POLL: Remove RAM for better OC? (Short term)

[Spikesoldier]

A thought crossed my mind while i was trying to squeeze the highest CPU clocks I can out of both of my systems.

I run four DIMMs on each of my systems since DDR2 is/was inexpensive. I upgraded from two to four gigs on Rig 2, and bought eight gigs outright for the new Rig 1.

The way I see it, is that all of my memory hardly gets utilized and that running two DIMMs on both computers will allow for less of a burden on the MCH and I might be able to get a higher overclock as a result on both systems. I dont multitask while I game.

I also think that since Rig 1 has a SSD, if I do go over capacity and I have to page, I say let it page, to guess what? More memory. I have not seen my system page and if it does, I havent been able to detect it.

Over the course of testing both rigs for stability, I am quite convinced that the MCH is holding me back. I am able to get 439 on the MSI on a 45nm quad running 4DIMM only at a toasty 1.5v to the 1.25v MCH and with 1.375v vtt. I dont mind pumping that voltage to the MSI as it has good cooling on the MCH and PWMs.

What I want to know is that do you think I will run into a memory wall using only 4GB on Rig 1 for the next year or so? I game at 1920x1080 resolution.

Do you believe that my FSB wall can be raised by going 2 DIMM?

Do you believe that my CPU could be FSB limited?

What is the highest vtt and MCH voltage you would run 24/7? Im willing to throw as much vcore to the CPU that I can to hold less than 80degC on all cores for 24 hours under full CPU and GPU load with the case closed. I do reside in central Texas, which is in the midst of the second consecutive drought year, and a record scorching summer.

I know quads are more utilized in toady's games and thus will require more memory to feed all four threads with data compared to single threaded games/engines. I know I am running P35 mainboards but I would rather not spend money on a dead platform just to get a minimal gain.

Under the assumption that you can get a better OC for the short term while reducing memory capacity, then as the system ages and software requirements increase, the rest of the matching memory is installed and lowering the cpu speed and overall stress on system-wide components should decrease with aging hardware. But do you the trade off is worth it?


Quick Overview:

Rig 1 (No compromise gaming main computer)
q9550 (E0) on
MSI P35 Neo2F/R (8.5x439) = 3.73ghz
8GB 4-4-4-12 @ 878mhz (OCZ Platinum LV PC2-8500 (1110mhz) [1:1] 4x2GB)
Sapphire HD4890 Vapor-X 1gb (900/1100)
Intel X25-m 80gb G1 SSD
Win7beta64

Rig 2 (Old gaming / Storage server)
e6420 (B2) on
Abit IP35-e (8x375) = 3.00ghz
4GB 4-4-4-12 @ 667mhz (Corsair XMS2 PC2-5400 (675mhz) [1:1] 4x1GB)
Visiontek HD3870 512mb (840/585)
2x Samsung HD753LJ 750GB HDDs (2x 750gb RAID1) = 750gb
WinXP32

 

[PlasmaBomb]

If you are looking to hit 4 GHz and feel the MCH is holding you back with four dimms you can certainly yank them.

It should buy you a higher FSB. Anandtech managed 465 FSB with a Q6600 (and 500 FSB with a E6550) so the board should be capable of more...

Being 2gb sticks, you could even run with one stick and have sufficient ram for some gaming. You may want to try a non beta, non 64 bit OS as well... (if you are struggling to hit 4 GHz).

What voltage are you running on the CPU currently?

 

[faxon]

i would leave it alone. when playing oblivion or fallout 3, i can easily pass 4GB ram usage if i play for a few hours. loading all those areas into memory eventually takes a toll on my system, but i honestly dont notice any significant gains in clockspeed boost anymore. i only took it as high as i could with all 8gb installed for a reason lol. i also have a habit of running several VMs at once, which easily eats up my memory, and when i game i like to be able to have my browser open in the backround with a bunch of tabs left open for various guides and other things as well. in the long run, you will probably never notice the difference in your CPU speed as it is now vs getting it to 4GHz. by the time you are CPU bound, you will probably have purchased a new CPU/mobo/RAM combo anyway, since overclocking it that last bit wont net you the performance gains you desire the way a fresh build would. if you want to take that CPU to its limit, i would recommend getting a new motherboard instead honestly. i noticed fair gains (100mhz or significantly lower voltage at same GHz) in overclockability going to a UD3P from a 680i LT, and my Q9650 does 3.7GHz @ stock voltage on my motherboard, so i would think that is probably going to be more of a limiting factor. im running 467x9 FSB with only 1.42v on the nb and 1.38v on the FSB to reach that frequency stable with my CPU and 4x2GB of memory running at 467x2 (1:1), however i was able to boot into windows and run OCCT linpack high setting at 500FSB using stock voltages if i set my CPU multi to 6, without the system crashing, using all 8gb installed. i would say your board is going to be more the limiting factor either way. if you really want to hit 4ghz or higher stable, dont sacrifice memory performance for clocks, just eliminate a bottleneck entirely

 

[nyker96]

i used to run 4gb now with x64 os I'm on 8, don't really noticed any oc problem but I never pushed the ram in oc anyways, it just don't matter as much.

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: nyker96
i used to run 4gb now with x64 os I'm on 8, don't really noticed any oc problem but I never pushed the ram in oc anyways, it just don't matter as much.

its not the ram itself usually that causes issues, its the northbridge/memory controller getting extra stress from the extra ram that causes the instability issues.

 

[Ben90]

i vote to keep it the same; 2 Gb is very slowly being needed more and more. In any application (minus stuff like super-pi) the extra 200 mhz u MIGHT get from ur processor will be completely pointless when your game keeps having to go back to the hard drive to find some random textures because it doesn't have enough ram