• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Not Oc'ing. Need ~$400 CPU+mobo+cooler

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

blahcomp222

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Hi, sorry, I know this is an OC forum but I got some real good advice last time about non OC components. I asked about 5 months but I never actually bought anything. Well, this time I am buying very soon. I'd rather spend an extra ~$100 to not have to deal with OCing to get the same performance, and we went though this last time and everyone said it's so easy to OC and set the volts etc etc, it's just not my thing.

I have a Basiq antec certified 550W PSU, SSD, New case with like 4 or 5 fans, 1GB RADEON HD770 GPU, optical drive.
I just need a CPU , mobo and cooler if the stock fan isn't enough but it should be since I'm not OCing.


Basically I need a pretty high end CPU for HD video editing, Music production with a DAW, some gaming, and I don't want the internet to ever lag lol.

Last time I asked, I was considering an FX-9590 with or w/o OC'ing it but that thing is a frying pan and I would have to get a new PSU most likely even if not OC'ing and especially if I upgrade my GPU. I was recommended the i7-4790K and to not OC it. They are ~$250 used on ebay and I'm fine with a reputable used ebay CPU and Mobo.

Are there intels that are in the spec and price range as the i7-4790K that are locked and can't be OC'd? I ask because I feel safer knowing if I buy used that it wasn't abused and OC'd wrong and it will also help me sell it in a few years so the buyer also knows it's not been abused. Without the 'K' at the end means it can't be OC'd, right?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

And for the mobo, all I really need is USB3 which they all probably have, and I want to make sure it has no wireless internet built in because I hate wireless anything and have a sort of phobia of that.

Cheapest mobo and fan that can run it is basically all I need since I'm not OCing.

Please any suggestions. thanks. :salute:
 

Theocnoob

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Location
Near Toronto Canada
You never want the "cheapest mobo and fan" because you'll get garbage. Even the cheapest CPU is made properly. Cheap motherboards are not, often times.

Please answer the following questions:
1)Do you have 2 or 4 identical sticks of DDR3?
2)Which PSU model specifically do you have?

If you have at least 2X4GB of RAM, and ideally, 2X8GB, and you have a decent power supply, I would suggest the following:

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/mistersprinkles/saved/kQwH99

The CPU is a Xeon. Same layout as an i7 (4c/8t/8MB L3) but clocked lower than a 4790K. You save about $100 vs the 4790K. Motherboard is a decent, overclocking capable board for the budget minded buyer. Cooler is sufficient for the Xeon and will run quieter than the stock cooler.

If you want to, on the other hand, pick up a used 4790K or 4770K on the web, you can keep the motherboard the same and change the cooler to a Cooler Master Hyper 212 and then you would be able to overclock, should you wish. It's nice to have the option open to you, and the difference to enable said option is going to be like $15 vs the Xeon build.

Up to you, which way you want to go.
 

caddi daddi

Godzilla to ant hills
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
I think theocnoob has hit the nail on the head.
I do need to ask, does your video software make use of the gpu at all?
 
OP
B

blahcomp222

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
I don't have any HD video software, though I could use free Windows Movie Maker or something, or at least something cheap? I'm not adding effects or anything, just trimming and splicing.
 
OP
B

blahcomp222

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2529220/ing-400-cpu-mobo-cooler.html#15248489

someone suggested no Xeon,
If you want a cpu to run as fast as the i7 4790k, you're stuck with a 4790k (stock clocks). There are no other lga1150's with the same speed, even the locked 4790 (non k) is 3.6ghz, not 4ghz like the 4790k is out of the box. So there's no used locked option with the same speeds and that's one of the risks buying used vs new. No warranty if it breaks and no guarantee it hasn't been oc'd but at a lower price.



Xeons won't help you out here either since they cost nearly the same as an i7 and again top out around 3.5-3.6ghz.





what if I just get the i7-4790 locked one for around $200 used (without fan though)? it's not much less performance, I don't think looking at the benchmark chart, and I don't have to worry about it being OC'd wrong by pervious owner.
 
Last edited:

Dlaw

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Location
New York, USA
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2529220/ing-400-cpu-mobo-cooler.html#15248489

someone suggested no Xeon,
If you want a cpu to run as fast as the i7 4790k, you're stuck with a 4790k (stock clocks). There are no other lga1150's with the same speed, even the locked 4790 (non k) is 3.6ghz, not 4ghz like the 4790k is out of the box. So there's no used locked option with the same speeds and that's one of the risks buying used vs new. No warranty if it breaks and no guarantee it hasn't been oc'd but at a lower price.



