Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Fatal1ty 990FX DDR3 @ 2100

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
December 4, 2011 8:22:53 PM

Hello everyone.

I just purchased an Asrock Fatal1ty 990FX Pro motherboard:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=Fatal1ty%20...
And G.Skill Ripjaws RAM:
http://www.gskill.com/products.php?index=403

I noticed afterward that the ratings on the G.Skill are for Intel boards, so I'm wondering if it's possible to get the RAM up to the 2100 OC that the board and RAM claim to be able to do.
Most of the posts on here seem to be saying to use the XMP profile, which appears to be for Intel boards, but the mobo can get the kingston RAM (http://www.asrock.com/mb/memory.asp?Model=Fatal1ty%2099...) running at 2100, supposedly.
In the BIOS, if I set it to auto, it picks up the RAM as 800. The max that I can manually set it to is 1333.
Is it possible to get this RAM to run at that OC speed, or do I need to get the Kingston HyperX instead? If I do need to, how would I go about setting the speed on that?

Thank you.

Best solution

a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
December 4, 2011 9:34:37 PM

It defaults to 800Mhz? What CPU are you running?

The Phenom II CPUs are limited to DDR3 1333Mhz memory controllers. The ram cam be easily overclocked to 1600 speed, beyond that is less reliable. The FX processors have 1866 memory controllers, so the modules have to be overclocked in that case as well. Your motherboard probably says something like DDR3 800,1333,1600, 1866, 2133 (OC).
Share
Related resources
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
December 5, 2011 5:47:40 AM

EricWehrly said:
The processor that I bought is a Phenom II :/ 
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=...
So I'll need a newer processor in order to get the full speed out of the RAM?

Not necessarily. You could overclock it to 2133Mhz, but it may require some relaxed timings or more voltage or whatnot. Just google Over clocking ram and you should be able to find a guide somewhere.
m
0
l
December 9, 2011 12:16:28 AM

So I've been working on the build, and am making progress whilst getting confused.
I still have yet to find a clear consensus on MHz versus CAS. Some sites, charts, etc. show a clear advantage in access time for faster speed, but the general idea seems to be that lower CAS latency is better. I believe it to be something in the ballpark of 100-200 MHz speed is equivalent(ish) to about 1ms CAS.

Firstly, and most importantly, I'd like to know if I should bother with any DRAM timings beyond the first four. I was able to "tighten" them up a good bit while still running with stability, but I have no idea if it made any difference at all.
I'm not sure what to be using as a benchmark. I've only been running stress tests so far.

Second, about how much MHz will an intensive game use? I figure loading screens are likely the heaviest of it, but nothing offers a number.
The closest I've found is something like "clock gets useless if it's faster than the northbridge clock", which it isn't, so I don't worry about that.

I have tried doing Google searches for these questions, as well as general overclocking guides. I usually wind up with an answer saying the increase is too minor to notice, and the guides either wind up being outdated, or for Intel systems.
m
0
l
December 13, 2011 2:31:47 PM

Best answer selected by EricWehrly.
m
0
l
!