Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DDR3-1600 at 1066mhz on Tom's?

Last response: in Memory
Share
April 2, 2009 11:29:13 AM

I've been running my DDR3-1600 at full speed since I got it, even while the CPU was at a stock 2.67GHz. Of course with the Gigabyte board I have, I get the dual-post problem.

I noticed that in the latest GTX 275 benchmark, Tom's has their DDR3-1600 clocked down to 1066 and lowered the timings. Why is that? Are they avoiding a similar dual-post issue, or is there virtually no reason to bring that up to maximum speed? They use the i7 extreme at 3.2GHz so there's definitely a CPU performance difference vs what I have (except when I OC to 3.2), so if anyone should be sitting at 1600, Tom's should. If you get absolutely no benefit from running at 1600, then I will happily drop mine down to 1066 so I don't wear out my hard-drives every time I boot up!

Below is a copy/paste of the RAM they are using:

"Corsair Dominator 6 GB (3 x 2 GB) DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 @ 1,066 MHz / 7-7-7-20"

More about : ddr3 1600 1066mhz tom

a b } Memory
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2009 3:33:22 PM

I have no idea why they are running that, but I am running 12 gigs of that same memory and an i7 965, and I definitely run mine at 1600. In fact, I run mine at 1600-7-8-7-22-1T, faster than rated.

What are you talking about as far as the statement about wearing out your hard drives is concerned though? RAM speed has nothing to do with HDD access on startup.
April 2, 2009 6:57:58 PM

When you clock the RAM higher than 1066 with an i7 920, you get dual-post issues with many Gigabyte boards. The computer turns on, then shuts off before POST, then turns on and boots up. It only happens on a cold start. There have been a few BIOS updates that some claim fix it, but it hasn't fixed it for me. I've gone through the tech-support channels for months trying to figure out why mine still dual-posts, and both Gigabyte and G.Skill assure me that it's expected behavior because the 920 isn't meant to run RAM faster than 1066. So, I could either bring it down to 1066 and stop the dual-post problem thus saving my hard-drives from the surge of power, or keep it at 1600 and enjoy the benefits, as real or unreal they may be ;) 
Related resources
a b } Memory
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2009 8:42:24 PM

That's bizarre. I definitely don't have that issue with my P6T. I wouldn't worry about it too much though - hard drives are quite robust, and unless you are starting up and shutting down all the time, there's nothing at all to be concerned about.
April 2, 2009 11:20:56 PM

With the higher frequencies you also get higher timings which is bad.
a b } Memory
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2009 5:27:03 AM

mamw93 said:
With the higher frequencies you also get higher timings which is bad.


Not necessarily. What matters is the latency, which is the timings (in clocks) divided by the memory speed. Therefore, DDR3-1600 at 8-8-8-24 is identical in latency (though much higher in bandwidth) to DDR2-800 4-4-4-12.
January 15, 2010 1:18:04 PM

leo2kp said:
When you clock the RAM higher than 1066 with an i7 920, you get dual-post issues with many Gigabyte boards. The computer turns on, then shuts off before POST, then turns on and boots up. It only happens on a cold start. There have been a few BIOS updates that some claim fix it, but it hasn't fixed it for me. I've gone through the tech-support channels for months trying to figure out why mine still dual-posts, and both Gigabyte and G.Skill assure me that it's expected behavior because the 920 isn't meant to run RAM faster than 1066. So, I could either bring it down to 1066 and stop the dual-post problem thus saving my hard-drives from the surge of power, or keep it at 1600 and enjoy the benefits, as real or unreal they may be ;) 

a b } Memory
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2010 12:07:58 AM

leo2kp said:
I've been running my DDR3-1600 at full speed since I got it, even while the CPU was at a stock 2.67GHz. Of course with the Gigabyte board I have, I get the dual-post problem.

I noticed that in the latest GTX 275 benchmark, Tom's has their DDR3-1600 clocked down to 1066 and lowered the timings. Why is that? Are they avoiding a similar dual-post issue, or is there virtually no reason to bring that up to maximum speed? They use the i7 extreme at 3.2GHz so there's definitely a CPU performance difference vs what I have (except when I OC to 3.2), so if anyone should be sitting at 1600, Tom's should. If you get absolutely no benefit from running at 1600, then I will happily drop mine down to 1066 so I don't wear out my hard-drives every time I boot up!

Below is a copy/paste of the RAM they are using:

"Corsair Dominator 6 GB (3 x 2 GB) DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 @ 1,066 MHz / 7-7-7-20"


Why didn't you simply ASK THE REVIEWER or respond in the thread that's linked to that review? Most of the forum guys have no clue because most don't even know the restrictions of engineering sample CPU's.

The processor the guy was using did not support a higher DRAM multiplier. It took you a year to get an answer because you didn't ask the person who actually configured the system.
!