Xeons won't help you out here either since they cost nearly the same as an i7 and again top out around 3.5-3.6ghz.





what if I just get the i7-4790 locked one for around $200 used (without fan though)? it's not much less performance, I don't think looking at the benchmark chart, and I don't have to worry about it being OC'd wrong by pervious owner.

Uh, he just kinda proved OCNoob's point? Xeons can't be overclocked, which means that you can at least guarantee that it hasn't been overclocked. Sure they cost nearly the same, but Xeons are traditionally server chips, which means that you can pretty much guarantee that it will run 24/7/365 for as long as it's a chip. Plus the feature set of the i7 line.

Look at it this way: 600MHz (the difference between the Xeon OCNoob suggested and the 4790k) is a 15% difference in speed. That means that an app using all available resources on identical builds using either the Xeon or i7 may or may not (depending on other components) complete 15% faster on the i7. Now, if your going new, that's a $100 price gap. Is that potential 15% speed increase worth $100 to you?
 

Theocnoob

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Location
Near Toronto Canada
If you had told us that the type of video editing you were talking about was Windows Movie Maker, we would have suggested an entirely different setup. You don't need much power for that. Still, if you want the i7/Xeon you might as well go for it. The Xeon I linked you is pretty much identical to the 4790 and only a few bucks more for a brand new Xeon chip vs a used 4790. That guy on the other forum doesn't know what he's talking about. You Save almost $60 going Xeon vs 4790 if you get the chip I linked you.

Also, you're not squeezing in 16GB of RAM ($115-150) within your $400 budget unless you seriously cut down some other parts. But I don't think you actually NEED 16GB of RAM if you're just gaming and using Windows Movie Maker. You'd be fine with 8GB.

I suggest you get the Xeon I suggested, and either get an ASRock Z97 Extreme board like a 3/4/6, or, and this is what I'd do with a locked chip on this tight of a budget (now that I know you want to squeeze RAM in that is), look at an entry level board like an ASRock Z97 Anniversary. Saves you about $30 right there.

So something like Xeon E3-1231 V3, ASRock Z97 Anniversary, Arctic Freezer 7, 2x4GB 1600Mhz Cas 9. Call it a day.

You might want to upgrade to a better PSU at some point in the future though if your PSU is in good condition this isn't urgent. I'd take a look at the Seasonic SSR G-550 if I were you. It's only $30 more than what you have now, and it's 80+Gold rated. Your current supply isn't even bronze rated.

HTH
 
OP
B

blahcomp222

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
I was told a while my PSU IS rated, I think they said something like it's at least Bronze if it's 'certified'.
How much does a used program on ebay cost to edit HD video? I mean I think I'd rather do that bump up the whole build to accommodate for HD video.

I see things for $30 but didn't read anything yet
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...g+software&_nkw=hd+editiong+software&_sacat=0



the RAM can be separate from the ~$400. If you think 8GB is good, then I'll go with that, My understanding is maybe the DAW will need the most RAM.
 

Theocnoob

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Location
Near Toronto Canada
I was told a while my PSU IS rated, I think they said something like it's at least Bronze if it's 'certified'.
How much does a used program on ebay cost to edit HD video? I mean I think I'd rather do that bump up the whole build to accommodate for HD video.

I see things for $30 but didn't read anything yet
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...g+software&_nkw=hd+editiong+software&_sacat=0



the RAM can be separate from the ~$400. If you think 8GB is good, then I'll go with that, My understanding is maybe the DAW will need the most RAM.

Who have you been talking to?? It is absolutely not definitely bronze if it is 80+ :p
Read this (or just scroll down to look at the chart) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_Plus

You're not going to find that many "used" programs these days. It's not like it used to be with most people acquiring their content digitally. People still find ways to sell their stuff and sell accounts and what not but if you get caught doing it, the company in question can block you. I'd suggest you just shell out for some pro level editing software like Sony Vegas or something.

If you see yourself doing incredibly complex film work, with seperate programs for effects and 3D and all sorts of crazy stuff you want 16GB. I'm not familiar with DAW so I don't know how much RAM you need for that. All I can tell you is that if you've been advised to get 16GB for it, then you probably should.

If you think you need 16 look at 2X8GB 1600 C9 kits from AData, AMD, Kingston, Corsair and Gskill (and even Team) on Pcpartpicker and select the one that suits your tastes based on price (which will all be pretty similar), color, etc. Make sure to get "low profile" RAM so as not to interfere with any aftermarket coolers.
 
