16GB @ 1600MHz on a 890FX?

[Crotalidae75]

I'm looking to build a 1090T-based machine, with a 890FX chipset, with 16GB of RAM, at 1600MHz.

I am correct in assuming my only choice right now for running that much RAM at 1600MHz is the ASUS M4A89TD Pro/USB3? Of all the boards I've looked at, so far this is the only one that can support 1600MHz RAM modules WITHOUT overclocking the RAM. Isn't there a limit, usually, to what a board can handle, if you attempt to overclock the RAM? This board appears to support 1600MHz modules without that. I still want to crack up my 1090T to 4GHz, or whatever it can handle. As for dealing with the thermal issue, I wanted to try a Zalman CPNS9900LED.

As for the RAM itself, I was thinking about going with a 4x4GB Vengeance set from Corsair.


They are pretty cheap now, and I think it's more reasonable than ever that I could run a full 16GB of RAM.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7025816

I plan to use this setup for more than just gaming, as I do graphics/photography and I think I could benefit from having a huge amount of memory onhand.

 

[trents]

I'm not clear on what you're wanting to know. First of all, most DDR3 1600 ram is really DDR3 1333+ that will run at 1600 with some over-volting. That's not a motherboard issue so much as it is a ram issue. I see where at least one reviewer of this board on NewEgg got it to run 16 gb of DDR3 1600 at full spec speed. Is he using the same ram as you are buying? It is true that the more gb of ram and the more sticks you put in the slots the more strain is put on the ICM but neither is that a motherboard issue. That's not to say the quality of the motherboard electronics don't come into play because they certainly do. Quality mobo components give clearer, cleaner power and signals than cheap stuff and that usually translates into less voltage needed and less heat produced. I hope you aren't disappointed.

Are you planning to overclock this system?

 

[Crotalidae75]

Er, what I'm trying to ask, is if I attempt to use 1600MHz RAM modules, will I be able to run a full 16GB @ 1600MHz, without the boards limiting me to running them at 1333MHz or less?

Meaning, will I be forced to slow them down to run a full 16GB, or is overclocking not an issue at all?

I'm just asking if I can run 16GB @ 1600MHz on any 890FX board. I'd really prefer the Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5 or maybe the MSI 890FXA-GD70.

The reason I ask is because the specs for the Asus board list 1600MHz as a memory standard *without* overclocking.

And yes I want to overclock the 1090T to 4GHz or better. I'd prefer to leave the RAM alone.

I just want to know if I can actually run a full 16GB at 1600MHz on most of these boards.

 

[Crotalidae75]

Ok, I've seen that with both the Gigabyte and Asus boards, that some users (that bought from NewEgg) have been able to reach 16GB @ 1600MHz ... mostly with the G.Skill Ripjaws though. I've never used G.Skill memory but I have heard it's very good.

 

[Moto7451]

The chipset really doesn't have much to do with it. Perhaps your ability to tweak settings in the BIOS, but modern chipsets have nothing to do with the memory. What you need to worry about is the quality and capability of the Integrated Memory controller. Generally memory controllers tend to not clock as well with higher density modules or with larger amounts of memory. Since density isn't really an issue these days (I believe that since DDR2 the maximum density of a memory module has been specified by JDEC) it really comes down to how the IMC on your particular CPU can handle that amount of RAM.

If you see a lot of people getting 1600 with little tweaking then most likely the IMCs can handle it pretty well across the board. If only people with high end boards are able to clock that high it could mean one of two things:

1. People who buy high end expensive memory kits in large capacities don't buy $50 motherboards.

And/or

2. The higher end motherboards let you tweak the IMC into running at that speed.

If you're worried about speed, you may want to stick with 4-8GB of RAM. Do you really need 16GB of memory or are you just trying to built the fastest system ever?

 

[Crotalidae75]

The chipset really doesn't have much to do with it. Perhaps your ability to tweak settings in the BIOS, but modern chipsets have nothing to do with the memory. What you need to worry about is the quality and capability of the Integrated Memory controller. Generally memory controllers tend to not clock as well with higher density modules or with larger amounts of memory. Since density isn't really an issue these days (I believe that since DDR2 the maximum density of a memory module has been specified by JDEC) it really comes down to how the IMC on your particular CPU can handle that amount of RAM.

If you see a lot of people getting 1600 with little tweaking then most likely the IMCs can handle it pretty well across the board. If only people with high end boards are able to clock that high it could mean one of two things:

1. People who buy high end expensive memory kits in large capacities don't buy $50 motherboards.

And/or

2. The higher end motherboards let you tweak the IMC into running at that speed.

If you're worried about speed, you may want to stick with 4-8GB of RAM. Do you really need 16GB of memory or are you just trying to built the fastest system ever?

Points taken. I want to build a system around the Phenom II X6 1090T. I really could use 16GB of RAM, for multitasking/photo editing under Linux.

