CPU and RAM ratio

mildiner86

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2008
274
0
18,790
1
i have a q6600 OC at 3Ghz

FSB now 1333

my ram is OCZ 800 Mhz for a 1:1 ratio the ram needs to run at 667

(1333/4) = (667/2)

should i use the ram at 667 an have a 1:1 ratio of ram to cpu

or up the ram as high as it can go (to around 900)

for gaming i cant really see a differnce thought u guys may know what option will give best prefermance

so clock speed and forget ratio or go for lower speed and 1:1 ratio

btw i cant raise the fsb past around 1450 anyways and i wana keep my cpu at around 3ghz
 

Kraynor

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2007
829
0
19,010
5
I prefer to keep the 1:1 going on, normally lets you get tighter timings so at least you have the satisfaction of knowing your system's running a couple of nanoseconds faster than if it was slightly outside the 1:1.
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
From what i know.. Running fsb to ram in a ratio of 1:1 would put lesser stress on the chipset.. Not to sure about that though.. :??:
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
From the following thread - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247906-29-ratio#t1781779

 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Additionally, at equal specifications, 4 memory modules offer less FSB overclock ceiling than 2 modules, since more northbridge and memory voltage is required to maintain stability, and 4 slots require twice the current of 2 slots, again resulting in more heat, which typically is pulled into the CPU cooler, where it can increase processor temperatures by a few unwanted degrees.
This sentence bothers me.. Does it really affect cpu temps and overclock by using 4 dimms instead of 2 dimms..? :??:
 
Well, I can tell you from my experience, yes it does make a big difference if you run 2 or 4 sticks of memory. It has always been easier for me to overclock, tighten latencies up, run at faster memory buss speeds, lower voltages, with only 2 sticks.
In other words, yeah I think that adding more sticks does create a lot of "issues" or "circumstances" to deal with. And they get progressively worse with the faster memory you purchase.
I would also have to agree that more sticks, more heat. More heat in the case is more heat....that is all there is to that.
And yes, I would also agree from my experience that there is no noticable difference in 667, 800, 1066 memory. The faster memory you buy looking at the buss speed, if you notice the latencies get longer, which pretty much cancels out benefit of the faster buss. I also agree that about the best you can do for your money is 800mhz memory, with good tight latencies. No need for anything else.
I use 1066 memory for only 1 reason. It was on sale for $29 for a 2X2gig matched set, the day I was at Fry's picking out my parts, it was less than any 2x2gig 800mhz set they had in stock.
 

Kraynor

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2007
829
0
19,010
5
I can verify that, with 2 sticks my ram can reach ~1150 MHz before failing, but with 4 they only get to ~1090, they run a little bit warmer too, 2-3 degrees difference only.
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
I guess it would be the added stress on the northbridge when running 4 dimms.. Heat is definitely an important issue for me since i'm living in a fairly hot climate where a few degrees would affect system stability.. As it affects that much i might be reconsidering on going on to 8gb of ram.. :( Might have to just get 4gb of ram and see how it performs..
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
Ravenica,

Thank you for asking. The answer to your question is yes. As the author of the Core i7 and Core 2 Temperature Guide - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/221745-29-core-core-temperature-guide - I am well acquainted with the thermal behavior of processors and CPU coolers, and the airflow charateristics of computer cases and fan specifications, as well as the effects of overclocking relevant to various Northbridge memory controllers and memory module configurations.

My primary goal here at Tom's Forums is to provide the most up to date Intel processor temperature information to Tom's readers. As such, I am not in the habit of spreading FUD or making false or misleading statements. I would not offer this information if it was not verified and true.

In order to bring a solid perspective to the issue of how much memory is enough, please refer to the following recent and excellent Tom's article: Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM? - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264.html

Don't get stuck on the fact that the article pertains to the i7 platform, but instead focus on the fact that unless it's necessary to run a 64 bit OS due to the memory requirements of a specific application, or if you're running a server, or you're into consistently heavy multitasking, then a 32 bit OS with 3Gb (4GB for Core 2 platforms) is more than adequate for the vast majority of typical users and gamers.