OP
B

blahcomp222

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
the guy in the other thread didn't diss the Xeon option, he just said if I wanted i7-4790K power (4ghz out of the box, not OC), then neither the xeon or i7-4790 can match that.

So figure ~$250 for CPU,
$150 for 16gb RAM? I do want 16.
And then whatever mobo can safely run it and doesn't have anything wireless built in. And a cooler unless that ~$250 CPU ends up including the free stock fan, then that should be fine if not OC'd, no?

edit, there are actually quite a bit of new sealed i7-4790K on ebay for around $260 but they don't have the warranty, but I don't think I'll need it if I don't OC and because I have like 4 fans in my case and I'm not like living in a hot florida home. New with 3 year warranty is like $340. I think I'll chance the no warranty version for $260 new sealed.
 
Last edited:

jasonlylevene

Member
Joined
May 4, 2002
Location
Florida
Ok, blahcomp222, you've already got some good advice - I'm going to amplify.

I have an ASRock Extreme6 (overkill for your interests). I've had ASRock boards going back years now. One $60 board lasted 7 years doing 24/7 without maybe a day off once or twice a year - and it had no solid caps. It gave up, finally, after a GTA V binge my son put it through before I noticed lint had completely clogged the HSF. An $80 ASRock ran 24/7 for 5 years, and is still in service (replaced the $60 version when it quit).

Some will knock ASRock, but then some have unkind words for ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI....but the fact is ASRock has the value/performance market. It's tough to find a board to match the price with similar features, and I can't find real, tangible reasons to favor any of these boards. I was once an MSI fan (circa 2002), but at this point they're last on my list (they have some great exceptions).

The Extreme3 suggested (though I haven't had one of those) is a great choice.

Locked Xeons, or even the non-K versions of 1150 chips would be in line with your goals. Many of the free video products/encoders seem to assume 4 cores/threads, so HT may SEEM inapplicable, but...

You CAN run two instances at once with many such applications, where HT has some benefit to you. Aside from that, HT gives you availability for other tasks while video processes continue in the background. Unless the budget gets really tight, favor an HT version.

RAM can usually be purchased at the lowest price for the parameters you require without much regard for a specific brand/model. There are a few "don't buy" options, like white label (no brand) and certain "too good to be real" bargains. If 16 Gbytes is under $115 US as of Feb, 2015, it's probably not real. It could be the wrong RAM, like overstock registered ECC RAM that's not applicable to most 1150 boards.

You'll get a lot of warnings about brands, but there are only a few RAM chip makers in the world, and most sticks are fair at stock speeds - it's fair to stick with known brand names, but don't fall into paying high dollar for brand names because they're suggested. I've had AData and Transcend sticks, without any decorative heat spreaders, run for years (like 10 years) without incident.

I can't argue against the Ripjaws suggested thus far, but I loathe tall heatsinks. I actually avoid heatspreaders on RAM entirely if the price is better (and I've never had a reason to regret that), but my last purchase was G.Skill Ares series, with short, red heatspreaders that look great (and were on sale with rebate at the time) - excellent results.

There are RAM favorites, especially for overclockers, but for stock speeds you just need to focus on a few things (aside from being DDR3 for a DDR3 board, non ECC)...

First, prefer 1.5v. Higher performance RAM may be rated for higher than 1.5v, and that usually works out ok, but the standard spec is 1.5v and it means the speed ratings are....shall we say more native? Anyway, prefer 1.5v over higher voltages.

Anything over 1600 is overkill for your requirements - but sometimes deals come up where 1866 or even 2400 is on sale. As of today, it seems that 1333 and 1600 are within $1 (or $0). Both will work fine, and you will not notice any real time performance difference, and you may not even notice benchmark differences except in very rare cases.

There is a catch, and it's the other parameter that matters most in RAM. CAS (sometimes called CL). It's the first number in the timing sequence. Consider these two specs:

1333 9-9-9-24
1600 11-11-11-28

These are RAM timings for two different sticks of 8Gbyte chips (1). The "double" clock speed is the first number (you probably know), CAS (or CL) is the first number in the collection of 4 timings (all 2 digit or less).

It's better to have lower CAS. This represents the time it takes for RAM to point to a completely new address. The other timings are of limited importance (except to RAM overclockers). However, if any RAM parameter is going to matter at all in your selection, it's CAS.

Here's where it gets confusing: CAS is related to the RAM clock speed.

