• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Better to keep my OC or add more RAM?

J

jhh979s

Member
My system: Intel Q9550, Asus P5QPro Turbo, 4 GB Memory (2x2), HD4850 1GB, OCZ Vertex 60GB

My dilemma: I have this system OC'd to 3.4GHz with the ram at 961MHz. The ram is Kingston 1066. I have another set of the exact same ram, but when I install it the computer will not post. I have to either run the ram at less than 800MHz or back off the OC quite a bit. So for now the other set of ram is not being used.
I'm looking for opinions. I'm thinking about selling the extra ram to offset the cost of a new video card (HD6850). Or is having 8 GB of memory and no OC better than 4 GB with an OC? I should mention either way I decide I will still be getting a new video card.
 
You don't lose a whole lot of performance by just reducing the memory speed to 800MHz. If you can keep your overclock and use all the ram at the slower speed, that is probably the best solution.

That said, 4GB to 8GB may not bring you a whole lot of benefit unless you run a lot of programs at once. . . even for gaming, you're not likely to notice much benefit.

If you can reduce memory speed and install all memory without losing your overclock, do that.

If you have to lose your overclock in order to put the extra memory in, it's not worth it.
 
if you run out of ram you have like 10FSB when swapping, so the FSB doesn't really matter at all to me if you run out. IF you never run out then 800 is 23% less than 1333 so yeah thats alot. 1066 not so much.
 
Emulex said:
if you run out of ram you have like 10FSB when swapping, so the FSB doesn't really matter at all to me if you run out. IF you never run out then 800 is 23% less than 1333 so yeah thats alot. 1066 not so much.
Click to expand...
Modern processors are not really as dependent on RAM speeds/latencies as they once were. Memory speed for most applications is virtually irrelevant.
 
Sql server seems to be very interested in numa/suma architecture and the main gain from core2quad to nehalem was the memory controller. cripple the bandwidth and your gains over core2 architecture are lame.

I'd say 75% of I7 versus core2quad gains are memory based - take that away and you might have well stuck with cheaper core2quad/ddr2-800 solution.
 
Have you tried increasing DRAM voltage and/or VTT (or whatever chipset voltage is on that motherboard)?
 
Thanks for all the replies. I had more time to experiment with all 8 gigs. With all 8 installed and keeping the memory speed at 961 adjusting voltages made no difference. As soon as I began a stress test the computer froze. That said, backing the memory speed down one multi to 801 made the system completely stable. So it looks like I'll be holding on to it for a while. Thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top