CompuTronix :sol:
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Thank you CompuTronix for answering my question.. I've read about the article.. There was a performance increase in games from 4gb to 8gb ram that's what currently bothering me.. :??:
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
Do you have a specific game in mind? Are you certain that you're reading the graphs correctly? I've just reviewed the article once again to be certain that I haven't missed anything. The article does not compare 4GB versus 8GB, it compares 3GB versus 6GB versus 12GB. If you look carefully at page 3 and page 6, I think you'll see that there's no appreciable difference for gaming. The differences in frame rates are confined to resolutions, not to quantity of memory.
 

Kraynor

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2007
829
0
19,010
5
I believe I read an article on Tom's before about 8gb RAM, and they showed performance gains for one reason: they could turn off the page file, I don't believe they did that in this most recent article. Personally I'm happy with 8gb, some of what I do benefits from it, but the main thing is that things load much quicker due to lack of caching to disk.
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
CompuTronix the article you gave me was comparing between 3gb 6gb and 12gb and they all are triple-channel kits.. The one i was referring to was most likely what Kraynor mentioned i happened to come across an article that showed performance gains when upgrading to 8gb ram from 4gb.. Although i could be wrong.. Btw Kraynor currently your not using any pagefile..?
 

Kraynor

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2007
829
0
19,010
5
None at all, except when I want to play DoW2 because that requires a 1.5GB page file to load, and when working on huge rendering projects.

I haven't run into any issues with it, except for that one time in an intense 3DSMax session that went on far too long and got far too big... got an out of memory blue screen. Learned my lesson that day all right, but for general use having no page file hasn't had any negative impact and I think loading times are quicker, though I might just be trying to convince myself they are... I can't be bothered benchmarking the two to find out.
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
3GB is plenty. Also, the i7 platform shows almost no difference in performance between tripple channel or dual channel operation, or in other words, with 3 modules installed versus 2. Additionally, load times are discussed on page 7, however, load times are much more affected by fast drives in RAID 0, such as with my 3 VelociRaptor 300's, or the Intel SSD's.
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Hmm.. So am i right to say that upgrading from dual channel 4gb vs triple channel 6gb yields not much benefits..? Heh.. Can't be 3 raptors in RAID 0.. So technically 8gb of ram is most likely an overkill eh..
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
Correct. I'm sorry to say that after all my extensive research and testing, I've reached the conclusion that memory sales propaganda is almost a conspiracy of epic proportions. Huge piles of money is being made on the unsuspecting computer consumer.
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Heh.. Well it's okay atleast i'm able to learn something.. I have another question.. If i were to use 3gb of ram setting a pagefile size of 6gb would be dumb right as i might hinder performance more then help..?
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Thanks for all your help CompuTronix..! :D Learned a lot today.. Since 8gb won't yield much.. I guess 2x2gb sticks would do for now.. Since my current rig uses close to 2gb.. A bit of topic here have you ever encountered problems of running prime95 blend test in vista 64bit with 2gb ram..?
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
Prime95 has a 32 bit and 64 bit version. Are you running the correct version?

Prime95 Homepage - latest version 25.9 - http://mersenne.org/freesoft/#newusers

Unfortunately, many computer enthusisasts don't understand that unless it's necessary to run Windows 64 due to the memory requirements of a specific application, or unless you're running a server, or you're into consistently heavy multitasking, there's no advantage to running Windows 64 instead of Windows 32, except that Windows 64 has inherently slightly better security.

In fact, many users are running Windows 64 simply because it sounds "cool", when in many instances, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits due to driver issues and problems with software compatibility, so it often present more headaches than it's worth.

Also remember that 64 bit games and applications remain extremely scarce, so when you run a 32 bit application in Windows 64 bit, it's actually is running in "WoW" mode, or "Windows on Windows". This means that your 32 bit application is running in a 32 bit shell within Windows 64, which slightly reduces system performance by an overall negligible amount of approximately 1%.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts