I'd like to find out whether or not I've got a good take on this, once and for all.
For Intel systems the rated FSB is quad pumped and therefore is divided by 4 to get the real FSB.
ex: 800mhz FSB divided by 4 = 200mhz FSB
Now the ram is double data rate and therefore the effective (advertised) speed is divided by 2 to get the real speed.
ex: PC2-3200 (DDR2-400) 400mhz divided by 2 = 200mhz
Technically speaking and using DDR2 just as an example, the requirements for a 1:1 ratio of the memory bus and FSB are as follows:
FSB@800mhz = PC2-3200 (DDR2-400mhz)
FSB@1066mhz = PC2-4200 (DDR2-533mhz)
FSB@1333mhz = PC2-5400 (DDR2-667mhz)
FSB@1600mhz = PC2-6400 (DDR2-800mhz)
Now, what I would like to know with regards to the Memory Bus and FSB is this: When you are NOT over clocking, what benefit is there in running a higher ratio than 1:1 in your system? I didn't think it made much of a difference whatsoever.
When I see MB specs advertising stuff like this I often wonder if I've missed something somewhere:
4 x DIMM, max. 8GB, DDR3 1800(O.C.)/1600(O.C.)/1333/1066/800 MHz, non-ECC, un-buffered memory
It would seem they are advertising that DDR3-1800/1600 are Over Clocked but 1333/1066/800 are not, yet you'd have to OC the FSB to get the full use of any of those speeds. I also wonder who has a computer that could even benefit from DDR3-1800mhz, that would mean you would need to have a real FSB speed of 900mhz (3600mhz advertised) to take full advantage??? That's Insane! I thought I used to know this stuff good enough, but anymore I'm not sure. I'm either getting duped by marketing hype or I've missed something along the way. I've looked at benchmarks before and the increase in bandwith never amounted to much from what I remember, as the latencies always had the greater impact. Again the question was about the ratio 1:1 and what benefit there is when running over that.
Thoughts/Comments appreciated.
For Intel systems the rated FSB is quad pumped and therefore is divided by 4 to get the real FSB.
ex: 800mhz FSB divided by 4 = 200mhz FSB
Now the ram is double data rate and therefore the effective (advertised) speed is divided by 2 to get the real speed.
ex: PC2-3200 (DDR2-400) 400mhz divided by 2 = 200mhz
Technically speaking and using DDR2 just as an example, the requirements for a 1:1 ratio of the memory bus and FSB are as follows:
FSB@800mhz = PC2-3200 (DDR2-400mhz)
FSB@1066mhz = PC2-4200 (DDR2-533mhz)
FSB@1333mhz = PC2-5400 (DDR2-667mhz)
FSB@1600mhz = PC2-6400 (DDR2-800mhz)
Now, what I would like to know with regards to the Memory Bus and FSB is this: When you are NOT over clocking, what benefit is there in running a higher ratio than 1:1 in your system? I didn't think it made much of a difference whatsoever.
When I see MB specs advertising stuff like this I often wonder if I've missed something somewhere:
4 x DIMM, max. 8GB, DDR3 1800(O.C.)/1600(O.C.)/1333/1066/800 MHz, non-ECC, un-buffered memory
It would seem they are advertising that DDR3-1800/1600 are Over Clocked but 1333/1066/800 are not, yet you'd have to OC the FSB to get the full use of any of those speeds. I also wonder who has a computer that could even benefit from DDR3-1800mhz, that would mean you would need to have a real FSB speed of 900mhz (3600mhz advertised) to take full advantage??? That's Insane! I thought I used to know this stuff good enough, but anymore I'm not sure. I'm either getting duped by marketing hype or I've missed something along the way. I've looked at benchmarks before and the increase in bandwith never amounted to much from what I remember, as the latencies always had the greater impact. Again the question was about the ratio 1:1 and what benefit there is when running over that.
Thoughts/Comments appreciated.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram