better ram = better OC?

C

cmankit

n00b
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
58
i m just confuse...in my mind that..cpu's overclocking result is not depends on how good your ram is.

because u can always lower the divider. to make the ram run at a lower speed....and lower timing...

but someone say: my ram is holding me back..

and he is doing 2.7ghz on his x2 3800...and he is looking to hit 3.0ghz after he get a better ram....

which idea is right?
 
MHZ is always king even with using a ram divider (if that's what it takes ). period
Thing is even with that killer ram(I would never use value ram ) sometimes you
need that divider to get a higher MHZ .
 
i know...but the things is....is a better ram can make the cpu overclock more..?

because some1 say when he get a better ram then can hit 3.0ghz ..that's make no sense.
 
Nope. It depends on what ICs were used for that RAM. For example, Mushkin has been known to use identical ICs in both their Value (cheapo) product lines as well as their Performance lines that usually cost more, up to 20% or 25%. This was confirmed by two Mushkin techs, inadvertently. They were babbling on about their IC suppliers, when they started going on about how they had identical ICs in both product lines. Basically they admitted that whoever offered them the best price per unit (IC-wise, elixir for example), they were going to be supplying Muskhin. Quality never came into consideration.

Sure as heck, Mushkin aren't the only ones doing this.
 
Your friend is probably just wanting to keep it all on a 1:1 divider still.

The system may perform marginally better with it all on a 1:1 vs a lower divider, but it is probly not even noticeable in ANY everyday thing.
 
My experience with my s754 3400+ Clawhammer was that better ram helped me get a higher oc. I was using an Asus K8N4-E Deluxe mobo that had a 1.55v vcore limitation along with Ultra ram at 2.5-3-3-8 1T timings. I could get it to a best of 236x10 ( the 10 divider worked better than the 11). I bought Crucial Ballistix ram ( I didn't know how much better it was at the time - look at my sig to see how fast it is) and was able to boot to 240x10 with all other settings left alone. So in my case it did help - your results may vary.
 
My understanding (and feel free to correct me) is that a 1:1 or 5:6 divider is more stable in Ocing than the lower ratio dividers.

So you may be able to OC say, an Opteron 165 higher if you can run your ram at 1:1 or 5:6.
 
I'm not sure about that - never heard it before. My experience on my present home setup seems rather unique in that I run a higher divider as opposed to a lower divider. My Crucial Ballistix has no trouble running as high as 279 mhz (DDR400) so I run the setup at 250x11 with the DDR433 divider which nets me a speed of 275 mhz (according to CPU-z). The cpu runs at 2750 mhz and the ram runs at 275 mhz and it is quite game stable. I doubt it would be Prime stable for 24 hrs though.
 
5% loss at best for using a multiplier. Value ram is fine as long as you don't care about latentcies (sp?) or having the best possible bandwidth with your overclock.
 
I'm not sure I understand some of the answers here.

I't my understanding that RAM is very important in overclocking. As you up the FSB, so goes the RAM. On alot of motherboards there are no dividers/ratios/multipliers to slow the RAM down, only to bump it up.

So, in an exagerated scenario, if you're aiming for a FSB of 500, the RAM at 1:1, the minimum divider, it has to run at 1000. The ratios on my DS3 go up from there; from 2 to 2.5, 3 etc. So the RAM has to be really fast, and therefore, expensive.


So I don't understand the comment "u can always lower the divider. to make the ram run at a lower speed....and lower timing..." You can't on a DS3, or did I miss something?

M
 
dekruyter said:
So I don't understand the comment "u can always lower the divider. to make the ram run at a lower speed....and lower timing..." You can't on a DS3, or did I miss something?

M
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about all motherboards/bioses, but my Biostar (nforce4 based) gives me the option of setting my DDR400 at any speed from 266 up through 500...
 
Yep, I think on the Nvidia chipset, you can set the FSB seperate from the Memory.

I guess I was talking about current Intel chipsets.

M
 
dekruyter said:
Yep, I think on the Nvidia chipset, you can set the FSB seperate from the Memory.

I guess I was talking about current Intel chipsets.

M
Click to expand...

Your example holds with Intel CPUs with low multipliers, like the E6300. I had my E6300 at 460x7 (3.22GHz) on air before my RAM crapped out. There was at least some room left in the CPU at that point, my temps were in the mid/high 50s load. Had I used a E6400 with an 8x multiplier, I don't think there's any way in hell I was going to get 460x8 (3.68GHz). Think of it another way, with an E6300 to get 3.5GHz you need to go 500x7 and need some expensive PC8000 RAM - with an E6600 to get 3.5GHz you can go 389x9 which is within the capability of DDR2-800 and most DDR2-667. This of course assumes you are not using a 680i mobo which can clock FSB and RAM completely independently of each other.

With AMD CPUs it's different, the X2s have high multipliers (200x10 with the lowest 3800+) and they top out in terms of CPU speed at a lower clock (2.6-2.8GHz typical) so even with DDR2-533 you can go 300MHz FSB (x10 multiplier) w/3800+, provided you have a good mobo, and your CPU won't even POST at that speed (3GHz). So you can get away with using lesser (slower) RAM.
 
Yes, most AMD motherboards allow ram divider settings from DDR200, DDR266, DDR333 and DDR400 at a minimum and some also allow DDR433, DDR466, DDR500 as well.
 
Well, overclocking is a balancing act. Sure you can max out your CPU for its highest overclock, but usually you sacrafice the speed of your memory to do it. Generally higher end RAM overclocks better than your valueram. I am guessing that is what the guy you refered to was talking about. He may have been trying to use tight timings on his memory and a higher ram divider, which on value ram can hold you back.

In summary will better RAM help you overclock your CPU? No, but it will help in the OVERALL OC of the computer. Do you see what I'm saying?
 
dekruyter said:
So, in an exagerated scenario, if you're aiming for a FSB of 500, the RAM at 1:1, the minimum divider, it has to run at 1000. The ratios on my DS3 go up from there; from 2 to 2.5, 3 etc. So the RAM has to be really fast, and therefore, expensive.


So I don't understand the comment "u can always lower the divider. to make the ram run at a lower speed....and lower timing..." You can't on a DS3, or did I miss something?

M
Click to expand...


Most boards that are offered today, have more options when it comes to selecting RAM speed. You do not need to run the RAM synchronously with the CPU's bus speed anymore. For example, right now, I'm running an Athlon64 1500+ (yes, they did make such a beast), using a 250 MHz bus speed, while keeping my memory speeds running at 175 MHz (using PC2700 memory), since my newer Socket 754 motherboard allows me to do this.

Even older boards that do tie in the RAM speed with the CPU's bus speed, will give you options to run the RAM at a fraction of the speed of the CPU's bus speed.
 
You hear lots of reports that people can't overclock their Opteron 165s stable below 5:6 dividers, or they can run DDR200 but not DDR233 dividers etc. So I think you can't assume any divider will work.
 
dekruyter said:
I'm not sure I understand some of the answers here.

I't my understanding that RAM is very important in overclocking. As you up the FSB, so goes the RAM. On alot of motherboards there are no dividers/ratios/multipliers to slow the RAM down, only to bump it up.

So, in an exagerated scenario, if you're aiming for a FSB of 500, the RAM at 1:1, the minimum divider, it has to run at 1000. The ratios on my DS3 go up from there; from 2 to 2.5, 3 etc. So the RAM has to be really fast, and therefore, expensive.


So I don't understand the comment "u can always lower the divider. to make the ram run at a lower speed....and lower timing..." You can't on a DS3, or did I miss something?

M
Click to expand...


this is because...amd ocing and intel ocing are different..
on amd platform, u can always make the memory to run a lower speed. in order to achieve a higher FSB on cpu.

also lower the timing.. like 200mhz running 2 2 2 5, and 240mhz may be 3 3 3 8 something... if you want your memory run faster than stock, u have to give up the timing or increase the voltage.
 
cmankit said:
this is because...amd ocing and intel ocing are different..
on amd platform, u can always make the memory to run a lower speed. in order to achieve a higher FSB on cpu.
Click to expand...

Is this is the case with newer DDR2 based motherboards? On my NForce 590 based board I can only get 1:1 as the lowest ratio, all the other ratios multiply higher, not lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top