memory ratio question for BATBOY (or others)

ok so ive been thinking about what you said about running 3:4 ratio with the ram. so let me run this by you

im going to get ddr2 675 ram. and a 2.8, or 3.4ghz with the lowered multi of 14 along with all the high quality parts we have discussed.

in my understanding (after what you told me), getting the ram to run at the top speed that it can while having the highest fsb you can is the best performance yeilding setup.


so then would the optimal setup be.

253 fsb at a 3:4 ratio?

i found this number by doing this computation.

[( 675 / 4 ) * 3 ] / 2 = 253.125


or possibly is there a 4:5 ratio? and then the optimal setting (more for the 3.4 than the 2.8) would be

270 fsb at a 4:5 ratio?

[( 675 / 5 ) * 4 ] / 2 = 270



thanks for all your input.

This is all therotical as it sounds like you do not have any of the parts at this point in time.

When you do get the parts, what you are going to want to do, is push the CPU to its absolute maxium clock speed. Then push the memory to its absolute maxium speed. Once you know those two numbers, you can sit down and come up with the best multiplier and divider. Some want highest clock speeds, others wants best memory bandwith, and others want the best compromise between the two.

It comes down to what you would prefer. Yet, none of this matters at this point. Get the hardware, max it out, and then come back.

thank you for taking the time to respond PMS

basicly PMS what i am speaking of is the best performing setup. assuming you are able to attain those fsb speeds. that is what we are talking about.

as to higher clock speeds vs memory bandwidth vs a mixture of the 2.
im looking for the best performing setup overall. this means for all applications period.


i know some programs would perform better with more processor. and others with more bandwidth. so what i am talking about is getting the most of both out of the setup.(once again assuming you could attain those fsb speeds.)

if there are any other dividers like 5:6 or 7:8 and thier disadvantages (if any) that would be good info , as well as confirmation that i did the eqation correctly.

that said, any input on the subject would be appreciated. (rather than go get it and see what fsb you can get then we can talk about optimizing it)

I can't remember off hand what ratios the AA8 has... I will look it up and answer in another post.

EDIT: I provided incorrect info the first time.

Again you can't really say which is going to be better untill you try it. The best thing to do, is benchmark the computer with the 2 different settings, and chose the one that provides the best results. Different applications resond differently to different settings. So best thing to do is test, and chose what preforms better in your mind.

Most Intel P4 MBs come with 1:1 3:4 5:4 4:5 but check the manual to see what the the MB that you are looking at comes with.

Im sorry that the answer that you are after is not a cut and dry one. Its often a matter of prefernce. I personally would prefer the higest clock speed, as that benfits me more for what I am using the computer for.

thanks batboy. it looks like i have the equation correct. ill look into wether or not it has the 4:5 as running so close to 4 gig isnt to my preferance. i would much prefer 270fsb at 3.78 for long term use. tho having an 1124 fsb at 3.934 ghz is a tempting thought.

well i looked. and this is what toms hardware had to say as of July 19, 2004

Up to now, the motherboard manufacturers weren't able to provide a 4:5 clock ratio between FSB and DDR2 memory. Because the 925X is practically unchanged and offered as the 925XE, it could only be a matter of changing a few things to make it run at FSB1066. This option was not available to us however, so we also had to restrict ourselves to 3:4 in order to operate the system memory with 355.5 MHz or DDR2 711

so hopefully things have changed. and motherboards are offering a 4:5 ratio but it looks like im pretty much stuck redlining my processor

it looks like this relavation of not having a 4:5 ratio (which i hope isnt true) draws a more clear picture of what PMS was trying to say. i think what she was getting at is that most people can only hope to use the 3:4 ratio which may not yeild very much processor overclock. so if they want more of a processor overclock they may have to sacrifice some of thier ram speed by choosing a 5:6 ratio or 1:1 depending on thier ram speed and fsb overclocking capabilities.

dam the fish for being right!

fishy! fins me that 4:5 ratio you were talking about and ill love you 4 ever! lol

Ok... I was wrong in my earlier post. It's the AG8 that has 1:1 and 5:6 ratio options. The AA8XE has 1:1, 3:4, and 2:3 ratio options. I just got my AA8XE back and working today and I've double check what ratios are available.

then it looks like a 2.8 ghz is truly the way to go then huh. the 3.4's 120$ price increase really doesnt justify a overclock of 3.54 or the decision between that and 1:1 ratio.
the difference between the 533 and the 675 is 50$ you think it would be better to get the 533 and put 50$ that toward the 3.4 and overclock at a 1:1 ratio?

with referance to this site's benches it seems that would be the better performing one
http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040719/index.html

Some of the name brand DDR2 PC2-4200 RAM appears to be overclocking very well, even up to PC2-5300 speeds.

hmmm... well the site is down at the moment (odd to be sure) so i cant post the links but the 675 ddr2 ram was 271$

even tho in this case the processor bandwidth is the bottleneck at 8.5 Gb a second. and getting a slight overclock out of 533 ram would yeild a bandwidth just slightly over the bottle neck. on top of a higher fsb than 1066 raiseing the bottleneck.

so from a performance point of view. the overclockable 533 (if its significantly cheaper than 271$) would be the better buy.

however im a computer geek. thats been researching this stuff for over a month straight now. and im just now understanding the reasons for this being the better performer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
having said that much

i plan on building computers to sell in the near future. in my mind in order for people to buy from you

people want to see that they are getting the fastest speed parts available (translated into the fastest performance available in thier minds) , just so they can say, yeah i have some of the fastest parts you can possibly get.

2nd to that concept in order for them to buy from me again. they have to get the performance they felt they were going to get. and at a great price.

what do you think about this veiw?

well i did some more research. it looks like with the 2.8 i will just want either name brand 533 or the cheapest 675. then run a 3:4 at the highest safe stable fsb i can get.

whereas with the 3.4 ill want a name brand 667-675 that should run easily to 711 according to toms
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041101/925xe-01.html
"any branded DDR2-667 should be able to reach that speed easily. So far, we've tried modules from Corsair, Crucial and GeIL and easily hit the desired speeds with tolerant timings."

this way i can get a 3.732ghz with 711 memory speed and a 1066 fsb
i suppose i should remove the videocard i selected as well due to toms

"The Asus was able to reach a FSB of 280, a 40% overclock, with an ATI X800 XT and SATA hard drive. This is by far the highest overclock that we achieved with this hardware in the roundup. The P5AD2 was more limited with an nVidia 6800 Ultra video card, reaching 258. The nVidia appears to be less tolerant of out-of-spec PCIe frequency than the X800 XT."

any reccomendations to a card of this brand for cheap would be highly appreciated.
tho i may just spring for the x800xt anyway... tho lord knows that my favorite alltime game jedi knight 2 jedi outcast that the geforce 4200ti scored top marks in when it was released wont really see any improvements at all... lol... i just wanna build this computer to say i built it and then sell it. then build another. but i think getting a cheaper videocard that would work well with the pci express problem tom was talking about would be the better choice.

hmmm they used a x600 here...i wonder if that would be any good....even tho they just used that cause they couldnt find an x800xt on short notice. but they did pick it over a 6800gt...so....

I build computers for friends and coworkers. They usually want a good system for a good bargain (best bang for the buck deal). Every once in a while I get a someone with deep pockets that wants a top of the line system for bragging rights, but mostly my clients are on tight budgets.

Tom's Hardware is a good source of info, but don't stake your life on them. They've had a few questionable reviews in the last couple of years. I trust Anandtech more than Tom's.

Anyway, the i925XE chipset seems to handle higher FSB much better. My Abit AA8XE alse appears to have a PCI-E lock that works better than the regular i915/i925 chipsets.

I have a X800 XT and it seems to handle fairly high PCI-E bus speeds. If you are casting around for a new vid card, the X800 XL should be available soon for a fairly reasonable price. Check out some reviews about this card.

well after some more reasearch on the video card problem. ive only come up with a solution for the 2.8 ghz processor setup.
due to the 6600 blowing away the X600XT in almost every game. which you can see here http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/nv43-p17.html#p23
and it costing less. i belive since the review said it only limited thier overclock to a 258. and the overclock then 2.8 is looking at is more around or below 253
this is the better choice for the value 2.8 ghz setup.

however with the 3.4 ghz the setup is shooting for a 266fsb so i think the X700PRO or higher should be the video card of choice for that setup...even tho it costs nearly 80$ more. it also gets moderately better fps...so...

i wonder if kingston fits into that list of brand name overclockable ram lol... ::looks at the 50$ price jump between that and the next brand up:: ::thinks not::

any opinions?

I have no experience with Kingston DDR2 RAM, but I've had a couple pairs of their regular DDR and was happy with them... still have a couple sticks of excellent Kingston HyperX.

If you don't get one of the X800 series, then something from the 6600 series would be my next pick.

i couldnt agree with you more on the 6600 vs X700 and below. for the price differance the performance of the 6600 is by far better... but toms guys said that the geforce's kept them from clocking above 258fsb so for a "value" computer i was thinking the x600 but the 6600 blew that away so the x700 was the cheapest next step up.