Best memory/chip/mobo combo to run 1100 fsb on 1:1 ratio?

fkloster

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 1999
4,171
0
0
1) P4 2.4 800 fsb?
2) Asus P4C-800E?
3) Corsair XMS 500ddr?

1) What will my multiplier settings be?
2) Can I run 1:1 ratio?
3) This will run 3.2 ghz @ 1:1?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
That's probably your best bet.... Although I can pretty confidently say, there's no memory that'll run at 550mhz DDR.

1. Your multiplier settings can't be changed... I forget what the multiplier is for the 2.4.... *maths* ok it's 12.
2. Sure, you can run 1:1.... up to the point where your memory won't go any faster.
3. That would get you up to 3.3ghz, if you could run your memory at 550mhz. But again, that's not likely.

Still not a bad idea. At 500mhz DDR, which the memory is gauranteed to do, you'll get 3000mhz out of it, and still have a beefy amount of memory bandwidth.

The great thing about the 875 chipset, over the 865, is that it can maintain PAT even with a 5:4 divider.... So you're not really limited to 1:1.
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
There is no "need" to run 1:1. This is a very common mis-perception about P4 rigs. 1:1 @ high DDR speeds = using cr@ppy timings. You can get ~ the same, sometimes better performance using 5:4 ratio with tighter timings.
 

fkloster

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 1999
4,171
0
0
But what you guys are saying is that asynchronis timing in current P4 doesn't matter @ all ?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
It doesn't matter at all on 875 boards. On 865 boards, which have illegally enabled PAT, you lose PAT effects if you use any divider other than 1:1.

For me, 1:1 is the way to go, because my processor is alright pretty close to the limit of the P4. But all the people w/ 2.4s seem to like the 5:4 divider, it lets them get pretty far up there.

I run 1:1 WITH tight timings at 224mhz. You can run that pc4200 at 550mhz w/ somewhat loose timings. If I were you, that's what I'd do. The massive speed boost makes up for the timings, as was noted in the anand memory guide.
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
Not really. DDR550 will have to run very loose timings.

Read here
and here
and here

There are more like these. Tight timings means more than high DDR speed. Only problem is it is getting more difficult to find mem that will run tight timings. Mushkin level II will.
 

fkloster

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 1999
4,171
0
0
Ok....so people who tell me that higher DDR speeds w/ higher case latencys are better than lower DDR speeds w/ lower case latencys are wrong?
 

Dug

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2000
3,469
6
81
I think this sums it up pretty well...

A mere 3 MHz of extra FSB speed is enough to outperform the optimized system with run-of-the-mill timings, which clearly demonstrates how much the Pentium 4 profits from high-system clock speeds.

I just checked out the review and my benchmarks at 5:4 are almost exactely like those that are 1:1.

I personally don't think the cost of high end memory is worth it to try to get 1:1.
Especially when the cost is almost double of good 3200 and you may not get that 1:1 speed your reaching for anyway.
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
Ok....so people who tell me that higher DDR speeds w/ higher case latencys are better than lower DDR speeds w/ lower case latencys are wrong?
YES. Those people will also be the ones who use synthetic mem benches that show huge increases. They will shy away from real application benching since the improvements are not there.
 

illuminati

Member
Mar 5, 2003
187
0
0
Originally posted by: fkloster
Didn't Anand get some memory is his round up that fast? 552? right here... GeIL sells PC-4200 or DDR-533 just saw it on pricewatch!
Anand and most review sites use Engineering Samples unless they specifically say they bought it from a retailer... which unfortunately you can not always trust.
 

Lyfer

Diamond Member
May 28, 2003
5,842
2
81
Fork up the cash and get 1gb of Corsair PRO DDR500, its timings at DDR500 are the best accord to Anand's review.
 

fkloster

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 1999
4,171
0
0
Ok so... :

Old Fart : "Buy memory that runs 'tight' latency settings and that is more important than Huge FSB w/ 'loose' latency settings"

Dug : "Buy fast memory that runs 'loose' latency settings and that is more important than Smaller FSB w/ 'tight' latency settings"


:confused:
 

Need4Speed

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 1999
5,383
0
0
CAS Explained

The Bottom Line

CAS Latencies are usually written as CAS2 or CAS3, so just how important is this?

