Is OCZ Gold the only way to go with P4 OC'ing?

[kevman]

I recently picked up a 2.4C and I'm looking at either an Abit IC7 or a Asus P4P800 and some good ram.

I really never heard of OCZ until recently, but it seems like a lot of people really rave about the Overclockability of it esp with the P4 rigs. It's pretty expensive, as I'm llooking togo dual channel with a Gig of RAM. My question is are there any other brands that are good oc'rs for P4 or should I just save my Pennies for OCZ?


Kev

 

[YBS1]

The only two memories rated to run 250mhz 1:1 dual channel on the canterwoods that I know of are the OCZ Gold (unsure if they advertise as such but everyone seems to be able to do it) and XtremeDDR 3700+. I'm sure there are some others capable of hitting that high if you were to get two lucky sticks, though I've not seen any reports of it. The OCZs are a bit pricey for 2x256mb, and they didn't (still don't as far as I know) have 512mb modules available when I was ready to purchases and I wanted to run 250fsb 1:1, so I picked up a gig of the XtremeDDR. They've been fine here, run stable and pass memtest86 at 256mhz.

 

[kevman]

Originally posted by: YBS1
The only two memories rated to run 250mhz 1:1 dual channel on the canterwoods that I know of are the OCZ Gold (unsure if they advertise as such but everyone seems to be able to do it) and XtremeDDR 3700+. I'm sure there are some others capable of hitting that high if you were to get two lucky sticks, though I've not seen any reports of it. The OCZs are a bit pricey for 2x256mb, and they didn't (still don't as far as I know) have 512mb modules available when I was ready to purchases and I wanted to run 250fsb 1:1, so I picked up a gig of the XtremeDDR. They've been fine here, run stable and pass memtest86 at 256mhz.

thanks for the input, how much did the XtremeDDR run you and where'd you get it from?

 

[Thor86]

Those two motherboards allow for async ram/cpu options. Don't waste your money on expensive pc3700 ram now and just get good quality pc3200 ram. You can overclock no problems using 5:4 memory ratios, and the performance is identical to 1:1 depending on how high you clock your cpu/fsb.

 

[kevman]

Originally posted by: Thor86
Those two motherboards allow for async ram/cpu options. Don't waste your money on expensive pc3700 ram now and just get good quality pc3200 ram. You can overclock no problems using 5:4 memory ratios, and the performance is identical to 1:1 depending on how high you clock your cpu/fsb.

What brand do you reccemend for pc3200? I was leanign toward corsair, but then I heard Kingston is better....

 

[Thor86]

Kingston HyperX pc3500 are about the same price as Corsair 3200LLs. Either ones will work great on Springdale/Canterwood boards.

 

[YBS1]

and the performance is identical to 1:1 depending on how high you clock your cpu/fsb.

I can tell you 1st hand the performance is not identical, I would however agree it's not likely under most circumstances worth the extra money involved. Add to that the fact he's going to be using a 2.4C reduces the possibility that his maximum stable overclock can be attained using a 1:1 ratio unless it goes no higher than 3.0ghz and I would have to agree with using the pc32-3500. Personally I'd take the Corsair 3200LL in that situation as it's timings are tighter.

kevman, I got my XtremeDDR from rocketpc for $330.

 

[Overkiller]

www.svc.com sells 512MB pc3700 by OCZ. i was looking to grab a GB of that for my setup...

 

[YBS1]

www.svc.com sells 512MB pc3700 by OCZ. i was looking to grab a GB of that for my setup...

That is a 512mb Dual Channel Kit (2x256mb), not two 512mb sticks.

 

[oldfart]

You'd be wasting your $$ on PC3700. For one, you can get 1 Gig of PC3200/3500 for what you pay for 512 Meg of the 3700 Gold. Second, even if you can push the stuff to DDR 500, you are limiting the overclock of your 2.4C to 3 GHz. Most of them will go well above 250 FSB, Third, you will have ro run slowest mem timings @ DDR500 which will negate much of the performance gain. Run a 5:4 ratio and some decent PC3200/3500. You will have a faster system for less $$.

 

[borgmang]

What about memory for either a 2.8C or 3.0C? Looking for the best for OC - cost not a concern. Going to p/u a gig.

Considering:
1. Corsair TwinXMS 3700 - w/platinum HS
2. Corsair XMS 3700 - w/platinum HS
3. Corsair XMS 3500 - w/platinum HS
4. Kingston HyperX 3500

 

[jhites]

Originally posted by: oldfart
You'd be wasting your $$ on PC3700. For one, you can get 1 Gig of PC3200/3500 for what you pay for 512 Meg of the 3700 Gold. Second, even if you can push the stuff to DDR 500, you are limiting the overclock of your 2.4C to 3 GHz. Most of them will go well above 250 FSB, Third, you will have ro run slowest mem timings @ DDR500 which will negate much of the performance gain. Run a 5:4 ratio and some decent PC3200/3500. You will have a faster system for less $$.

