DDR2-667 or DDR2-800 for x2 6000+ ?

[CoBRaXT]

I'll be receiving an x2 6000+ as a gift and was wondering what speed RAM would run in sync with the processor's FSB.

Of course, ddr2-800 would be better for future upgrades, but I think I might have a few ddr2-667 sticks lying around too.

I won't be oc'ing at all if that matters. Let me know, thanks.

 

[CalvinHobbes]

DDR2-667 will work fine.

 

[f4phantom2500]

yeah the ddr2-667 is more than fast enough for stock speeds.

 

[CoBRaXT]

Sweet, thanks for the info guys.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

IIRC, 6000+ can't overclock much and is already close to its max frequency potential (at least on high-end air). You might get an additional 100-200Mhz out of it but that's it.
(Haven't seen any AMD OC threads in quite a while but I think I am right)

Your decision to stay at stock is wise.

 

[harpoon84]

Well, you'll be losing about 5 - 10% performance in performance by using DDR2-667 over DDR2-800...
http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=7

I'd personally opt for DDR2-800, RAM is so cheap nowadays!

 

[DrMrLordX]

Agreed, go for DDR2-800.

Also, some folks have gotten the 6000+ to 3.3 ghz on air, which ain't bad at all. That's the fastest any X2 will go on air so far as I know. My 3600+ got close, but it freaks out over 3.24 ghz.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

You got your X2 3600+ to 3.24GHz? Whoa man, that's over a 100% OC! Nice!

BTW guys, he mentioned that he has a few DDR2 667 sticks lying around. In that scenario, I really don't think it's worth buying new sticks. Of course, if you have to buy new sticks, DDR2 800 CAS 5 value ram is pretty cheap these days - almost to the point where there is practically no price difference (of value) between it and 667.

 

[harpoon84]

True, but the thought of losing 5 - 10% in performance just irritates the enthusiast in me.

Btw, an X2 3600+ @ 3.24GHz is not a 100% O/C. More like a 70.5% overclock, still pretty impressive, signs the 65nm K8 process is improving over time.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I must be losing my mind. I thought the X2 3600+ was a 1.6GHz processor
Hehe, since all we seem to discuss around here is Core 2, I am starting to forget AMD's model numbers.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I must be losing my mind. I thought the X2 3600+ was a 1.6GHz processor
Hehe, since all we seem to discuss around here is Core 2, I am starting to forget AMD's model numbers.

If you thought the old xx00+ system was confusing, the latest ones are a shocker! BE-2350, BE-2300 etc etc. I wanted AMD to take a leaf out of Intel's book, but in performance, not their freaking CPU naming department!

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
You got your X2 3600+ to 3.24GHz? Whoa man, that's over a 100% OC! Nice!

Darn, harpoon beat me to it . . . heh heh

Thanks anyway though.

And I should point out that at 3.24 ghz, getting it stable is not easy and takes wayyyy too much vcore. 3.15 ghz was a lot easier.

The cool/scary thing was when I got to 1.6v vcore, entire temperature sensors started vanishing in Speedfan. That got me thinking that there is such a thing as too much voltage.

 

[CoBRaXT]

Alright, the DDR2-667 chips I have are Micron D9's so I'm pretty confident that they will run at DDR2-800 speeds.

I'm still waiting on the mobo to arrive, but I had a quick question.

What's the native FSB of the x2 6000? It's a 200x15 chip, so quadpumped would be 800Mhz right?
So in my bios settings, I just need to bump the RAM to 400MHZ and I'll have the FSB:RAM 1:1?

 

[CoBRaXT]

anyone?

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: CoBRaXT
Alright, the DDR2-667 chips I have are Micron D9's so I'm pretty confident that they will run at DDR2-800 speeds.

I'm still waiting on the mobo to arrive, but I had a quick question.

What's the native FSB of the x2 6000? It's a 200x15 chip, so quadpumped would be 800Mhz right?
So in my bios settings, I just need to bump the RAM to 400MHZ and I'll have the FSB:RAM 1:1?

This is correct.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Originally posted by: CoBRaXT
Alright, the DDR2-667 chips I have are Micron D9's so I'm pretty confident that they will run at DDR2-800 speeds.