In the real world, unless your system is up on the cutting edge of technology and you're pushing performance to the limit as do some over-clockers, or gamers, it may have some relevance. On the other hand, in everyday systems the relevance is nominal at best. CAS3 means that at 100 Mhz., the amount of time required for the first memory access in a burst is increased by 10 nanoseconds or less. Divide this figure by 4 to average the increased time across four bursts, and you have an improvement of less than 2.5 nanoseconds over CAS2. We need to underscore the term relevance as it pertains to CAS Latency and changing memory modules on the average system. If you had a Pentium III 600 to 866MHz. computer, as an example, and you used this for surfing the Internet, using Microsoft Office or Corel Office, Adobe products etc., and changed your memory modules from those having CAS3 to CAS2 latencies, you wouldn't be able to notice any difference. But again, if you are pushing your system to the limits, this could become critical.

System performance is not measured by the performance of one part, but rather by the sum of all parts.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
I'd go for the PC4000. Although, like someone else said, the only real benefits you'll see are in benchmarks.... Some people aren't ok with that, but personally, 3dmark 03 is my favorite game, I Play it at least 3 hours a day. If I ever get bored with it, I'll play a couple rounds of SiSoft Sandra, to see my memory bandwidth.

Seriously though, in most applications, even games, I think you'd be hard pressed to see a difference between a 2.4ghz and a 3.4ghz processor, using any ddr memory. Computers are simply too fast for the available software right now...

So any kind of high end thing you buy is really more for showing off\benchmarking than real world use.
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
Nebor is sort of right (in a twisted Nebor sort of way). ;)

The difference in reality between High DDR high latency and lower DDR speeds lower latency is very small. We are talking fractions here.

Look at the benches on the links I posted. Most of the time, the low latency is actually faster.

Choose wisely and beware of review sites that are sponsored by ram mfgrs!
 

Sunny129

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2000
4,823
6
81
LOL...3Dmark03 and Sandra are great games;).

no really though, it's all about what you want out of your system. if you want your benchies to look good, then spend the extra $ on PC4000. but if you like to encode mp3s, divX, and other files all day, or play games and participate in distributed computing like me, then same some $ and go with PC3500, or even PC3200 rated w/ better timings, and run a 5:4 CPU to DRAM ratio. personally, i'd go with slower memory w/ better timings b/c i play real games and use real applications that are significantly CPU/memory dependent.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
The thing is, pretty much all games now are GPU dependant... our memory and CPU aren't really the bottleneck....
 

Dug

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2000
3,469
6
81
Originally posted by: fkloster
Ok so... :

Old Fart : "Buy memory that runs 'tight' latency settings and that is more important than Huge FSB w/ 'loose' latency settings"

Dug : "Buy fast memory that runs 'loose' latency settings and that is more important than Smaller FSB w/ 'tight' latency settings"


:confused:

No- I'm saying that the o/c is more important and not the 1:1 ratio. So you don't need DDR500 to get a good o/c with a 2.4 because you can run the 5:4 setting for the memory.

 

Sunny129

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2000
4,823
6
81
Originally posted by: Nebor
The thing is, pretty much all games now are GPU dependant... our memory and CPU aren't really the bottleneck....

that is true to a degree, but i still play some older games like UT and FS2002/2004. even the new flight simulator is based on an old engine, which depends very much on the CPU. and i'm sure you all remember how unreal tournament was very CPU dependent. in fact when i OC my ti4200 like crazy, it makes almost no difference in fps in UT. i suppose thats a different story with more recent titles. not to mention that i only have a P4 1.6...granted its running @ 2.2GHz, my memory is only PC2700, and not very OCable at that.