I ran Prime 95 up to level 5 w/ no problems. CPU core temps got to 58-60°
C, both cores @ 100%
I didn't want to run longer until i reported back
thx
bob
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:fqchud$mt0$1@aioe.org...
> bob johnson wrote:
>> Here are my settings:
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/...df36ef99_m.jpg
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/...3e345129_m.jpg
>>
>> How do I start pushing my memory from here?
>>
>> thx
>>
>> bob
>
> LOL. Nice work :-)
>
> If I'm reading those pictures correctly, you've got four
> sticks of RAM running at DDR2-1088 5-7-7-21 2T.
>
> The E4500 is 2.2GHz/FSB800 (11x multiplier).
>
> http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLA95
>
> So, to start, to make FSB800, is 200 x 4 (quad pumped FSB).
> So 200MHz is the CPU input clock.
>
> You bought DDR2-800 RAM. The BIOS used a 1:2 ratio, because you
> asked for DDR2-800, causing the 200MHz CPU clock, to be multiplied by 2/1.
> That gets us to 400MHz feeding into the memory. The memory doubles that
> again (because it is double data rate), to give the transfer
> rate on the memory bus. That is DDR2-800.
>
> So, *before* you started overclocking, the RAM was running at
> its rated spec of DDR2-800.
>
> Now, we turn up the clock. What happens ?
>
> You set the CPU clock to 272MHz, from the old value of 200MHz.
> 272 x 11 = 2.99GHz for CPU core.
>
> But you forgot to turn down the memory setting, before turning
> up the CPU, because the memory gets overclocked at the same
> time as the CPU.
>
> 272 x (2/1) x 2 = DDR2-1088 :-)
>
> You've already significantly pushed your memory, and
> didn't even adjust or relax CAS :-) Gutsy.
>
> Have you tested this ? I cannot imagine getting that
> lucky, and the whole thing is stable. Memtest86+
> is one program you can start with. Test with memtest86+
> first (memtest.org), before you go further. Maybe Vdimm
> already got turned up, and that is how you got this far.
>
> Prime95 is for when you really think things are stable,
> and need confirmation of that. This version runs in Windows.
> I'm pretty sure this won't run for more than 10 seconds,
> with your current settings.
>
> http://www.mersenne.org/gimps/p95v255a.zip
>
> Now if I tried that, my wheels would fall off at DDR2-801 :-)
>
> Paul
>
>>
>> "bob johnson" <bj@hahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news_KdnTDii4MkXVTanZ2dnUVZ_uyinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> TEST
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "bob johnson" <bj@hahoo.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i6GdnavUfKqaYFXanZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>> The main enable/disable setting in the bios somehow turned off to
>>>> disable. I'm back to 2.99 and my ram score went to 5.8, also!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thx
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fqamhl$o93$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> bob johnson wrote:
>>>>>> Found this review w/ my same MB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Pros: After a quick oc to 3ghz I noticed my ram timings dramatically
>>>>>> increased. I decided to get a 1:1 ratio with my q6600. So at a fsb of
>>>>>> 333mhz and the ram's frequency at 333mhz (667), I was able to obtain
>>>>>> 3-3-3-8 instead of the advertised 4-4-4-12 at 667. It runs alot
>>>>>> faster than at 5-5-5-15, or 4-4-4-12 at 800mhz. I'm so excited I was
>>>>>> able to push this ram so far for the price."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps there are other ratios besides 1:1 for the memory. So you have
>>>>> room to do some experiments (verifying the impact with SuperPI each
>>>>> time).
>>>>>
>>>>> With regard to the mysterious return to 200MHz, that happens on an
>>>>> "overclocking failure". Some motherboards, if the computer doesn't
>>>>> POST
>>>>> properly, even just once, return to stock (200MHz or whatever) on the
>>>>> next POST. Usually, there is some warning that it happened, but if you
>>>>> weren't watching the screen at the time, you might have missed it.
