Memory at 1:1 - Keep or upgrade and lose 1:1?

[MjWoNeR]

I have a Q6600 OCd at 3GHz paired with Corsair CM2x1024-6400 C4.

I have under-clocked the memory to run at 1:1.

The Gigabyte P35-DS4 rev1.1 supports up to 1066MHz memory.

Shall I upgrade the memory and lose the synchronous mode or shall I leave it as it is and just add more?

Question 2 [SOLVED]
Currently the memory timings are 5-5-5-15 although its rated C4, what could possibly going on??

 

[505090]

put the memory back to 1066 where it belongs

my memory cas has never show up were it was supposed to. i have my theory's but not really sure the reason. just go into the bios and manually set them where they belong

 

[mindless728]

put the memory back to 1066 where it belongs

my memory cas has never show up were it was supposed to. i have my theory's but not really sure the reason. just go into the bios and manually set them where they belong

they do this to follow the JEDEC specifications and since some people might have motherboards incompatible with low latencies its better to have a higher timing (and many times) lower speed default

 

[505090]

thanx mindless i'll look into that

 

[MjWoNeR]

I adjusted the latency manually. I had to hit Ctrl+F1 for the options to appear. Silly me.

Now the first question, which I will explain a bit better.
My memory is rated at 800MHz and I have it at 666MHz /2 so it will run at 333MHz like the CPU FSB. It is 2GB of RAM.

The mobo supports up to 1066MHz memory.

I am thinking of adding 2 gigs more and was thinking shall I get the same memory and keep it at 666MHz (1:1) ?
Or shall I buy 4gigs of 1066 and lose the 1:1 ?

 

[4745454b]

I'd buy 2x2GBs of whatever memory is cheap, but at least 800MHz. Whether you run it at 667, 800, or 1066, won't make a huge deal. The faster speeds will provide a bit of exra "oomph", but nothing major. Most of the time these scores will be within 5-7% of each other.

 

[MjWoNeR]

I'd buy 2x2GBs of whatever memory is cheap, but at least 800MHz. Whether you run it at 667, 800, or 1066, won't make a huge deal. The faster speeds will provide a bit of exra "oomph", but nothing major. Most of the time these scores will be within 5-7% of each other.

So you think I'm better off with adding 2x1GB of the same rather than upgrading to 2x2GB of 1066 ?

Other than that 5-7% doesn't sound that bad considering the price is gonna be around the same since I'll sell the existing 2x1GB.

 

[outlw6669]

No, get a 2x2Gb DDR2 800 kit to replace/augment your current set.

Also, it is more like a 0-2% performance increase with running faster RAM.
Remember that as you run the RAM faster the timings will increase to keep the relative performance similar.

There is no real benefit to running your RAM 1:1 with the FSB but, then again, there is no real performance increase running it any faster.
To make you happy on both of these fronts, try keeping your RAM at a 1:1 ratio to the FSB, raising your FSB to 400Mhz and dropping the CPU's multiplier to 8x.
In this way, your RAM will be running at full rated speed while maintaining a 1:1 ratio with the FSB and your CPU will give you better performance.

 

[4745454b]

I'd buy 2x2GBs of whatever memory is cheap

So you think I'm better off with adding 2x1GB

:O Wow, put down the pipe.

 

[jsc]

And now the Contrarian:
In the early Core2 days (E6600 originally OC'd to 3.3 GHz. (367 X 9), 680i eVGA motherboard, and 2 GB DDR2-1000 Crucial), I spent weeks tinkering with memory settings.

I tried: 367 X 9 and 400 X 8, both at 1:1. I tried CPU at 400 X 8 and memclock at 500 MHz (4:5). Memory i/o was a little better, but CPU throughput does not scale linearly with an increase in FSB speed. And it made no practical difference in system performance.

I went back to 367 X 9 and a 1:1 ratio and started tightening the timing. I went from 5-5-5-15-2T to 3-3-3-7-1T. Memory i/o went up about 7%, but, again, it made no significant difference in overall system speed.

