• 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 Speed vs Ram Speed (?)

liquidfluidity

liquidfluidity

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
2,938
I'm sure it's been beat to death but I couldn't seem to find anything. My W3520 is clocked to 4.00Ghz and then I noticed my ram wasn't at speed - 2000mhz. So I made some adjustments and got it there. Unfortunately , it took 1.39v vtt to get it there. I "seem" to notice a bit of difference in snappiness and speed but I don't like the extra 5-6*C it added to my hottest core. So , how much difference is there between 1600-2000mhz - anything noticeable? My chip will run 4.2Ghz at 1.28v and run about the same temp. Will there be more gain with 2000mhz ram or 4.2Ghz corespeed?
 
Even in the most RAM intensive tasks, any frequency over 1600mhz is negligible. However, trimming down your timings can make a noticeable difference.
 
KazeoHin said:
Even in the most RAM intensive tasks, any frequency over 1600mhz is negligible. However, trimming down your timings can make a noticeable difference.
Click to expand...

Not true. In RAM intensive tasks.. ones that will all the RAM you can throw at them, and in specific scenarios, you can gain 20%+ from going from 1600 to 2000.

This is with LGA1366 and running the bclk at 200.

The increase in system snappiness/smoothness is also very noticeable.

VTT at 1.39... hahaha.. mine is at 1.65.
 
Gonna shoot for core speed until I go H20. Running at 2000mhz definitely seems to make things snappier but at a price of around 5*C.
 
cyclone3d said:
Not true. In RAM intensive tasks.. ones that will all the RAM you can throw at them, and in specific scenarios, you can gain 20%+ from going from 1600 to 2000.

This is with LGA1366 and running the bclk at 200.

The increase in system snappiness/smoothness is also very noticeable.

VTT at 1.39... hahaha.. mine is at 1.65.
Click to expand...

Interesting since I had an OC'd 920 with 1600Mhz RAM that ran faster than it did with the 2000 Mhz RAM. The timings were better at 1600 Mhz and the system was more responsive.

That being said the system was a hell of a lot faster when I didn't care about timings or speed and just upped it from 6GB to 12GB.
 
the ting most people arent aware of about nehalem CPU's is that the memory controller speed MUST be at least twice the frequency of the memory.

Your memory controller is running at 4Ghz now in addition to the 2000Mhz ram, whereas with 1600mhz it was only running at a measly 3.2Ghz.

The gains will be noticed in memory heavy tasks mainly as you are only overclocking that sub-system of the computer.
 
Wumpus13 said:
the ting most people arent aware of about nehalem CPU's is that the memory controller speed MUST be at least twice the frequency of the memory.

Your memory controller is running at 4Ghz now in addition to the 2000Mhz ram, whereas with 1600mhz it was only running at a measly 3.2Ghz.

The gains will be noticed in memory heavy tasks mainly as you are only overclocking that sub-system of the computer.
Click to expand...

I have done many memory intensive tasks and in almost all the tasks the 1600Mhz at lower latency timings was quicker than the 2000Mhz memory. In addition in all tasks the extra RAM seemed to provide even better performance than whether I had lower latency or higher frequency. The 1600 vs 2000 was done with 6GB of Triple Channel DDR3. When I upped to 12GB filling all my DIMM banks, my system still ran faster, even when doing operations that didn't use more than 5GB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top