>>>>> Maybe you were prompted to press F1 or a similar key at some point ?
>>>>> Check you manual, for details, as it might give the feature a name.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can get the RAM to run DDR2-800, then 5-5-5-15 is the official
>>>>> timing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>> "bob johnson" <bj@hahoo.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ZMadneneQ5vDVVXanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>> Yes, Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been running this for a few months. Something must have
>>>>>>> changed. I'll reboot and report back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the SPD:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 266 400
>>>>>>> 4.0 5.0
>>>>>>> 4 5
>>>>>>> 4 5
>>>>>>> 10 15
>>>>>>> 14 21
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.8v 1.8v
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Link to ram:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820231098
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
bob johnson wrote:
> LOL
>
> Dumb luck. I've been playing COD4, UT3 FSX, etc, all with no problem.
>
> I thought lower memory settings were faster (3/3/3/8) instead of what
> cpu-z is reporting for me (5/7/7/21)?
>
> I had memory speed set to "auto" in the bios thinking it would compensate?
>
>
> cpu-z reports memory @ 544mhz. I thought I my memory is 800mhz?
>
> I'll keep reading, too. A lot to learn
>
> I'll also get memtest and report back.
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
> bob
I believe the 544MHz, is the clock signal feeding into the DIMM.
The DIMM transfer memory twice per clock cycle, leading to a
transfer rate of DDR2-1088.
If you put everything back to stock, your memory is DDR2-800, then
you should see CPUZ report 400Mhz clock. And if the BIOS is set
to "Auto" for memory, the timing values should reflect the
contents of the SPD table entry for DDR2-800.
And your suggested timings, of 3-3-3-8 versus 5-7-7-21, in the
first case means the memory has to return data in 3 cycles. Versus
5 cycles for the second set of numbers. The thing is, when you
increase the memory clock, that means the interval of each
clock cycle is smaller (clock period). The CAS should be increased,
as the clock is increased, in order that the same amount of time
is allowed to elapse, before looking for data from the RAM.
The BIOS, should take the timing numbers from the SPD tables,
and scale them according to the frequency. The BIOS should round
up, to the next full cycle, because rounding down would make
the timing too tight.
If you were to try 3-3-3-8 at DDR2-1088, the RAM will error
like crazy. CAS5 is already pretty tight at that speed.
My memory is rated at 5/5/5/15, if I'm not mistaken?
So, if cpu-z is reporting 5/7/7/21, does that mean it's not running to spec
(slower)?
thx
bob
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:fqcldc$1uc$1@aioe.org...
> bob johnson wrote:
>> LOL
>>
>> Dumb luck. I've been playing COD4, UT3 FSX, etc, all with no problem.
>>
>> I thought lower memory settings were faster (3/3/3/8) instead of what
>> cpu-z is reporting for me (5/7/7/21)?
>>
>> I had memory speed set to "auto" in the bios thinking it would
>> compensate?
>>
>>
>> cpu-z reports memory @ 544mhz. I thought I my memory is 800mhz?
>>
>> I'll keep reading, too. A lot to learn
>>
>> I'll also get memtest and report back.
>>
>> Thanks, Paul
>>
>>
>> bob
>
> I believe the 544MHz, is the clock signal feeding into the DIMM.
> The DIMM transfer memory twice per clock cycle, leading to a
> transfer rate of DDR2-1088.
>
> If you put everything back to stock, your memory is DDR2-800, then
> you should see CPUZ report 400Mhz clock. And if the BIOS is set
> to "Auto" for memory, the timing values should reflect the
> contents of the SPD table entry for DDR2-800.
>
> And your suggested timings, of 3-3-3-8 versus 5-7-7-21, in the
> first case means the memory has to return data in 3 cycles. Versus
> 5 cycles for the second set of numbers. The thing is, when you
> increase the memory clock, that means the interval of each
> clock cycle is smaller (clock period). The CAS should be increased,
> as the clock is increased, in order that the same amount of time
> is allowed to elapse, before looking for data from the RAM.
