[SOLVED] Ram lifespan....

[South*Star]

Using ddr3 1866 on a mobo that is capped off at 1600. Does this translate into a longer lifespan if the ram is not running at full speed? and since it is not using all of that frequency, it should run cooler....am I correct in assuming this? thanks

 

[Wolfshadw]

No. It doesn't work that way. That's like taking a car, designed to run optimally at 60MPH, but never driving it above 45MPH.

Not that it really matters. RAM will more often than not, outlast the meaningful lifetime of any system you install it into. I have an old PIII-800MHz system with 768MB of SDRAM installed from around 1999 that could still boot up.

-Wolf sends

 

[South*Star]

I don't know if I really agree with that, especially with your car analogy. Sure driving at 60 mph will get you there faster but you will use more fuel and create more heat, thus shortening the lifespan of the engine and/or parts. I wouldn't really care about this if I still lived state side but I live in Brazil now, and getting anything electronic, a person almost has to take a small loan out from the bank because of all the taxes. So I have to make the most consumer friendly purchase with the longest shelf life.

 

[King_V]

I have to concur with @Wolfshadw - while I have gotten a used system that already had a bad RAM stick, I don't think I've ever personally had any RAM go bad.

And, similar to Wolf, I've got an old Slot 1 based system with a Socket 370 adapter, has had various Pentium III and Celeron CPUs from around 600MHz to the current 1GHz Celeron. Running a mismatched set of 100MHz SDR RAM (all the modules are 100MHz CL2, though, but, in the 3 slots, there are a 256MB, 128MB, and 32MB stick, respectively, for a total of 416MB of RAM).

Still runs.

I haven't fired up my old AMD K6-2+ 400MHz system, that's got a 128MB and a 64MB stick of 100MHz RAM, and was working when last fired up about 8 years ago.

 

[prophet51]

Slightly longer lifespan but not in any meaningful way ie 1866 would last 50years and 1600 60years.

 

[South*Star]

Slightly longer lifespan but not in any meaningful way ie 1866 would last 50years and 1600 60years.

thank you

 

[Gam3r01]

thank you

Those numbers are entirely hypothetical and you should absolutely not expect RAM to last that long, let alone that large a difference between the two.

Running RAM at a lower than supported speed likely wont have any meaningful impact on lifespan.
Overclocking RAM above supported speed would have some measurable impact.

 

[South*Star]

Those numbers are entirely hypothetical and you should absolutely not expect RAM to last that long, let alone that large a difference between the two.

Running RAM at a lower than supported speed likely wont have any meaningful impact on lifespan.
Overclocking RAM above supported speed would have some measurable impact.

If I can get even a year or 2 of use longer by purchasing a 1866 running at 75% instead of the 1600 at 100%, then totally worth it.

 

[Gam3r01]

If I can get even a year or 2 of use longer by purchasing a 1866 running at 75% instead of the 1600 at 100%, then totally worth it.

I highly doubt it would be anywhere close to a year, let alone longer.

Again, the RAM is designed to run at those speeds, its not going to run longer if you run it at lower clocks.

You are going to either:
1) Run into performance issues
or
2) Encounter random hardware failure

Before ever experiencing hardware lifespan issues from factory clock speeds.

 

[USAFRet]

If I can get even a year or 2 of use longer by purchasing a 1866 running at 75% instead of the 1600 at 100%, then totally worth it.

Have you seen any test that might show this to be the result?
Anything at all?