FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Choosing Memory

Post Date: 2007-12-11
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Baron View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Baron Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Topic: Choosing Memory
    Posted: 11 Dec 2007 at 10:26am

Hello all.  I have been toying around with PC configurations over the past few days and I've pretty close to deciding on a config I think but I have some outstanding questions...

My proposed config:
- Extreme case
- NVidia 680i MB A1 revision
- Q6600 processor
- 1000W PS (only +$25)
- 2GB Corsair Dom @ ??Mhz??
- 1 250GB HD (I already have a 250GB drive that I plan to add to this one for RAID 0)
- 1x8800Ultra
- X-Fi sound
- Air Cooled Stage 2 or Liquid Cooled ??
- "Overclock my processor" option
 
 
1) What is the significance of the memory clock speed?  My guess is this is somehow dependent upon the processor one chooses or even perhaps overclocking intentions, but I'm not sure how best to decide on this.
 
2) If I ask DS to overclock my processor what other options should I request to get the most out of this?  Is it even worth it for the Q6600?  I should mention this is also the reason I've chosen the Extreme case.
 
3) How loud is this PC going to be?  I had a custom built PC a few years ago that had a huge case with fans everywhere and it sounded as if I was standing next to a prop airplane.
 
Thanks in advance for feedback.
Back to Top
Tyler Lowe View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 14 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Tyler Lowe Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 11 Dec 2007 at 12:53pm

1. Memory clock speed determines the memory's bandwidth. Higher FSB speeds mean faster transfer of information between RAM and CPU L2 cache. To avoid bottlenecking at the RAM, select higher speed RAM. Faster RAM speed also alows more freedom when linking FSB to memory for the purposes of overclocking. If you are overclocking a Q6600 you will see deminishing returns on RAM performance past PC8500. Best value to performance for overclocking the Q6600 is, IMO, PC6400 RAM.

2. Best OC: Asus Max Formula motherboard, PC 8500+ RAM, liquid cooling.
 
According to reviews I have read, the Asus board is a better overclocker than the 680i that's in my system, holding stable at higher FSB speeds. The only thing is, it Does Not Do SLI. For a Q6600, it may not matter, but if you were ever to upgrade the CPU that could come into play. Second best, is the 680i, and that *does* allow for SLI. The extreme case is awesome regardless of CPU OC. I don't think you'll regret that choice even if it's just to keep your GPU cool.
 
3. The fans DSO uses are quiet. Very quiet. If you want your system to be as quiet as possible, go with the liquid cooling and eliminate the need for the CPU fan.
Back to Top
skyR View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Digital Storm Apprentice


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2220 		  Quote skyR Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 11 Dec 2007 at 3:50pm
Your power supply is overkill... a 620W can handle your rig with no problems.
The only thing that keeps me wishing on a wishing star.
Back to Top
Bill the Cat View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran

Forum Bitch!
Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1150 		  Quote Bill the Cat Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 11 Dec 2007 at 8:45pm
My proposed config:
- Extreme case:   Excellent but expensive choice
- 680i MB A1 rev: Good for overclocking except it may not deliver enough power for extreme overclocking of quad core processors. This is not a practical concern.
- Q6600: Good choice, but don't expect clock rates over 3.0 GHz; 3.2 if you're lucky.
- 1000W PS: Overkill
- 2GB Corsair Dom: See below.
- 1 250GB HD (add one for RAID0): Questionable performance increase, but go for it. Be sure to get good backup software like "True Image" or "Ghost" and back up to a drive not in the array.
 
1) What is the significance of the memory clock speed? 
 
RAM speed has two effects. A) It is directly proportional to average throughput of the memory. That is, if RAM is the bottle neck, RAM speed determines how many sequential bytes can be read per unit time. If RAM is not the bottleneck, it doesn't matter how fast the RAM is. B) It determines how quickly the RAM module can set up to address and read a single byte of memory (random access).
 
