Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

DDR3 1600MHz on GA-EX58-UD4P

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
September 21, 2009 8:27:53 PM

The board specs say "Support for DDR3 2100+/1333/1066/800 MHz memory modules". If I get 6GB OCZ DDR3 PC3-12800 and then use the BIOS (is it called XMP?) to run at full speed, does this mean that they are running over-clocked thus hotter?

More about : ddr3 1600mhz ex58 ud4p

a b } Memory
a c 177 V Motherboard
September 21, 2009 8:48:56 PM

The XMP is a table of 'run-time' parameters stored on the RAM that the BIOS can read to 'set-up' the RAM correctly. Doesn't matter much what GB says about supported memory speeds; at this point, Intel says 1066 is the only supported speed. Not to say that lots of people don't have RAM running a lot faster, successfully - just that it's a matter of 'why'? (Bragging rights, mostly, I figure) If you take a look at this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2...
you will see that there is no appreciable difference in real-world performance to be gained with faster memory, and, as you mentioned - speed + extra voltage = heat!
m
0
l
September 28, 2009 10:28:40 PM

bilbat said:
The XMP is a table of 'run-time' parameters stored on the RAM that the BIOS can read to 'set-up' the RAM correctly. Doesn't matter much what GB says about supported memory speeds; at this point, Intel says 1066 is the only supported speed. Not to say that lots of people don't have RAM running a lot faster, successfully - just that it's a matter of 'why'? (Bragging rights, mostly, I figure) If you take a look at this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2...
you will see that there is no appreciable difference in real-world performance to be gained with faster memory, and, as you mentioned - speed + extra voltage = heat!



bilbat,

It appears to me that for this article the author has used the same RAM at separate speeds (800 up to 1600). The problem with this is that using a single set of sticks that are rated at a certain speed you have to raise timings each step up the ladder. And in fact he has done just that. Obviously DDR3 800 @ 6-6-6 will perform just about the same as DDR3 1600 @ 11-11-11!!!

Does faster RAM speed up an i7 system noticeably? Yes! I gained a solid 10% in overall benchmarks moving from DDR3 1066 to DDR3 1600. The problem is that timings play a huge part in this and not just the speed of the RAM. If you want to stay at Intel's default of DDR3 1066 then go ahead but you will gain a noticeable speed increase if you use low-latency DDR3 1600 or similar which will allow you to run @ DDR3 1066 with extra low timings like CL 4 or 5. Or up the RAM speed and slightly loosen the timings. You can expect at least a 10% increase in speed between DDR3 1066 7-7-7 and DDR3 1600 7-7-7. To me its worth it especially considering most people will be able to run DDR3 1600 7-7-7 with a QPI of 1.3v and RAM of 1.6-1.65v which are very safe voltages.

Devin
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b } Memory
a c 177 V Motherboard
September 28, 2009 11:11:32 PM

Ahh - low latency - that's a different animal! I have posted a comparison so people would know the difference when using 'fast' DDR2:

...people often misunderstand the actual quantitative speed improvements inherent in faster ram... Here's the mistake: 1066 is 33% higher than 800 ([1066-800]/800 = 266/800 = .33), so 1066 RAM must be a third faster than 800, right? Not so! You have to figure in latencies. Most 800 will run at 4-4-4-12, while most 1066 is rated at 5-5-5-15, or, even worse, 5-5-5-18. Here's how to appraise the situation in reality: at 800 MHz, a RAM bus cycle is 1.25 nSec long (1000/800); at 1066 (1000/1066), it is roughly .938 nSec long - so, with an 800 stick at a 4 average latency, a RAM bus transaction takes 1.25 (cycle time) times 4 (latency), or 5nSec, while at 1066 it is .938 (cycle time) times 5 (latency), for a transaction time of (roughly) 4.7nSec - so you see, by going to nominally 33% faster RAM, you actually gain three tenths of a nSec per transaction: .3 (transaction gain) over 5(transaction total) = .06, for a real-world improvement of 6%

With DDR2, and northbridges with on-chip memory controllers, the main advantage in using faster RAM is to 'unbind' the CPU and allow faster FSBs:

Examples: if you set your system clock to 333, you will need a 2.4 memory multiplier (333 x 2.4 = 799.blahblahblah) to run your RAM at 800, and if the CPU multiplier is, say, 8.5, you will get a CPU clock of 2.83GHz; at that same B_CLK you would need a memory multiplier of 3.2 (3.2 x 333 = 1065.6) to take advantage of 1066 RAM. Now, lots of CPUs that are rated at a 1333 nominal FSB will run a lot faster, sometimes with a little more 'oomph' from a voltage increase; for example, I run a Q9550 that is rated at 1333 FSB (333 B_CLK) times an eight point five multiplier, for a 2.83GHz speed. It will comfortably run with the B_CLK well over 450 - and here's where faster RAM comes in. The smallest RAM multiplier available from a MCH (Memory Control Hub - or 'NorthBridge') is 2.0, but, with a 2.0 multiplier, that means at a 450 clock, your RAM will need to run at 900 (again, 450 B_CLK x 2 = 900), which most 800 RAM just won't do! This is referred to as a 'RAM limited bus', meaning the CPU can't run a B_CLK any higher than (roughly) half the RAM's available speed - and thus, the need for faster RAM. Mind you, this only applies if you both can, and intend to, run your FSB above 1600 (once again, a B_CLK of 400+ times 4 gives you a 1600+ FSB)...

I have also posted a little chart to illustrate the process of 'walking up' the FSB, successively raising clocks and lowering multipliers:


What most people just don't get is that a piece of RAM is just, well, a piece of RAM - its timings are actually in microseconds and picoseconds, not latency counts; if it's high latency at 800 (for DDR2), it's still gonna be high latency at 1066, or 1150. What you pay the big bucks for is physically low transaction times - and certainly, with the new i5/i7 architecture, you have a lot more opportunity to take advantage of that, if you're willing to pay for it. But a DIMM that has a 600 picosecond bank access time, is going to need that full 600 picoseconds whether you're running it at 1033, or 2000 - it'll just be more counts of a shorter clock pulse!
Share
December 8, 2013 4:47:05 PM

devhen said:
bilbat,

It appears to me that for this article the author has used the same RAM at separate speeds (800 up to 1600). The problem with this is that using a single set of sticks that are rated at a certain speed you have to raise timings each step up the ladder. And in fact he has done just that. Obviously DDR3 800 @ 6-6-6 will perform just about the same as DDR3 1600 @ 11-11-11!!!


Hi

I was looking for info on GA-EX58-UD4P running 1600MHz RAM because I was getting BSODs while trying to set up a "new" system yesterday and found this thread. I was able to make the system stable by keeping the RAM at 1066MHz. I was concerned about performance, so I read the article posted by bilbat. It was very helpful.

Of particular importance, at the bottom of the first page they state:
"Now it’s time to look at popular RAM speeds and timings"

On the bottom of the second page they state:
"The intention of this review is to try many different memory speeds and both fast and slow timings, hence the TR3X6G1600C8D seemed to be a good choice. It can be overclocked to more than DDR3-1600 speeds, but can also be operated at a conservative DDR3-800 clock. Our timings covered CL6-6-6-18 up to CL11-11-11-30."

Then on the third page they discuss the multiple speeds and multiple timings they are using.
Finally, on each of the result sets you can see the multiple timings for each speed. For example:
1600 8-8-8-24
1600 11-11-11-30

I found the article pretty helpful since I am seemingly stuck at 1066 for stability.

Regards
m
0
l
!