Ditto - oldfart

Just put together another system yesterday myself.
IS7-E / 2.4C / HyperX PC3500 and it is runnig
275fsb @ 1.575vcore bios @ 3.3Ghz with stock heatsink/fan
And yes it is a bit on the warm side. :Q (62C - full load)
DDR440 @ 2-3-3-7 @ 2.8vdimm (5:4)

 

[lookouthere]

I would get GeiL Golden Dragon Series PC-3200 Dual Channel. They can do 241 by SPD.

 

[Slammy1]

Originally posted by: jhites

Originally posted by: oldfart
You'd be wasting your $$ on PC3700. For one, you can get 1 Gig of PC3200/3500 for what you pay for 512 Meg of the 3700 Gold. Second, even if you can push the stuff to DDR 500, you are limiting the overclock of your 2.4C to 3 GHz. Most of them will go well above 250 FSB, Third, you will have ro run slowest mem timings @ DDR500 which will negate much of the performance gain. Run a 5:4 ratio and some decent PC3200/3500. You will have a faster system for less $$.

Ditto - oldfart

Just put together another system yesterday myself.
IS7-E / 2.4C / HyperX PC3500 and it is runnig
275fsb @ 1.575vcore bios @ 3.3Ghz with stock heatsink/fan
And yes it is a bit on the warm side. :Q (62C - full load)
DDR440 @ 2-3-3-7 @ 2.8vdimm (5:4)

Lots of people talking buffered vs unbuffered. I understand, just compare HD benchmarks on a 1:1 vs a 4:5, but I think the issue is more that the performance game has changed considerably throwing DCM at HT processors. The game is about CPU speed more than memory bandwidth. Sorry I quoted you. I'm running stock HSF on my system also (3 year warranty!) and it runs fine. At 260 FSB I max out at 54-55C, I think case cooling solutions are becoming more critical for this technology. It's a far cry from o/c'ing my PIII-850 to 1 GHz. My HyperX didn't like 2.85V, I dropped it back to 1.75. I never tried to max my CPU; the furthest I took it stable is 266 (tried 285 on a 2:3, that's all). Memory bandwidth > Memory timings, why else do people drop their timings to get more bandwidth?

 

[oldfart]

First off, throw that SiSoft mem bench cr@p out the window. What do you USE your PC for? A toy to run meaningless memory benches, or do you care about the performance of applications you actually use?

Run benches on games, Video/audio encoding, whatever applications you use.

Memory timings matter as much as memory speed. Running fast speed/slow timings is not ideal. You can run a slower speed with fast timings and get similar performance.

The main thing is.....CPU speed 1st, mem speed 2nd. Dont give up (much) CPU MHz to run faster mem speed. CPU MHz will give you a greater boost in performance than mem speed will.

 

[Slammy1]

Well, SisSoftware seems to be the main benchmark for describing memory performance, but I do agree it's not entirely meaningful. More a tool for measuring a certain aspect of system performance, useful for quick and dirty comparison of o/c's. In my experience in o/c'ing my P4P800, you get better performance running higher speed at lower timings. Pretty much hands down, but that's not to say good quality Ram won't reach higher speeds. . Other than that I completely agree with what you said.

 

[jhites]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Well, SisSoftware seems to be the main benchmark for describing memory performance, but I do agree it's not entirely meaningful. More a tool for measuring a certain aspect of system performance, useful for quick and dirty comparison of o/c's. In my experience in o/c'ing my P4P800, you get better performance running higher speed at lower timings. Pretty much hands down, but that's not to say good quality Ram won't reach higher speeds. . Other than that I completely agree with what you said.

You will get better performance running tighter timings on memory if you are talking about the same fsb speeds. What I think oldfart is saying is that you will get better overall performance running the cpu at higher fsb speeds even with a lesser mem timing.

Instead of using Sandra, try using AIDA32, PIFast, SpecView Perf, Seti or DivX. Those will give you better perspective of overall system performance. Even PCMark would be a better bench to use for performance. Sandra has just lost much of its consistency and ratings as a viable bench lately.

 

[Slammy1]

Yes, that's what I agree with. It would be foolish of me to disagree with Oldfart. I've seen his posts, he knows more than I do . When I max out a ration (ie 1:1 or 4:5), I've been through it. Is it better to lower my timing and increase my FSB, or run lower timings at a slightly higher FSB. The answer always was increase the speed. Actually, I run a number of benches (including Aida), and it's like I say; it's comparison of the same system before and after. Nothing beats trying the o/c for a few days, get a feel for how the system works.