> The BIOS, should take the timing numbers from the SPD tables,
> and scale them according to the frequency. The BIOS should round
> up, to the next full cycle, because rounding down would make
> the timing too tight.
>
> If you were to try 3-3-3-8 at DDR2-1088, the RAM will error
> like crazy. CAS5 is already pretty tight at that speed.
>
> Paul
bob johnson wrote:
> Thanks, Paul
>
> My memory is rated at 5/5/5/15, if I'm not mistaken?
>
> So, if cpu-z is reporting 5/7/7/21, does that mean it's not running to
> spec (slower)?
>
> thx
>
> bob
>
Your memory is DDR2-800 5-5-5-15, but it is running
at DDR2-1088. The BIOS appears to have scaled the timing
numbers, except CAS. So CAS is tighter than the spec
for the memory.
bob johnson wrote:
> OK
>
> Got my OC back. Now, how to push my memory carefully and w/
> stability?
Just a friendly notice here, Bob. alt.comp.hardware.overclocking is a
text only news group. As such, if you would like those reading to see a
picture of something, the correct thing to do is post it at a web site,
then give the link to the web address.
Posting pictures, or attachments, isn't too large a problem for those of
us using Outlook Express, but many folks use a strict newsreader program
that shows HTML, pictures, attachments and such as just a jumble of
characters, letters and numbers.
News groups that allow these things will have binary in the NG name.
> You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU. ...
Not with today's chipsets. I've testet different ratios with my
Core II Extreme (non-locked multiplier) and I found that a awry
multiplier of 1:1.2 (1333/333MHz FSB and 800MHz got the highest
memory-thgoughput and the lowest memory-latency.
'Elcaro Nosille' wrote:
> Not with today's chipsets. I've testet different ratios with my
> Core II Extreme (non-locked multiplier) and I found that a awry
> multiplier of 1:1.2 (1333/333MHz FSB and 800MHz got the highest
> memory-thgoughput and the lowest memory-latency.
_____
My post stated "You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU."
My statement is correct (and a little obvious.) I am not quite sure WHAT
your statement means; did you overclock? Did you use an increased CPU
clock multiplier and a 1333 MHz stock FSB (333 MHz CPU clock)? Are you
using DDR2-800 memory? What is the rating of your selected memory? CAN
your selected memory run at 1:1 or even 2:1 Memory clock : CPU clock ratios?
Is a large increase in memory parameter timing delays necessary when your
selected memory is used at speeds above DDR2-800 equivalent?
In other words, DID you select memory based on the FSB speed for the CPU?
Perhaps your selection of CPU clock limits the memory through-put. After
all, a faster memory clock speed, even with higher memory parameter timing
delays can give greater memory through-put IF "you select RAM based on the
FSB speed for the CPU; using a 1333 MHz FSB and a 2:1 Memory clock : CPU
clock ratio will offset the disadvantage of quite a bit higher memory
parameter timing delays. If you had selected DDR2-1333 (PC10666) and used a
2:1 Memory clock : CPU clock ratio you would very likely be seeing higher
memory through-put (though perhaps not enough of an increase to justify the
added cost.) And as I posted, and you failed to fully quote:
"You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU. And on whether
or
not you intend to overclock by raising the FSB speed. And whether or not
you wish to run the Memory clock synched to the CPU clock. And whether or
not you are willing to spend the money for the diminishing performance
returns as you increase the RAM speed. And THAT is affected by the size of
the L2 cache, the applications you use, and the number of cores in the CPU.
FINALLY, after all those decisions, THEN you want to make sure the
motherboard can handle the Memory clock speed of the RAM you select."
and
"Oh, yes, also you must select the right TYPE of RAM for the motherboard
DDR2
or DDR3."
and
"Plus consider that a 32-bit Windows operating system can't use much more
than 2 GBytes of memory, especially if you one or two display adapters with
large memories (each byte of display adapter memory makes one byte of
motherboard memory between 2 GBytes and 4 GBytes unusable.)"