800 MHz RAM runs at exactly the speed of a 1600 MHz FSB. A 1600 MHz FSB produces a 2.8 GHz CPU speed using a 7X multiplier and a 3.2 GHz CPU using an 8X multiplier. A 1500 MHz FSP produces a 3.0 GHz CPU using an 8X multiplier. 800 MHz RAM should be all you need, unless you expect to exceed a 1600 MHz FSB, which is unlikely, IMHO.... Except for the set up time business. RAM faster than 800 MHz might allow you to do random reads faster even if the FSB was set at 1600 MHz or less.
 
800 MHz RAM should be all you need unless your building a liquid cooled extreme overclocked "ass-hauler". I'd love to hear someone explain the benefits of memory that's faster.
 
2) If I ask DS to overclock my processor what other options should I request to get the most out of this?  Is it even worth it for the Q6600?
 
The Q6600 is serious overkill for most apps, and most of the time, you probably won't be aware of the increased proformance due to overclocking. But what the hell, "Enough is never enough." Go for it.
 
I should mention this is also the reason I've chosen the Extreme case.
 
IMHO, the EXTREME will of course help keep your CPU cool, but it is really for the GPU.
 
3) How loud is this PC going to be? 
 
Probably pretty loud; well noticeable anyway. In my experience, most of the noise comes from the CPU cooler fan; not the case fans. The EXTREME has an open grill right above the CPU cooler, so the cooler fan isn't muffled at all.
 
If you want to seriously listen to MP3s played on your computer, this might be reason enough to go liquid cooled. Otherwise, it will probably be quieter than the machine your using now.
 
Just my opinions, your milage may vary.


Edited by Bill the Cat - 11 Dec 2007 at 8:52pm
3.6 GHz E6850,       4 GB RAM, GTS 250,   TJ9, Win 7 64-bit
4.4 GHz i7 3930K, 16 GB RAM, GTX 670, 550D, Win 7 64-bit
Back to Top
commast View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 262 		  Quote commast Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 2:46am
Originally posted by Bill the Cat



800 MHz RAM should be all you need unless your building a liquid cooled extreme overclocked "ass-hauler". I'd love to hear someone explain the benefits of memory that's faster.
 


Hummm.......Wink??? Faster RAM will give you more bandwidth in benchmark results but i agree that it's debatable whether you can see the gain in real life.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat



RAM faster than 800 MHz might allow you to do random reads faster even if the FSB was set at 1600 MHz or less.






Edited by commast - 12 Dec 2007 at 2:53am
Back to Top
Bill the Cat View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran

Forum Bitch!
Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1150 		  Quote Bill the Cat Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 11:12am
Originally posted by commast


Hummm.......Wink??? Faster RAM will give you more bandwidth in benchmark results but i agree that it's debatable whether you can see the gain in real life.

 
Still, if the system is throttled by a 1600 MHz FSB, the sustained throughput can't be more than the FSB supports no matter how fast the RAM is, right? Faster memory will be able to do random reads somewhat faster, but I don't know if that's a meaningful difference. I also don't know what the mix of sequential and random memory accesses in a typical FPS game is. I would think it leans heavily torward sequential.
 
Are there people out there running screaming fast FSBs beyond 1600 MHz? I thought using a super fast FSB and a low CPU multiplier was a pretty discredited concept.
 
Super fast RAM must have some benefit. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a market for them, but I still don't get the rationale.
 
I guess there must be memory speed performance comparisons on the web somewhere. I'm just too lazy to look.
3.6 GHz E6850,       4 GB RAM, GTS 250,   TJ9, Win 7 64-bit
4.4 GHz i7 3930K, 16 GB RAM, GTX 670, 550D, Win 7 64-bit
Back to Top
Tyler Lowe View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 14 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Tyler Lowe Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 11:44am
Well, I'm not what I would consider an expert by any means, but here's one example of how faster RAM benefits your system, based on what I have found in tweaking my system's settings.
 
