• 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.

The 1:1 fsb:ram rule...

C

colinstu

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
3,563
Way back in the orginal Core 2 days, I remember this being of big discussion. I remember that your computer would either be faster, or more stable, if the CPU bus speed was 1:1 with the DDR2 speed. (1600mhz FSB = use DDR2 800 ram. 1333mhz fsb = DDR2 667, etc etc)

This was years ago, but was this true? What were the benefits of doing such a thing?

And the other question, how is this applicable with today's Intel processors? With the end of the Core 2 era, I remember seeing faster and faster ram speeds available that people began to just skip the rule. And with Nehalem... the much lower bus speed, no FSB, faster DD3 ram... seemed like the "1:1 rule" was totally gone. Is there anything like that these days? Now it seems like as long the timings and memory speed are fast, you get the most benefit.

The other reason why I'm asking is because of my current computer. I just installed Windows 7 x64 for fun and I'm pondering upping the ram with extra stuff I have already. I already have 2x1GB DDR2 800 (that runs 1:1 with my CPU), but I have an extra kit of 2x1GB DDR2 667 laying around. If I could try to OC the second kit, or underclock my main set down to 667, would my computer run better with the extra ram (albeit a little slower)?

For some reason I feel like the "Well do you need that much ram?" question is going to pop up, and all I'm going to say is that I do run Photoshop, Lightroom, multitask a bit, windows 7 uses a bunch more ram than XP did, and some games.

Thanks.
 
None of this is applicable to the new Sandy Bridge CPU's. Everything is locked to a 100mhz bus and multiplied from there. There isn't a question of if you really need that much ram. 4gb is the standard for now, and it's about to be 8gb.

More slow ram > less fast ram when you run apps that use lots of ram. Windows 7 itself will use a lot of the 2gb you have so you'll need the other 2gb especially if you use photoshop.
 
Last edited:
Win7 will run fine on 1GB of 1333 ddr3 :( not fun but it works fine.
 
colinstu said:
I remember that your computer would either be faster, or more stable, if the CPU bus speed was 1:1 with the DDR2 speed. (1600mhz FSB = use DDR2 800 ram. 1333mhz fsb = DDR2 667, etc etc)

This was years ago, but was this true? What were the benefits of doing such a thing?

And the other question, how is this applicable with today's Intel processors?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

needmorecarnitine said:
what does that have to do with the OP's question?
Click to expand...

He asked how it was applicable with today's processors. A 1:1 ratio is not applicable since the bclk is 100mhz and can't really be changed too much. The CPU and memory both work off of multipliers of the same 100mhz bclk. I answered his question.
 
Last edited:
This may have mattered during the early days of 775 chipsets but after some time, the improvments in design and stability of motherboards and new chipsets made it so that this rule didn't matter anymore.

I've never seen any need to do any 1:1 ratios but it varies from board to board what frequencies, timings, straps, ratios, etc. are most stable and offer the most performance for you. Because of that, there is really no such thing as "a rule" more like an old tech myth/old wives tale that was applicable to certain configurations but certainly not to all.

The "round" numbers we use are often arbitrary. It makes no difference to the computer. All hardware has it's limits and most often, these are random and unpredictable numbers because of it's nature. We only think in round numbers and matched numbers or certain set speeds (800mhz, 2.4ghz, etc.) because of how manufacturers choose to bin and market their products.
 
novadaemon said:
None of this is applicable to the new Sandy Bridge CPU's. Everything is locked to a 100mhz bus and multiplied from there. There isn't a question of if you really need that much ram. 4gb is the standard for now, and it's about to be 8gb.

More slow ram > lots of fast ram when you run apps that use lots of ram. Windows 7 itself will use a lot of the 2gb you have so you'll need the other 2gb especially if you use photoshop.
Click to expand...

This.

And double this on the big slow > little fast. Even the slowest RAM is a multitude of orders faster than that fastest HD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top