At any rate your comment "Not with today's chipsets" misses the point (and
is incorrect.)
Phil Weldon
"Elcaro Nosille" <Elcaro.Nosille@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:47ca09b5$0$21923$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> Phil Weldon schrieb:
>
>> You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU. ...
>
> Not with today's chipsets. I've testet different ratios with my
> Core II Extreme (non-locked multiplier) and I found that a awry
> multiplier of 1:1.2 (1333/333MHz FSB and 800MHz got the highest
> memory-thgoughput and the lowest memory-latency.
> My post stated "You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the
> CPU." My statement is correct (and a little obvious.) I am not quite
> sure WHAT your statement means; did you overclock? Did you use an
> increased CPU clock multiplier and a 1333 MHz stock FSB (333 MHz CPU
> clock)? Are you using DDR2-800 memory? What is the rating of your
> selected memory? CAN your selected memory run at 1:1 or even 2:1
> Memory clock : CPU clock ratios? Is a large increase in memory
> parameter timing delays necessary when your selected memory is
> used at speeds above DDR2-800 equivalent?
I've got a Gigabyte-board with an Intel P35 chipset and I get a higher
throughput and a lower latency in memory-bandwith and lower latency
when using a 1:1.2 multiplier (1333/333MHz FSB and 800/400MHz DDR2
-SDRAM clocking) than when using a 1:1 multiplier.
Your recommendation of 1:N-ratios comes from times when the chipsets
weren't as efficient as today. Today, you can forget this rule.
'bob johnson' wrote:
> I have this same MB and 4GB of this ram:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820231098
>
> Vista is giving me a 4.8 rating (lowest one) and I wondered if my bios
> settings are set wrong?
>
> I'm running a C2D 4500 2.4@ 2.9 mhz on "auto voltage" (OC setting) or
> similiar.
>
> all my friends w/the same ram on Asus MB's are getting a rating of
> 5.7/5.8.
_____
The Vista Performance Information rating is not useful for your purpose.
The ratings were more or less scaled to the best performing systems in mid
2006. Now, in early 2006, almost ANY Core 2 Duo system using a 3.0 GHz CPU
speed will get the max CPU rating of 5.9. Just as almost ANY 2 GBytes of
memory running at PC1066 equivalent will get the max memory rating of 5.9.
As almost ANY 300 GB or larger 7200 rpm SATA hard drive will get the nearly
the max hard drive rating of 5.9. As ANY nvidia 8800 series display adapter
will get the max gaming, business, and Aero rating of 5.9.
For example, my EVGA 680i mother board with a E4300 @ 2.7 GHz, 2 GBytes of
DDR2-1066 memory @ DDR2-1200 speeds, an EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS, and Seagate
500 GByte 7200 rpm hard drives gets ratings of
CPU 5.5
Memory 5.9
Aero 5.9
Business & Gaming Graphics 5.9
Hard Drive 5.9.
The best fine-grained, free performance testing suite I know of is SiSoft
Sandra Lite XIIc available at http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/ .
SiSoft Sandra reports a large number of performance parameters for memory,
CPU, and storage. AND it provides comparisons with hundreds of CPUs,
chipsets, memory arrangements, and storage configurations. SiSoft Sandra
XIIc is the opposite of a 'real world' benchmark; it is most useful in
determining the effect of system changes and less useful for determing the
real gains in computing power.
At the moment 3DMark2006 is the best fine-grained, free, graphics
performance test suite.
These benchmark programs, used in conjunction with the stress test 'Paul'
recommends will help you pick the best setup for your system components.
Phil Weldon
"bob johnson" <bj@hahoo.net> wrote in message
news:-rSdnc1gP9n_LFXanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hi Guys
>
> I have this same MB and 4GB of this ram:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820231098
>
> Vista is giving me a 4.8 rating (lowest one) and I wondered if my bios
> settings are set wrong?