I go to overclock my CPU at a 9x Multi, and a 1333 FSB to get my ~3.0GHz OC from a Q6600. In order to keep the voltages down, I look for a little stability help by linking my FSB to memory. Going through my choices, if I link in sync mode, my RAM is going to come out of that at 667MHz. My next choice is to run at 3:2, which is 888.6 MHz. Now, if I have a RAM cooler, like the Dominator RAM selection comes with, tossing some extra volts at my 800MHz RAM could allow me to keep my 4-4-4 timings. Otherwise, I may to have to relax those timings back to 5-5-5. You *will* notice a difference here, between linking at these two ratios.  The closer I can move to a 1:1 setting in link mode, the more easily I can get my OC to hit stability, so let's try moving that ratio up to 5:4 and see what happens. At 5:4 with my FSB set to 1333, my RAM speed becomes 1066....
 
Now, I *could* run 800MHz RAM at 1066MHz, again, it would be advisable to have a fan cooling it, because I am going to have to crank my voltage up from 1.8V running at 800MHz 5-5-5-15 to more like 2.1V to run at 1066MHz. I most likely will *not* be able to tighten the timings much, if at all, which means that my latency suffers. Had I installed the PC8500 to begin with, that 5:4 ratio is right where my RAM wants to be and now I could start tightening up the timings.
 
You can run into other limiting factors. The batch a CPU is from could simply make it a poor overclocker. Steppings aside, different batches perform to different levels, and you have *zero* control over this. This is why one guy hits 3.8GHz on air with his GO stepping Q6600 while another guy can barely manage 3.15GHz. Some CPU's just won't push as far as others regardless of how much juice you toss at them. However, assuming that all GO Q6600's can at least hit 3.15GHz (and they should be able to) this one advantage of purchasing faster RAM.
Back to Top
Baron View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Baron Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 3:00pm

Thanks all for educating me.  After reading all this I have some final thoughts/questions:

- According to posts in this thread I could reasonably expect to get 3.0 - 3.15 Ghz out of the Q6600.  I really didn't know it could go this high so I'm happy as hell with this. 

- I'll probably go ahead and spring for the 1066 Mhz memory just in case.  I don't want to take the chance of that being the bottleneck considering it's not that much more money.
 
- Last question:  with a goal of overclocking the Q6600 to 3.0 Ghz, will I need liquid cooling?  I may go ahead and make this call for the purpose of noise reduction but I'm still curious if I need it to hit my OC target.
 
- I chose the 1000W PS in case I decide to add another 8800 ultra later on.  I've read I need ~400W per card.  Is this inaccurate?
 
Thanks again.
Back to Top
Solo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 395 		  Quote Solo Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 3:12pm
if you can afford it, liquid cooling would help get your processor higher.
Back to Top
skyR View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Digital Storm Apprentice


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2220 		  Quote skyR Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 3:32pm
Originally posted by Baron

 
- I chose the 1000W PS in case I decide to add another 8800 ultra later on.  I've read I need ~400W per card.  Is this inaccurate?
 
Thanks again.


Very inaccurate. A single 8800 Ultra only consumes a maximum of 175W.

You don't need liquid cooling to hit 3.1GHz with the Q6600. It can easily be done on air.
The only thing that keeps me wishing on a wishing star.
Back to Top
EdH63 View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1826 		  Quote EdH63 Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 4:39pm
I have this config with air cooling, sitting in a not so well ventilated area, and it runs like a greyhound chasing a rabbit.  
Back to Top
Solo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 395 		  Quote Solo Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 10:57pm
Ed what kind of rabbit?  There are over 50 kinds...
Back to Top
Tyler Lowe View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 14 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Tyler Lowe Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 12 Dec 2007 at 11:01pm
If you plan on eventually running two Ultra or GTX GPU's, I would spring for the liquid cooling just to avoid the CPU trying to cool itself with what will start to become pretty warm case temps. I'm only running a single 8600GT and installing a slot cooler lowered my CPU temps 2C at idle. My CPU core temps actually dropped over 7C while gaming. Granted, my little GPU doesn't exhaust air on it's own, but it also only hits about 60C *max*. Compare this with an Ultra or even a GTX. Now double that. That's alot of heat.
 
Personally, I would do it for the sake of both your CPU and your GPU's. The potentially better overclock is just a bonus.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.046875 seconds.