Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1600mhz running lower?

Last response: in Memory
Share
December 16, 2011 1:37:26 PM

Hey there guys, so i have Corsair vengeance LP CML8GX3M2A1600C9 Ram
which are 2 sticks, 4gb each, 1600mhz
My CPU is AMD athlon II X4 645 3.1ghz, but i overclocked it.
The FSB multiplier is at 15.5 (maximum), but the bus speed (think thats the name) is 243, so 15.5*243=3766,5mhz.
If i run the motherboard's driver DVD and seleect motherboard information, it opens up a little page on internet explorer, (i think the script is stored locally), shows my cpu, ram slots etc, but they show at 1066mhz :/ 
Im not sure if thats reliable, so i tried CPU-z, and i dont know what much of this means. I built the computer myself btw, please help me out on this!

Dram frequency 648mhz..is that good? Its DDR3 ram btw, Dual channel!
On the website of the place i bough it, it says the ram timings are: 9-9-9-24

what should i change, and do to get my ram up to 1600 mhz :s
Also, on the bios,about ram, i have Memory Clock (Manual or auto), i have it in auto, but on manual i have some steps up till 800mhz.
It says, if auto, DRAM speed will be based on SPD's.
I have also DRAM timing (both/DCT0/DCT1/auto), i have it on Auto, DCT 0 and DCT 1 reveal a ton of options.
Memory overvoltage, it could be in auto, but i have it 1.5v now, as according to this site http://www.corsair.com/pressreleas [...] emory-kits my ram is 1.5v, not sure if overvoltage is its voltage though :s

More about : 1600mhz running lower

December 16, 2011 1:47:47 PM

Tried to set it to 800mhz (DRAM speed), result was bios beeps (2 fast beeps if im not wrong), saying overclocking failed, blabla something unable unleashing mode (not sure if it was that)
Mobo is Asus M4A78LT-M
Maybe i have to overvolt the ram a bit?
Overvoltage is 1.5v atm
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 3:27:34 PM

If you are overclocking the RAM you should make sure that the timings are also where they should be. The motherboard might be giving you timings that are too tight causing it to fail.
Related resources
December 16, 2011 3:29:09 PM

Thing is, im not really trying to overclock it from its original state, im trying to get it to its original state, how it should be.
I dont have any information on the package either about timings, all i know i posted here and saw them at the website i bought it off, but changing timing options DCT 1 or 0 (no idea what that is), shows up a lot of parameters with weird names :( 


EDIT:
Figured the timings out right 9-9-9-24
so i changed CAS TRCD TRP to 9, and TRAS to 24, left the rest on auto
but doesnt matter if i do that on DCT0, 1 , or both, if i leave dram speed auto it maintains 648mhz
if i set manual to 800, it doesnt boot, gives overclocking failed error :( 
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 4:07:21 PM

Patchy, I'm not familiar with AMD systems. If it was an Intel system you would want the XMP profile or you would manually set the timings, speed and voltage in the bios. However I believe with AMD systems, you have to overclock the cpu to reach 1600mhz.

However, 1333mhz (667x2 (double data rate) at cas 8 is going to be just as fast as 1600mhz at Cas 9, so I would just leave it at 1333, 8-8-8-20, 1.5v instead of 1600, 9-9-9-24, 1.5v. It's fine.

Not sure why it's reading 648, it should be 666 or 667 (x2 = 1333)
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 5:23:58 PM

You don't need to overclock an AMD CPU to overclock the memory but you might need to increase the northbridge frequency although that shouldn't be a problem. Ihave an AMD Phenom 1090T BE and it doesn't need to be overclocked to overclock it's RAM to 1600MHz. All I had to do was change the RAM frequency from 667 to 800 and then I had 1600MHz RAM after the reboot.

EDIT: Overclocking the CPU with the BLCK will also overclock the memory. Increasing the BLCK by 40 and not changing the RAM multiplier would yield 1600MHz RAM but I don't know if how well your system will deal with that increase. This would overclock the CPU by 20%.
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 5:31:55 PM

geekapproved said:
Patchy, I'm not familiar with AMD systems. If it was an Intel system you would want the XMP profile or you would manually set the timings, speed and voltage in the bios. However I believe with AMD systems, you have to overclock the cpu to reach 1600mhz.

However, 1333mhz (667x2 (double data rate) at cas 8 is going to be just as fast as 1600mhz at Cas 9, so I would just leave it at 1333, 8-8-8-20, 1.5v instead of 1600, 9-9-9-24, 1.5v. It's fine.

Not sure why it's reading 648, it should be 666 or 667 (x2 = 1333)


1333MHz CL8 is not as fast as 1600MHz CL9. Granted there isn't much difference for most applications and for some (such as gaming) there is no difference but 1600MHz CL9 has lower latency and higher bandwidth than 1333MHz CL8. The latency of1600MHz CL9 is between 1333MHz CL8 and CL7.

