Memory speed

[Budee]

I just built a budget gaming rig built around a e5200/gigabyte EP45-UD3L/4 gigs of DDR2 800. I have it OC'd to 3.66 with these settings: 11x333. Memory multiplier 2.4, so the memory is running at 800. I raised vcore to 1.356, mch core to 1.16 at the memory is at the upper limit of the manufacs specs at 1.9v.

Its stable for 15 hours on orthos at 58C. While trying 11.5x333 it was not stable (vcore 1.40). But I can get it to boot at 11x345. But then the memory will either be over clocked or under clocked as the next lower divider is 2.00. So should I leave things alone or is it no big deal to have the ram go under the rating speed of 800? I'm assuming oc'ing the memory is a bad thing.

 

[AstroManLuca]

You can underclock the memory no problem. It's often necessary in order to achieve the highest possible CPU overclock. In fact, when I started overclocking my CPU I learned my memory was running significantly below 800 MHz (closer to 667 MHz as I recall). Now it's at 700-something. If you have a choice between a slight overclock and a slight underclock, go for the underclock. Or just keep the CPU at a little bit lower frequency so you don't have to decide.

 

[Denithor]

Memory speed has practically no impact on C2D performance (typically 1-2% max, lower than cranking extra mhz out of your CPU).

Try for 12.5x320 = 4GHz and 2x320 = DDR2-640. Adjust your timings down - lower CAS should be possible thanks to running RAM below stated speed. That will offset any reduction from running lower speed on the memory.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: Budee
I just built a budget gaming rig built around a e5200/gigabyte EP45-UD3L/4 gigs of DDR2 800. I have it OC'd to 3.66 with these settings: 11x333. Memory multiplier 2.4, so the memory is running at 800. I raised vcore to 1.356, mch core to 1.16 at the memory is at the upper limit of the manufacs specs at 1.9v.

Its stable for 15 hours on orthos at 58C. While trying 11.5x333 it was not stable (vcore 1.40). But I can get it to boot at 11x345. But then the memory will either be over clocked or under clocked as the next lower divider is 2.00. So should I leave things alone or is it no big deal to have the ram go under the rating speed of 800? I'm assuming oc'ing the memory is a bad thing.

+1 on Denithor's remark.

People generally want to squeeze the full spec from their components, but it may be practically advisable to do otherwise if the choice of other components limits the over-clock configuration. Barring the use of different memory multipliers, you can choose either to get lower-rated memory with hopes of over-clocking it, or higher-rated memory -- expecting to underclock it. The proof of the pudding is how downwardly "elastic" latency settings can be for under-clocking. But a lot of memory kits can be run at lower timings if not pushed to their full Mhz speed-spec.

If it had been me, I would've picked an E8x00 C2D for that motherboard and memory, but for the price, it'll be interesting to see how you can push the E5200 given what you have.

We had a couple E21x0 cores here at the house -- one system we sent back up to the mountains with my brother. His was an E2180; the other system was an E2140 -- both spec'd for an 800 Mhz FSB. They over-clocked pretty well, but both systems were pretty much limited to running at [DDR] = 667 Mhz. In that case, we purchased memory spec'd at that speed.

You may have other plans, perhaps watching the prices on FSB-1333 Wolfdale and Yorkfield cores, hoping to snatch one up before they're no longer available.

Depending on what memory kit you're using, you may want to read up on latency settings and see if you can't squeeze extra bandwidth out of the '800s while running them at below-spec speed. With CPU : RAM ratios other than 1:1, though, it is definitely a break-even situation to run the RAM at full spec and looser timings.

 

[zagood]

I have a similar setup, I ended up with this for stability:

3.5ghz
10.5x333
1.325v
LLC Off

Ram: 1:1 (DDR2 667)
3-4-4-10
2.1v

 

[nyker96]

if you overclock the ram you might need to up the voltage as well for ram. if you think it's running too hot then just underclock it. i have a pair of ddr1000 running at mere 760. not much difference for my e21xx. but saves some headache in heat problems.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: nyker96
if you overclock the ram you might need to up the voltage as well for ram. if you think it's running too hot then just underclock it. i have a pair of ddr1000 running at mere 760. not much difference for my e21xx. but saves some headache in heat problems.

I don't pick memory kits expecting to run them at full spec unless they have a great record for over-clocking -- in which case I might run them above spec. If I buy DDR2-1066 and plan on running them under 900, then I troll the reviews and forums to see how tight the latencies can be set before I choose one particular kit.

So . . . . yeah -- I agree.

 

[Budee]

I have G.Skill memory. http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231209

This one in particular was written up in an article on overclocking on TH. Plus the newegg reviews are outstanding. This is my third system I've built and my first time OC. I don't know anything about latency for memory. Do I change them? I have changed my settings from 11x333 to 11x346 and lowered the memory from 2.4 to 2.0. It has run stable for several hours of regular use, I haven't did orthos yet. I don't think I can go higher than 350 with my chip. No matter what I set to multiplier to, it won't boot up at 350. Orthos did fail on me at 11.5x333.

Bonzai: I'm on a really tight budget, hence the e5200. with the money I saved, I applied towards a better vid card. I got a raidmax case/psu for $90 bucks. Its a good case with 4 fans. With a $23 masscool cpu cooler I did 15 hours of orthos at 58C (OCd to 3.66). Toss in a 1T HD, 1 optical drive, arctic silver 5 and I had enough left over on my $600 budget to get a radeon 4850. I work at home and play games for fun. In a year from now if I need more speed I can also get the new e8700 that is soon to be released. I doubt many games will benefit from quad cores in the next few years....of course tons of gamers are getting quads so maybe they know something I do not.