 

[oldfart]

What I'm saying is I could care less about SiSoft or Aida mem benches. I care about performance of the real applications and games that I actually use. I dont care (at all) about some silly synthetic memory bench that has no bearing on real world performance.

I get tired of some "reviewers" who run SiSoft and maybe 3DMark and declare a "winner" based on those numbers. Am I the only one who actually USES their PC anymore? Has it come down to a PC is just a toy for running synthetic benches and nothing else? If I can encode a 1 Hr long video in less time with a certain setup, thats what I'm looking for. If I get a 5500 Vs 5560 SiSoft score, I could care less.

 

[kevman]

Originally posted by: oldfart
What I'm saying is I could care less about SiSoft or Aida mem benches. I care about performance of the real applications and games that I actually use. I dont care (at all) about some silly synthetic memory bench that has no bearing on real world performance.

I get tired of some "reviewers" who run SiSoft and maybe 3DMark and declare a "winner" based on those numbers. Am I the only one who actually USES their PC anymore? Has it come down to a PC is just a toy for running synthetic benches and nothing else? If I can encode a 1 Hr long video in less time with a certain setup, thats what I'm looking for. If I get a 5500 Vs 5560 SiSoft score, I could care less.

Many thanks for all the input on this thread.

Oldfart, I have to say, I value my PC more for the games & apps I run then anything else. If I had to kill my 3dMark scores to make Doom 3 run better I'm right there!

I think I'll go with the Kingston stuf either 3500 or 3200. Still searching to see ppl's results of them.

EDIT: Typo's

 

[gramboh]

The reason Sandra is good is because it only takes a few seconds to run, so you can compare various configs of memory bus/timings in a short period of time. Of course no one cares about the actual values here, it is just useful for relative performance comparison. You could load up a game and run a demo to compare FPS as well. I'm sure real world performance is neglegable, but it's nice to know you have the fastest possible setup when you are paying this amount of money.

As far as RAM goes, I tried the OCZ PC3500 "EL" Dual Channel kit (DDR 434 @ 2-3-3-7) and it wouldn't even boot up at DDR 434, back it went, Corsair XMS 3500 is what I am using now and it is good.

 

[THUGSROOK]

sandra is nothing but a waste of those few seconds and a waste of your hd space.

its useless as a benchmark & its useless as a tuning tool.
feel free to remove it from your system.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

While I do not have a 865/875 to vouch for performance on memory speeds. I can not help but think that running memory timings at anything less than 1:1 is a joke.
On my 845PE board, my system overall is sssssssssooooooooooooooo much faster in every respect turning my memory ratio to turbo vs. running 3:4. Even though I get much higher clock speeds with the looser memory ratio.
The only thing where the higher clock speeds help is for CPU dependant benchmarks, that and that only.... not a single thing else.
I have to laugh at all the peeps thinking they have a faster computer OC'ed to 3.xGHz but running 5:4, 3:2 memory timings.

Kinda like having a mustang stuck in 2nd gear. Sure it has potential to be a fast car, but stuck in that gear it would be one joke of a car.
Thats my thoughts anyway

But until PC3700 becomes affordable or 'PC4000?' is released, I'm not gunna upgrade my system as everything I have learned with the P4's is that no matter what, memory bandwidth helps more than raw cpu speed.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Thugs... I see you went back to Abit :Q

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
While I do not have a 865/875 to vouch for performance on memory speeds. I can not help but think that running memory timings at anything less than 1:1 is a joke.
On my 845PE board, my system overall is sssssssssooooooooooooooo much faster in every respect turning my memory ratio to turbo vs. running 3:4. Even though I get much higher clock speeds with the looser memory ratio.
The only thing where the higher clock speeds help is for CPU dependant benchmarks, that and that only.... not a single thing else.
I have to laugh at all the peeps thinking they have a faster computer OC'ed to 3.xGHz but running 5:4, 3:2 memory timings.

Kinda like having a mustang stuck in 2nd gear. Sure it has potential to be a fast car, but stuck in that gear it would be one joke of a car.
Thats my thoughts anyway

But until PC3700 becomes affordable or 'PC4000?' is released, I'm not gunna upgrade my system as everything I have learned with the P4's is that no matter what, memory bandwidth helps more than raw cpu speed.

i liked that speach so much i had to quote it

yes, im running the IC7 and am extremely happy with it.

my p4g8x would only take me to 179fsb 3.4ghz stable (on default vcore or any vcore)
the p4p800 was a very nice board and got me close to 3.5ghz stable (benchmarks upto 3.6ghz 190fsb)
but the IC7 does even better. same OCs but on less vcore and im getting better performance.

the IC7 has a ton of bios tweeking options and of course its a canterwood and not a springdale like the p4p800.

i highly recommend the ABIT IC7 for 533fsb cpu overclocking
link to thread