Easy way to find out which frequency with which CAS has the best latency is to divide it's CAS by it's frequency with the lower the number giving the better latency.

8/1333=0.0060015004
9/1600=0.0056250000
7/1333=0.0052513128

These numbers are how long a single CAS operation should take measured in seconds.
December 16, 2011 5:51:08 PM

blazorthon said:
You don't need to overclock an AMD CPU to overclock the memory but you might need to increase the northbridge frequency although that shouldn't be a problem. Ihave an AMD Phenom 1090T BE and it doesn't need to be overclocked to overclock it's RAM to 1600MHz. All I had to do was change the RAM frequency from 667 to 800 and then I had 1600MHz RAM after the reboot.

EDIT: Overclocking the CPU with the BLCK will also overclock the memory. Increasing the BLCK by 40 and not changing the RAM multiplier would yield 1600MHz RAM but I don't know if how well your system will deal with that increase. This would overclock the CPU by 20%.

Thanks guys, im going to try now setting the Ram frequnecy from auto to 667,
since when i change it to 800 the system stops booting, i get 2 bios beeps (quick ones) and i get Overclocking failed, and a message about not being able to launch unleashing mode (a mode which unleashes the full potential of cpu etc and allows for bigger O.C. margins) im also going to try 8 8 8 20 but id really like my 1600mhz :s
whats the BLCK btw? dont see that one!


EDIT: LOL! WIN! i set the Ram Speed on the bios for 667mhz, and put the timings as 8-8-8-20 and now according to CPU-Z the DRAM frequency is at 810mhz, and 810*2=1620mhz :) 
Thx people for the help, but one last question, should i maintain the 8-8-8-20 timings? or 9-9-9-24?
CPUZ shows it as 1600mhz, but on the bios i have 667mhz :p 
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 6:04:48 PM

1337patchy said:
Thanks guys, im going to try now setting the Ram frequnecy from auto to 667,
since when i change it to 800 the system stops booting, i get 2 bios beeps (quick ones) and i get Overclocking failed, and a message about not being able to launch unleashing mode (a mode which unleashes the full potential of cpu etc and allows for bigger O.C. margins) im also going to try 8 8 8 20 but id really like my 1600mhz :s
whats the BLCK btw? dont see that one!


EDIT: LOL! WIN! i set the Ram Speed on the bios for 667mhz, and put the timings as 8-8-8-20 and now according to CPU-Z the DRAM frequency is at 810mhz, and 810*2=1620mhz :) 
Thx people for the help, but one last question, should i maintain the 8-8-8-20 timings? or 9-9-9-24?
CPUZ shows it as 1600mhz, but on the bios i have 667mhz :p 


If it works at 8-8-8-20 then I see little reason to roll it back yet. Do some stability benchmarks and maybe a memtest or two before you decide to increase the timings.

The BLCK is a name for the 200MHz base clock of AMD's systems.

Is your CPU already overclocked through it's base clock? If not then I don't see how you could have gotten those memory results.

EDIT: The reason the BIOS reports it as 667 is that is actually because the motherboard manufacturer replaced the multipliers with the frequency the multipliers would give you if you don't increase the BLCK. It was an attempt to make using RAM at 1600MHz easier but I think it failed and should have been left as the multipliers. What each setting actually is is as follows:
800MHz=*2 multiplier
1066MHz=*2.67 multiplier
1333MHz=*3.33 multiplier
1600MHz=*4 multiplier
Multiply the multiplier buy the BLCK and you get your frequencies.

Refer to this article for overclocking AMD's Phenom IIs and Athlon IIs:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom...
December 16, 2011 6:08:37 PM

blazorthon said:
If it works at 8-8-8-20 then I see little reason to roll it back yet. Do some stability benchmarks and maybe a memtest or two before you decide to increase the timings.

The BLCK is a name for the 200MHz base clock of AMD's systems.

Is your CPU already overclocked through it's base clock? If not then I don't see how you could have gotten those memory results.


Ah yea my CPU has been overclocked via the BLCK, its not a BLACK edition CPU so the FSB multiplier is locked, default value is 200, i have it at 243.
243*15,5 = around 3700mhz
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 6:33:22 PM

That's why you were having trouble with your RAM. You were trying to overclock it when it was already overclocked to where you wanted it to be. Had you managed to set it at the x4 multiplier (800MHz) then it would have been running at almost 972MHz, almost 2000MHz counting DDR.
December 16, 2011 6:36:40 PM

blazorthon said:
That's why you were having trouble with your RAM. You were trying to overclock it when it was already overclocked to where you wanted it to be. Had you managed to set it at the x4 multiplier (800MHz) then it would have been running at almost 972MHz, almost 2000MHz counting DDR.

