy also misread or misunderstood Sportsfanboy's statement judging by his reply. "
and now your saying Jimmys post was accurate lol.

Your SO transparently ignorant Uguv. Let me hit you with it one last time:

Sportsfanboy's numbers are accurate, but irrelevant to the accepted industry convention.
Jimmy numbers and convention are BOTH accurate.

I think the penny has dropped for him too:

"The op has a 333 bus, yes? The op has ddr2 800mhz ram yes?" lol

So if your running in multiples of 333 sportsfanboy, why are you argueing with me? Glad you finally realised. So no need to talk about DDR3 1333Mhz on a 667 FSB.......bwahahahahaha
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
August 14, 2008 6:19:41 PM

I'm done arguing with you Vertigon, you can take your childish antics elsewhere I'm not biting this time.
August 14, 2008 6:29:37 PM

"Running 1:1 with down clocked ram isn't doing that, and in my opinion and a lot of the what you think are know it all's on this forum, believe as well, as not really 1:1 as the ram is not at it's rated speed. "

Honestly sportsfanboy, I read that last bit 3 times and still don't know what your saying, I wonder if anyone does lol.

Ok hoyss, sorry about all the pointless dribble, just crank your FSB to 400Mhz, overvolt the cpu and northbridge slightly and that should do it. If you get a gigbyte board they have a great dynamic oc utility called CIA2 which saves energy when cpu power isn't required.
!