>
> I'm running a C2D 4500 2.4@ 2.9 mhz on "auto voltage" (OC setting) or
> similiar.
>
> all my friends w/the same ram on Asus MB's are getting a rating of
> 5.7/5.8.
>
>
> thx
>
> bob
>
> "bornfree" <justyouandme@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> news:8802e74c-7193-4b32-b433-a7a83b5a1cfd@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> On 28 Feb, 12:27, Unknown <dwilk...@unitelc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I called the vendor tech support and discussed the situation. He
>>> looked up the order and they had installed DDR2 533 memory. The board
>>> supports DDR2 667, 800, & 1066.
>>
>>
>> I currently have DDR2 800 installed. Will going up to 1066 make a
>> noticeable difference to performance?
>>
>> My CPU is an Intel E6300 OC'd to 2.8Ghz. My HDD is a 500GB Samsung
>> 7,200RPM SATA.
>
'Elcaro Nosille' wrote:
> I've got a Gigabyte-board with an Intel P35 chipset and I get a higher
> throughput and a lower latency in memory-bandwith and lower latency
> when using a 1:1.2 multiplier (1333/333MHz FSB and 800/400MHz DDR2
> -SDRAM clocking) than when using a 1:1 multiplier.
> Your recommendation of 1:N-ratios comes from times when the chipsets
> weren't as efficient as today.
_____
Today, you can forget this rule.Just to clarify, when you post 1:1.2 do you
mean a ratio of 1 to 2 (1/2)? [This is a somewhat murky area since various
motherboard manufacturers use two different ratios; Memory Clock : CPU
clock and CPU clock : memory clock.
Your reply still fails to quote the my entire post. Do you mean to indicate
that we agree on everything but the Memory clock : CPU clock ratio?
Motherboards based on the nVidia 680i series chipset DO show increased
memory through-put when operated at higher Memory clock : CPU clock ratios
given tight enough memory parameter delays. Though as stated, the increased
performance may not be worth the added cost. Which is why
"You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU. And on whether
or
not you intend to overclock by raising the FSB speed. And whether or not
you wish to run the Memory clock synched to the CPU clock. And whether or
not you are willing to spend the money for the diminishing performance
returns as you increase the RAM speed. And THAT is affected by the size of
the L2 cache, the applications you use, and the number of cores in the CPU.
FINALLY, after all those decisions, THEN you want to make sure the
motherboard can handle the Memory clock speed of the RAM you select."
Phil Weldon
"Elcaro Nosille" <Elcaro.Nosille@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:47ca1ff4$0$14402$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
> Phil Weldon schrieb:
>
>> My post stated "You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the
>> CPU." My statement is correct (and a little obvious.) I am not quite
>> sure WHAT your statement means; did you overclock? Did you use an
>> increased CPU clock multiplier and a 1333 MHz stock FSB (333 MHz CPU
>> clock)? Are you using DDR2-800 memory? What is the rating of your
>> selected memory? CAN your selected memory run at 1:1 or even 2:1
>> Memory clock : CPU clock ratios? Is a large increase in memory
>> parameter timing delays necessary when your selected memory is
>> used at speeds above DDR2-800 equivalent?
>
> I've got a Gigabyte-board with an Intel P35 chipset and I get a higher
> throughput and a lower latency in memory-bandwith and lower latency
> when using a 1:1.2 multiplier (1333/333MHz FSB and 800/400MHz DDR2
> -SDRAM clocking) than when using a 1:1 multiplier.
> Your recommendation of 1:N-ratios comes from times when the chipsets
> weren't as efficient as today. Today, you can forget this rule.
Re: Gigabyte GA-P35 DS3P - RAM? 
_KdnTDii4MkXVTanZ2dnUVZ_uyinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
Linear Mode