Gota try that, set the CPU FSB mutliplier to 4x, and use the BLCK to get the CPU up to 3760mhz, and il have the ram near 2000 mhz counting DDR?
And anyways, is it ok how it is? theorically at least? Its fine?
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 7:25:21 PM

You would almost certainly need to increase the RAM voltage and you probably need to lower the hyper-transport and northbridge frequencies from 2GHz (200MHz*10) to 1.8GHz because of your increased BLCK. You should also loosen the timings just to be safe if you try that. If it works then you can try tightening the times again. The northbridge real frequency should not exceed 2GHz by much and if it is set at 2.0GHz while your BLCK is at 243 then it is actually running at 2.43GHz and it shouldn't be running that fast unless you want it too for some reason... It won't effect performance much at all (not even close to being noticable) and could hurt stability being set too high. It might also increase heat output a little to have it set at a higher clock rate.

I warn you not to try to go above 2000MHz with your RAM because Phenom IIs have trouble doing that and you might damage your CPU.

Your RAM might not be able to handle going to around 2000MHz no matter what you do so if it fails several times you probably either made a mistake or it can't be done. Don't raise the RAM voltage over 1.65 volts.
December 16, 2011 7:41:08 PM

ram voltage is at 1.5v and wont be raised at all.
my cpu is athlon II X4 645 3.1ghz, at around 3.7ghz now
It rarely ever goes over 40ÂșC under a lot of load, thank you cooler master v6 gt.
How can i lower northbridge frequency without lowering cpu frequency and without loosing any performance?
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 8:26:59 PM

Northbridge frequency has no effect on CPU frequency. You should run benchmarks like Sandra or PCMark to see if your system is unstable. If not then I think you should be okay.

If you want to play it safe (assuming your machine is proven stable) you can (in the BIOS) change the northbridge frequency. Since I don't have your motherboard I don't know what your BIOS is like so I can't explain it to you.
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 8:28:09 PM

I don't think there is any way you could overclock the RAM further if you refuse to increase it's voltage to 1.65v.
December 16, 2011 8:58:59 PM

I dont want to overclock it any further :p 
just want to keep the pc safe!
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 9:13:36 PM

Ok then. You should have a setting for the northbridge somewhere set at auto or 2.0GHz (*10 multiplier). It might be called NB Frequency. If you find it set it too 1.8GHz (*9 multiplier)
December 16, 2011 9:14:49 PM

ah yea i think i found something called NB Frequency, so i will not loose any performance if i decrease it?
a b } Memory
December 16, 2011 9:24:58 PM

If you do it would probably be something like .01% decrease, if not an even smaller decrease. It could help with stability and longevity of your system to get it closer to 2GHz. Reducing the multiplier from 10 to 9 would reduce it from ~2.43GHz to ~2.187GHz. You could decrease it another notch to the 1.6GHz setting (*8 multiplier) to get it to 1.944GHz but I would prefer it higher than that.
a b } Memory
December 17, 2011 9:11:52 PM

blazorthon said:
1333MHz CL8 is not as fast as 1600MHz CL9. Granted there isn't much difference for most applications and for some (such as gaming) there is no difference but 1600MHz CL9 has lower latency and higher bandwidth than 1333MHz CL8. The latency of1600MHz CL9 is between 1333MHz CL8 and CL7.

Easy way to find out which frequency with which CAS has the best latency is to divide it's CAS by it's frequency with the lower the number giving the better latency.

8/1333=0.0060015004
9/1600=0.0056250000
7/1333=0.0052513128

These numbers are how long a single CAS operation should take measured in seconds.


I quoted that information from a Tom's Hardware article on Sandy Bridge memory "sweetspot" or something like that. That's what they said, they said there is very little difference between lower latency 1333 and higher latency 1600.
a b } Memory
December 17, 2011 10:07:17 PM

geekapproved said:
I quoted that information from a Tom's Hardware article on Sandy Bridge memory "sweetspot" or something like that. That's what they said, they said there is very little difference between lower latency 1333 and higher latency 1600.


There is little difference between any RAM frequencies and latency for almost all programs. 1600MHz CL9 is extremely close to 1333MHz CL8 but it beats the 1333 ever so slightly in both latency and slightly more significantly in bandwidth.
a b } Memory
December 20, 2011 2:16:37 AM

I forgot to ask how old that article you quoted is. If it is more than a few months old than it is no longer valid because 1600MHz was more expensive than it previously was so the minor performance increase (non-existent in games) was not worth the extra money that 1600MHz used to cost. Since it is roughly the same price as quality 1333MHz RAM there is little reason to buy the slower memory.
a b } Memory
December 20, 2011 2:17:10 AM

I admit to being somewhat biased in this situation due to how I often work with large enough compressed archives to notice a difference between 1333MHz CL8 and 1600MHz CL9 but that just shows me more extremely that there is in fact a difference that no longer costs a premium.
!