I'm still waiting on the mobo to arrive, but I had a quick question.

What's the native FSB of the x2 6000? It's a 200x15 chip, so quadpumped would be 800Mhz right?
So in my bios settings, I just need to bump the RAM to 400MHZ and I'll have the FSB:RAM 1:1?

This is correct.

Actually no.

1:1 would be DDR2-400 (which you obviously won't be doing)
DDR2-800 = 1:2
DDR2-667 = 3:5 actually

Also, yes, if your RAM is good Micron, it should do DDR2-800 just fine.

But here's where things get more complicated.
Since AMD uses a different way of calculating RAM speeds, you can't really run DDR2-800 at stock with a CPU using a 15x multi.

15x200 = 3000.

3000 / 400 (divider) = 7.5. Rounded up that's 8.
3000 / 8 = 375 (DDR2-750)

Meaning using the 1:2 divider actually gets you DDR2-750, not DDR2-800.

3:5 (or 667) will actually get you DDR2-667.
3000 / 333.33* = 9
3000 / 9 = 33.33* (DDR2-667)

 

[GeezerMan]

That gets confusing. And the only way to get the ram up to a true DDR2-800 speed with odd CPU multipliers is to raise the CPU speed too.

 

[n7]

Yup, or basically use a lower [ideally even not odd multiplier] + higher FSB.

But honestly, the performance difference is minor, so i wouldn't worry much about DDR2-750 vs. DDR2-800 lol

 

[GeezerMan]

There was some test report that showed better performance (in certain applications) out of a lower rated CPU that ran with DDR2-800 instead of the 6000+X2 that ran DDR2 at 750.

 

[n7]

Considering how little difference RAM has always made on A64s due to their on-die memory controller, i'd like to see that.
It's highly unlikely to be the case unless it's 1T vs. 2T, or is a highly synthetic benchmark.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: n7
Considering how little difference RAM has always made on A64s due to their on-die memory controller, i'd like to see that.
It's highly unlikely to be the case unless it's 1T vs. 2T, or is a highly synthetic benchmark.

OK, I found it. It may be a crap comparison, you would know better than I.
Looks to be in a very few applications.

Link

 

[CoBRaXT]

I found this on another forum, and it makes sense:


Memory set to 400 @ 4-4-4-12 1T for all runs.

Bus=200
CPU Multi=14
CPU=2.8Ghz
Mem=400 (DDR800)

SuperPi 1M = 30.046


Bus=200
Cpu Multi=15
CPU=3.0Ghz
Mem=375 (DDR750)

SuperPi 1M = 28.562


Bu=214
Cpu Multi=15
CPU=3.2Ghz
Mem=401 (DDR802)

SuperPi 1M = 26.593

 

[drakore]

1T on AMD FTW

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: n7
Considering how little difference RAM has always made on A64s due to their on-die memory controller, i'd like to see that.
It's highly unlikely to be the case unless it's 1T vs. 2T, or is a highly synthetic benchmark.

OK, I found it. It may be a crap comparison, you would know better than I.
Looks to be in a very few applications.

Link

Heh?

That site stole HardOCP's video card benchmarks & used it as their own review...now i see they stole Tom's Hardware's CPU benchmarks as their own also
WTF is wrong with them.

Anyway, i see one results in that review in which the X2 5600+ beats the X2 6000+ by one fps :laugh:
In everything else, the 6000+ is clearly better.
That's what i call margin of error, especially since it's on Q3, a game where numbers fluctuate alot during benching.

That being said, there are instances where lower clockspeeds can beat higher, but that'd be usually involving 1T vs. 2T, or in situation like on my P5B Deluxe, where running say 8x399 vs. 8x401 wins, simply because 399 is on the 1066 chipset strap, which has far tighter timings.

Anyway, all this banter is fun & all, but when it comes down to it, whether the OP runs DDR2-400, 533,667,800, or higher, it is going to work just fine, & with a very small performance difference regardless.

 

[Biomorphic]

Very well said, n7! I agree with you all the way. What you have stated in this topic is 100% correct.