Overclocking TridentZ RGB 3600Mhz 17-18-18-38

NewsFromHell

Reputable
Jan 10, 2015
39
0
4,540
1
Hi all, recently i was trying to overclock my RAM and achieved two decent results without touching any other settings.
16-16-16-36 3600Mhz and 17-17-17-37 3866Mhz. So i have two questions 1) is it safe to run RAMs at this speeds and 2) do you know any better settings i can use?
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
The key is achieving the lowest possible true latency. Increasing memory voltage can overcome boot failures, however, there are two concerns:

(1) Damaging the memory chips.
(2) Damaging the memory controller onboard the CPU.

1.4 volts is a modest increase of just 3.7% over 1.35. I've run these modules at 1.42, which is about a 5.2% overvolt. If you want to boot and run 3733 @ 16 to get a lower true latency of 8.57nS, then try 1.4 volts, which is still within the allowed +5% over specification.

However, remember to keep memory overclocking in perspective. Don't get caught up in it, as memory overclocking has little overall effect on computer performance. Provided that users install a decent kit, unless you're running a specific app or game in which memory performance has a known significant effect, your time is better invested in CPU and GPU overclocking.

Also, keep in mind that if you don't meticulously and thoroughly test and verify memory stability, there's a major risk of data corruption, which, depending on how conscientious and disciplined you are concerning software backups, can be hugely catastrophic. Every BSOD crash holds the potential for data loss or corruption, so I strongly suggest that users perform a total system backup before getting too absorbed with overclocking.

CT :sol:
 

Doctor Rob

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2008
676
3
19,160
117
just watch the temps. like did you UP the voltage (IF you did then it could be worrying) .. and just an FYI depending on your other setup.. it maybe slower then running at the better timings at the 3600Mhz speed. you should run a few benchmarks to determine what one is actually better.
 

NewsFromHell

Reputable
Jan 10, 2015
39
0
4,540
1


I am a newbie in overclocking, a little help would be very handy actually. I haven't touched any settings except timings and frequency. Yeah I am currently trying to see which one is better. is it possible to go get lower timings with my frequencies?
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
NewsFromHell,

I've overclocked many kits, including G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3200 @ 14-14-14-34 and Trident Z RGB 3600 @ 16-16-16-36. Both kits were stable at 3733 @ 16-16-16-36.

Have you tried 3733 @ 16-16-16-36?

Here's how to calculate true latency in nanoseconds:

3.6GHz (frequency) / 2 (DDR or Double Data Rate) = 1.8GHz
1 (time constant) / 1.8 is 0.5556
0.5556 x 16 (CL or latency) = 8.89 nanoseconds (true latency)

So ...

3.600 @ 16 = 8.89
3.866 @ 17 = 8.79
3.200 @ 14 = 8.75
3.733 @ 16 = 8.57
4.000 @ 17 = 8.50

Only the best and most expensive kits can approach 8.0 nanoseconds (nS). The closer to 8nS you get, the more difficult it becomes to maintain stability, where, at some point, a voltage increase is necessary.

If your kit will test stable at 3733 using 16-16-16-36 timings, then 8.57 nanoseconds should be faster. Although my 3600 kit could achiever 4.0GHz @ 17-17-17-37, it required a modest overvolt of 1.38 to remain stable.

Here's a paper by Crucial regarding speed versus latency - http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-performance-speed-latency

Here's a simple latency calculator - https://notkyon.moe/ram-latency.htm

CT :sol:
 

NewsFromHell

Reputable
Jan 10, 2015
39
0
4,540
1


Couldnt boot pc with 16-16-16-36 3733mhz. any help?
 

NewsFromHell

Reputable
Jan 10, 2015
39
0
4,540
1


8700k stock
Asus Z370-A Prime

P.S. Best result ive achived is 3866Mhz 17-17-17-37
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS