• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Core 2 Duo E6750 OC Q's

R

ripto

n00b
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
14
Hey guys, question for you

I built my PC about 2 years ago come this January. I just realized my ram's voltage (Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066) is rated at 2.1V. Meanwhile, my mobo (Gigabyte P35C DS3R) has a voltage of 1.8V in the dimms. Right now I'm running at a CPU (E6750 2.66 GHz) host freq of 400 with an 8 multiplier = 3.2 GHz.

I have my ram SPD set to 2 to give me a freq of 800 (currently running 1:1). I'm assuming I'm not using the fully capabilities of my ram. So therefore I have 2 questions.

1. Should I up my voltage from 1.8V to 2.1V? If so, what would this do for me?
2. Should I (could I?) change my CPU host freq to 533 with a multiplier of 6 to still give me 3.198 GHz and a ram freq of 1066? Are there limitations that would physically prevent me from changing this? Stock is 333x8, so I don't know how high it can go.
 
1. Well, nothing. If you're stable and running at the right timings for your mem @ 800mhz, and you're not pushing past whatever freq you're at, then you don't need the extra voltage. The situation where you would need extra voltage is if you OC with a different FSB:MEM ratio and happen to hit a freq where it is unstable.
2. Yeah you can go ahead and try that. In this case you might need to bump memory voltage to accommodate for the increased freq. But you are talking about a 200mhz increase in FSB, not sure you can push it that far :( . Apparently your board can handle it though.

-.- i answered Q1 without reading Q2 first
 
Yeah I got to thinking that since the CPU was stock 333 MHz host freq, bringing it +200 might not be stable.

I was also thinking of this: Changing the memory SPD in my BIOS and CPU host freq to a more manageable level and still have the memory get to 1066. I don't remember my options for memory SPD, I know there are only a couple, but instead of having the CPU host freq at 533 and setting memory SPD to 2, Maybe I can lower the host freq and up the SPD. That might work too right?

Am I crazy for wanting 1066 ram to act like 1066 ram?
 
ripto said:
2. Should I (could I?) change my CPU host freq to 533 with a multiplier of 6 to still give me 3.198 GHz and a ram freq of 1066? Are there limitations that would physically prevent me from changing this? Stock is 333x8, so I don't know how high it can go.
Click to expand...

Yes there are. The multiplyer is locked. You also cant do this because the FSB directly correlates to your RAM speed. You OC one thing, you OC everything. I used to have that same chip, before my Q. 3.6 is the highest I ever took it, usually kept it at 3.2 though.

BTW, only Nehalem chips and any AMD CPU can you change the RAM speed, independent of CPU FSB.
 
533 is pretty high for the FSB. You'd probably have to bump up the FSB and/or northbridge voltage(s) a notch. If you want to clock the RAM higher, the easiest way would be to select a different divider and increase the RAM voltage to 2.0V or 2.1V. 3:4 would give you 1066MHz I think.

Then again, I've heard that there aren't any noticeable differences with faster RAM and that a 1:1 ratio is the best configuration. Can someone confirm or deny this?
 
w4ffles, I also heard something along those lines due to the memory controller architecture... or something along those lines.

To the OP, set your memory ratio to 1:1 or AUTO for that board I believe. Then give your memory however much voltage it is supposed to get whether its 1.8v or 2.1v. Then I would probably try 400mhz bus with 8x multi.
Before overclocking, I would increase vcore to like 1.450v and then incrementally decrease it to find stable point. Everyone has their own style though.
 
My multiplier isn't locked, I can set it to either 6, 7, or 8. Right now I have 400x8. Setting the memory SPD to auto puts the ram at 960 MHz. There is no setting to give me exactly 1066 MHz. I looked at a few of my options and 333x8 with SPD on 3.2 would give me 1066 MHz for my ram, but thats only 2.6 GHz.
 
ripto said:
My multiplier isn't locked, I can set it to either 6, 7, or 8. Right now I have 400x8. Setting the memory SPD to auto puts the ram at 960 MHz. There is no setting to give me exactly 1066 MHz. I looked at a few of my options and 333x8 with SPD on 3.2 would give me 1066 MHz for my ram, but thats only 2.6 GHz.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I was thinking up. You can only change the multiplier down, and not up over 8X.
Not that you would ever want to go down, its pretty pointless and could screw your system running the FSB too high.

Changing your RAM SPD multi to 2.7 (if you can go that high) will take your RAM to 1080, which should be completely fine with 1066 sticks. Thats prolly the close-est you are going to get with your current OC.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Yes there are. The multiplyer is locked. You also cant do this because the FSB directly correlates to your RAM speed. You OC one thing, you OC everything. I used to have that same chip, before my Q. 3.6 is the highest I ever took it, usually kept it at 3.2 though.

BTW, only Nehalem chips and any AMD CPU can you change the RAM speed, independent of CPU FSB.
Click to expand...

That's wrong...
I'm running my Q9650 at 450X9 with my ram at 540.(1066 ram, running just a hair overclocked )

OP you may be able to set the ram to 1066, I'm not familiar with that board,but I would bet you can.
if you do go to 1066, you will need to set the volts to 2.1..1.8 will work fine at 800, but probably will not work at 1066.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Ah yes, I was thinking up. You can only change the multiplier down, and not up over 8X.
Not that you would ever want to go down, its pretty pointless and could screw your system running the FSB too high.

Changing your RAM SPD multi to 2.7 (if you can go that high) will take your RAM to 1080, which should be completely fine with 1066 sticks. Thats prolly the close-est you are going to get with your current OC.
Click to expand...

But if I do that to the ram, would that be better than running 1:1?
 
There probably wouldn't be a noticeable difference. 2.66 x 400 would get you 1066 or very close.

Personally, I stick with 1:1 because nothing loaded any faster for me. If it did, it was too tiny to notice. I'm currently running my CPU at 333x11. I haven't had any time to play around with it, but I'm pretty sure I can get it over 4GHz.
 
Okay so it seems like the consensus has been from a few forums that there would be no noticeable difference trying to get this ram to run at 1066 and losing the 1:1 ratio. Another question I had was:

-------------
I plan on upgrading to have 4 GB of RAM to go with Windows 7 64-bit I'm going to be installing very soon. I have 2 x 1 GB of DDR2 1066 right now. I'm not sure which would be the best way to go. My mobo has 2 DDR3 1066/800 slots and 4 DDR2 1066/800/667 slots.

1. Another 2 GB of DDR2 1066
2. 4 GB of DDR2 800
3. 4 GB of DDR3 1066
4. 4 GB of DDR3 800

Which do you think would be the best route to go? I built this computer 2 years ago with the option of upgrading to DDR3 available to me but I don't know if that memory is worth it or not. I don't want to upgrade this computer big time since its not SLI capable, so theres really no point, that will come with a future build (or something better by then).
-------------
 
I think you should get another 4GB of DDR2 since you're already using DDR2. Getting either 800 or 1066 would work since you'd be running them all at 800. Just make sure all 4 sticks can run at the same timings and voltage. Or if you think 6GB is too much, you could sell the 2GB kit and get a kit of 4GB DDR2 800.

Even if you got a kit of DDR3, you'd still be running it at 800MHz. The only big difference would be a lower voltage used. DDR2 will have a high resell price than DDR3 pretty soon as well, like what happened with DDR when DDR2 became the standard.
 
Yeah I'm looking at going to 4 GB with my 64-bit WIndows 7. I don't really need to upgrade past that right now. I was leaning towards 4 GB of DDR2 800, more specifically http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145241. Seems like one of the better deals out there right now with that MIR.

Also, if I want to see if I can run my ram at lower settings (5-5-5-15 now) I could just go into BIOS and lower them right? If its unstable will there be any damage? At that point I'd assume I'd have to up the voltage.
 
I tried upping the freq of the ram, from the 800 I was running it at, I went to 960 and then 1000 (smallest levels I could go to). I ran 3DMark06 3 times on each setting(don't know if thats the best test to run to try this) and the averages were:

800 MHz --> 12113 (1:1)
960 MHz --> 12122 (5:6)
1000 MHz --> 12145 (4:5) (only a 0.2% increase over 800 MHz setting)

No problems booting, didn't up any voltages either.
 
I'd take memtest as a better indicator for stability, but it definitely seems like the only benefit of faster RAM is more headroom for overclocking.
 
I just lowered my specs to 4-4-4-15 @ 800 MHz, didn't have to raise voltage past 1.8 V.

I lowered my specs to 4-4-4-15 on 1000 MHz and had to raise voltage to required 2.1 V and it still would not post. So I decided to go back to 800 MHz (1:1) and try the 4-4-4-15. I ran memtest and it passed 5 passes so I stopped. Average score in 3DMark06 was 6 points higher than 5-5-5-15 @ 800 MHz. Go figure.
 
Actually I realized I could get the 2 x 2 GB DDR2 800 and put it with my current ram since I'm running it at 800 MHz anyway.
 
Sounds like a good idea to me. The OS will definitely run faster. You probably won't be able to use 1T though, but it's only a small difference.
 
I got my 4 GB of DDR2 800 today. First, I'm getting lower scores in windows 7 for whatever reason than I was in XP. I put it in with the other 2 for a total of 6 GB and got lower 3DMark06 scores. I took the old 2 GB out so just to have the new 4 GB in, and lower scores. I'll have to try some games before I make a decision I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top