My recommendations: buy a 2x2GB set of the same stuff as your original memory. Run it at 1:1, and don't worry about the rest of it.

 

[MjWoNeR]

No, get a 2x2Gb DDR2 800 kit to replace/augment your current set.

Also, it is more like a 0-2% performance increase with running faster RAM.
Remember that as you run the RAM faster the timings will increase to keep the relative performance similar.

There is no real benefit to running your RAM 1:1 with the FSB but, then again, there is no real performance increase running it any faster.
To make you happy on both of these fronts, try keeping your RAM at a 1:1 ratio to the FSB, raising your FSB to 400Mhz and dropping the CPU's multiplier to 8x.
In this way, your RAM will be running at full rated speed while maintaining a 1:1 ratio with the FSB and your CPU will give you better performance.

Thanks for the advice. I'll do that.

I'd buy 2x2GBs of whatever memory is cheap

So you think I'm better off with adding 2x1GB

:O Wow, put down the pipe.

lmao. nice point. I didn't notice that mistake.

And now the Contrarian:
In the early Core2 days (E6600 originally OC'd to 3.3 GHz. (367 X 9), 680i eVGA motherboard, and 2 GB DDR2-1000 Crucial), I spent weeks tinkering with memory settings.

I tried: 367 X 9 and 400 X 8, both at 1:1. I tried CPU at 400 X 8 and memclock at 500 MHz (4:5). Memory i/o was a little better, but CPU throughput does not scale linearly with an increase in FSB speed. And it made no practical difference in system performance.

I went back to 367 X 9 and a 1:1 ratio and started tightening the timing. I went from 5-5-5-15-2T to 3-3-3-7-1T. Memory i/o went up about 7%, but, again, it made no significant difference in overall system speed.

My recommendations: buy a 2x2GB set of the same stuff as your original memory. Run it at 1:1, and don't worry about the rest of it.

Everybody seems to be of the same opinion. Safe enough to go with it. Thanks




Any suggestions for PC6400 memory?

 

[jsc]

I like Crucial. I think that the really good Corsair memory is a little over-priced. OCZ and Patriot also make some good stuff. Motherboards seem to default to 1.8 volts for the RAM. You will need to check the manufacturer's site for the correct voltage.

 

[MjWoNeR]

I like Crucial. I think that the really good Corsair memory is a little over-priced. OCZ and Patriot also make some good stuff. Motherboards seem to default to 1.8 volts for the RAM. You will need to check the manufacturer's site for the correct voltage.

I found these three that are similar on price and specs.

2x2gb Crucial BallistiX PC6400 CL4 for like €68
2x2gb OCZ Reaper HPC PC6400 also for like €68
and
2x2gb Corsair TWIN2X PC6400 C4 DHX for like €75


The crucial and corsair have the exact same specs, except that the crucial says it runs at 4-4-4-12 on 2v instead of 2.1v.
The OCz has 4-4-4-15 and voltage 2.1-2.2v

To be honest, I don't really grasp the level of performance difference between these modules. The only think I suspect is that I wont notice any difference on real life tasks.


I am not going to overclock them much. I think I'm gonna take outlw6669's advice on raising the FSB to 400MHz and drop the multiplier to 8x and keep the RAM at 1:1. Probably keeping the low 4-4-4-12 at 2.1v but that all about it.

 

[jsc]

To be honest, I don't really grasp the level of performance difference between these modules. The only think I suspect is that I wont notice any difference on real life tasks.

True. You would need a very good benchmark suite, and would never notice any real difference.

Of the three memory options you listed, I would go with either the Crucial or the OCZ. The final decisive factor for me is the slightly reduced heat generation.

 

[MjWoNeR]

True. You would need a very good benchmark suite, and would never notice any real difference.

Of the three memory options you listed, I would go with either the Crucial or the OCZ. The final decisive factor for me is the slightly reduced heat generation.

Thanks again for the reply.

I think I'll go with the OCZ. Not sure if it fits in, if it doesn't I'll get the Crucial.