I'm not looking to attempt to put 16GB on a $50 board though. You can't even buy 890FX boards for less than $140 or so (USD) ... The Biostar is the cheapest right now, but I would rather go with the Gigabyte -UD5 model.

edit : Something I noticed is that Gigabyte specifies "DDR3 1866(OC)*/1333/1066" on the info provided on the online retailers. I'm assuming that doesn't mean the board can't support memory at 1600MHz? I noticed they have plenty of 1600MHz modules in their QVL list.

 

[trents]

edit : Something I noticed is that Gigabyte specifies "DDR3 1866(OC)*/1333/1066" on the info provided on the online retailers. I'm assuming that doesn't mean the board can't support memory at 1600MHz? I noticed they have plenty of 1600MHz modules in their QVL list.

That is curious that the board lists compatibility with DDR3 1866 but not 1600. I note other boards do the same thing. Huh? Don't know.

The thing I would have you consider is that the QVL becomes important only when you are pushing the limits of a board's capability, which you seem to want to do. When placing more common demands on it most any old ram will do.

The other thing to consider is that AMD CPUs have the reputation of not benefitting much from ram speeds above 1333. Many will tell you that you actually get better performance from taking 1600 ram and running it at 1333 with tight timings. In fact, I suspect most of us by 1600 for that very reason, that we know it will run 1333 at tight timings.

 

[QuietIce]

to OCF!


It's anybody's guess whether you can overclock your X6 to 4.0 GHz while still maintaining 4x4 Gb of RAM at DDR3-1600 speeds. The CPU speed is by far the more important of the two so if you have to slow the RAM down to achieve a higher overclock you'll still have better performance overall. Using excellent RAM like you've chosen will certainly increase the odds of being able to use the higher speed. If possible get the DDR3-1600CL8 model instead of the CL9 model. That will let you loosen the timings a notch from spec, if needed, without dropping below CL9. As a side note the cpuNB speed will effect RAM performance as much or more than the RAM speed itself.

If you like the Gigabyte better then go for it. Either board should deliver solid power, which is the important thing. If you get the ASUS and the RAM doesn't run at 800 MHz I'm sure they'll just tell you it's the CPU having problems, not the board, so regardless of their listing it's not much of a guarantee.


PS
If you're interested in that Gigabyte board you might want to follow this thread as well.
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=670007

 

[Crotalidae75]

Thanks for the input, all.

I think I will go with the Gigabyte board because it has a better power system than the Asus board (8+2 vs 6+2, respectively).

Now what I need to know is if the RAM kit thing is hype, like I think it is. Meaning, I don't really think it makes a difference at all if you buy 2 2x4GB RAM kits, a single 16GB kit, or 4 seperate 4GB modules (as long as they are identical).

I think it's all marketing hype, as I was able to put 2 4GB DDR2 Corsair kits into this 3-year old Phenom X4 9850 system, without much trouble.

 

[trents]

Marketing hype? Are you referring to single channel vs. dual channel performance or are you going back to the stability question?

 

[Crotalidae75]

Marketing hype? Are you referring to single channel vs. dual channel performance or are you going back to the stability question?

I'm not referring to single vs. dual channel. What I meant, is I don't think it matters if I buy 2 2x4GB kits or 1 4x4 16GB kit. I mean, does it really matter, as long as they are all identical?

That's what I think is hype. Sure, the marketing departments will tell you a single kit is better, but I am not sure that's really the case. Now if I can get a full 16GB kit for cheaper, with good timings and the frequency I want, then sure... but otherwise, I don't think it's a huge issue.

 

[Crotalidae75]

I've seen that the Ripjaws X 1333MHz CAS 7 (7-7-7-21 timings) 2x4GB modules are about the same price as some of the other 8GB kits rated at CAS 9 ...

So I guess it's a matter of CAS 7 @ 1333Mhz vs CAS9 @ 1600MHz now. From everything I have read so far, the CAS timing seems more important than the clock speed, and that CAS 7 @ 1333MHz is in fact faster than CAS9 @ 1600MHz.

 

[trents]

I can tell you this, the IMC will like the 1333 ripjaws better. Just be aware that the tall ripjaw heatsinks can interfere with some large after market air coolers.

 

[smithbrooklyn88]

The memory controller in the AMD processor will only handle 1066 MHZ-1333 MHZ
Clocking the sticks will eventually fry the I.M.C (Memory Controller) in the CPU.

This comes directly from AMD sources so Clock at your own risk!

 

[QuietIce]

The memory controller in the AMD processor will only handle 1066 MHZ-1333 MHZ
Clocking the sticks will eventually fry the I.M.C (Memory Controller) in the CPU.

This comes directly from AMD sources so Clock at your own risk!

Sure, if you keep your CPU 5-6 years you may have a problem but you know what? s939 K8's were only rated to run 200 MHz (DDR-400) and I've been running mine 24/7 at 260+ MHz for the past four years and had another that ran them at 245 MHz for slightly longer. I'd say 35,000 hours of operation without issues (x2) is a good indicator that problems like that are very, very rare.



BTW - Check the Intel specs and you'll find the i-series are also rated at DDR3-1333.