RAM speed vs. FSB w/ C2D

[mcurphy]

I am running an E6600 which I have overclocked to a FSB of 400MHz *9 = 3.6GHz.

My RAM, which is DDR 800 is running at a 1 to 1 ratio with the FSB. That means the RAM is not overclocked at all in this scenario. It is running at it's full stock speed of 800MHz.

Now, my question is, if I run my processor at it's stock speed of 266*9 = 2.4GHz, then what speed is my RAM running at? If I have the ratio in the Bios set as 1:1, then is it running at 533MHz? If I set the ratio to "auto", then will the bios slow it down to 533MHz or does is it still allowed to run at 800MHz?

I'm trying to decide if I want to drop my OC down, and run closer to stock settings. If I did this, then I don't want my RAM to go to waste. I might as well pick up some DDR 533 if I decide to go this route. Or perhaps even bring my OC down to a 333MHz FSB, and get DDR 667 RAM.

I guess one last question----why are people so worried about getting D9 chips in their RAM if they don't even have to overclock it to get a 400MHz front side bus? Are that many users pushing their C2D's past 400MHz??

 

[stevty2889]

Why would you want to decrease your OC?? I wish I could get mine running at 3.6, I'm at 3.26ghz. But it all depends on your specific motherboard as to weather you can run your 800mhz mem at full speed, with your FSB at stock. There are ratio's that will run your mem at higher than 1:1, for example my 667mhz memory can run at that speed, even with my FSB at 266mhz. At 1:1 it would run at 533mhz.

As for why people are going past 400mhz FSB, e6300 and e6400's have a lower multiplier, so they need to go to a higher FSB to hit the same 3.6ghz that your E6600 is at.

 

[mcurphy]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Why would you want to decrease your OC?? I wish I could get mine running at 3.6, I'm at 3.26ghz. But it all depends on your specific motherboard as to weather you can run your 800mhz mem at full speed, with your FSB at stock. There are ratio's that will run your mem at higher than 1:1, for example my 667mhz memory can run at that speed, even with my FSB at 266mhz. At 1:1 it would run at 533mhz.

I don't feel I really need the extra speed. I think 2.4GHz would be more than enough for what I normally do which is mild gaming, amateur photoshop, dreamweaver, burning DVD's...you know the normal PC stuff just not in excess. I'm also worried about the northbridge on my Gigabyte S3 overheating. I really should put another fan on it, but I really don't want to go that route for different reasons. Also, the voltage increase I have used can decrease the life of my components, which doesn't seem like a reasonable risk if I am not taking advantage of the speed.

I'm thinking of dropping it down to 333MHz which would be a little safer as I wouldn't need any voltage increases for stability. Would I be better to get DDR 667 if I go down to 333? Will most DDR 667 OC easily to 400 if I ever want to bump it back up?

As for why people are going past 400mhz FSB, e6300 and e6400's have a lower multiplier, so they need to go to a higher FSB to hit the same 3.6ghz that your E6600 is at.

I understand that, but I'm wondering why so many go for 800MHz RAM? Are that many people really pushing their CPU's past 400MHz FSB?

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: mcurphy

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Why would you want to decrease your OC?? I wish I could get mine running at 3.6, I'm at 3.26ghz. But it all depends on your specific motherboard as to weather you can run your 800mhz mem at full speed, with your FSB at stock. There are ratio's that will run your mem at higher than 1:1, for example my 667mhz memory can run at that speed, even with my FSB at 266mhz. At 1:1 it would run at 533mhz.

I don't feel I really need the extra speed. I think 2.4GHz would be more than enough for what I normally do which is mild gaming, amateur photoshop, dreamweaver, burning DVD's...you know the normal PC stuff just not in excess. I'm also worried about the northbridge on my Gigabyte S3 overheating. I really should put another fan on it, but I really don't want to go that route for different reasons. Also, the voltage increase I have used can decrease the life of my components, which doesn't seem like a reasonable risk if I am not taking advantage of the speed.

I'm thinking of dropping it down to 333MHz which would be a little safer as I wouldn't need any voltage increases for stability. Would I be better to get DDR 667 if I go down to 333? Will most DDR 667 OC easily to 400 if I ever want to bump it back up?

As for why people are going past 400mhz FSB, e6300 and e6400's have a lower multiplier, so they need to go to a higher FSB to hit the same 3.6ghz that your E6600 is at.

I understand that, but I'm wondering why so many go for 800MHz RAM? Are that many people really pushing their CPU's past 400MHz FSB?

i just helped my friend get his E6400 past 400Mhz FSB today...he's aiming for 3.4Ghz.

btw, ive had my intel p4 2.4C @ 3.4Ghz for like the longest time...and its done so without any voltage increase to the cpu.

i wouldnt bother getting lower speed ram. just leave it at 1:1 or even underclock/undervolt the cpu instead.