In reality, CAS is a REAL TIME delay. That is, there is a WALL CLOCK amount of time the circuits require in order to do their work no matter what clock speed is selected, and they can't easily go faster. If you buy RAM rated for, say, 2400 on a special sale, the CAS listed is relative to the 2400 speed.

Let's say you found a sale on 2400 11-11-11-28 RAM

If you ran the 2400 RAM at 1600, which it will do fine, the CAS would be set lower than 11 (likely 9, could be 8 - I'll check in a moment). This is not overclocking, it happens to be correct stock because this is a REAL TIME variable, relative to the RAM's operating speed.

In other words, comparing the CAS speed of, say, 1333 RAM (commonly 9) to the CAS speed of, say, 2400 RAM (commonly 11) does not mean the CAS of 11 is actually slower...because it's RELATIVE to the clock speed.

Here's how:

2400 RAM would be clocked at 1200 (it's doubled)...the CAS is set as a count of those 1200 ticks...so let's say that's as CAS of 11 (typical for 2400 RAM).

At 1200 million ticks per second, one tick takes 0.00000000083333333333 of a second, or 0.833 nanoseconds. (it's 1/1200 million).

11 of those is about 9.1667 nanoseconds of real time.


Now, let's say you ran that RAM at 1600. That's clocked at 800Mhz, which means each tick is 0.00000000125000000000 of a second, or about 1.25 nanoseconds.

8 * 1.25 = 10....or 10 nanoseconds of real time.

Notice that's actually longer than the 9.1667 calculated for the 2400 @ CAS of 11?

This means that 2400 RAM of CAS 11 would commonly run at CAS of 8 if you operated at 1600 Mhz.

You'll notice that most 1600 RAM is sold with CAS of 9, and 11 is also common (much slower, longer CAS than this 2400 would be set).

Since CAS is an integer, you can't dial in really tight timings, but as long as you honor the rated real time delay (let it take what real time the RAM requires), running higher speed RAM at a slower setting can offer, frequently, the benefit of tighter CAS timings WITHOUT overclocking anything.

1333 and 1600 are close matches, but usually 1600 CAS 9 can run at CAS 8 when clocked at 1333.

It also happens to be that 1600 with CAS 11 can't usually run at CAS 9 when clocked at 1333...it usually has to be 10, because if you repeat the math above you'd find that for 1600, CAS of 11 relates to 13.75 ns, where as at 1333 CAS of 9 would be 13.5 ... a little faster than the rating, so it has to be a 10.

Why do I state that?

Well, if you pay for 1600 CAS 11 (which is a bargain speed), but ran it at 1333 CAS of 10 to be complaint, the actually time of your delay would be 15 ns.

That RAM could run at 13.75ns, but if you're underclocking it to 1333 your only choices are CAS of 11 = 16.5ns, CAS of 10 = 15 ns, or the CAS of 9 which is too fast at 13.5 ns.

This math applies to 1866 you might run at 1600.

Let's say you find a bargain 1866 of CAS 9 on sale. That RAM can run CAS at 9.64630 ns, which is much faster than the 1600 CAS 11 we just examined.

Let's say you run that at 1600 (you're not overclocking your board remember, 1866 is an overclock speed).

So, at 1600 your options are....CAS 9 = 11.25 ns, CAS 8 = 10 ns, CAS 7 = 8.75 ns....and CAS 7 is too fast for that 1866 RAM, so CAS 9 = 10 ns is your best STOCK SPEED choice.


When I search for RAM, I setup a spreadsheet that does this math, look for the bargains, and judge how I might actually run that RAM. I don't overclock RAM (it's a waste to bother really)...but I do want the best CAS performance for my purchase, and because CAS is an integer, there are odd alignments sometimes, and they can be deceiving.

To realize that a 1600 CAS 9 might actually operate faster than a downclocked 1866 CAS 11 may automatically make sense to you.

To realize that a 2400 CAS 11 downclocked to 1600 would run FASTER for you than a stock 1600 CAS 9 may not automatically make sense to you, but it's true.

RAM prices, sales, deals...they move so fast that making a recommendation is tough (you could miss a deal).

Especially for a target where RAM is not to be overclocked, knowing this bit of math can help you find a real bargain...or avoid overpaying for something that offers little or no real benefit.

Real world CAS differences of more than 1.25 nanoseconds is tangible performance gains.


......and once again I've gone on until everyone is asleep, right?

right....
 
Last edited:
OP
B

blahcomp222

Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
damn, thanks for that RAM breakdown but I was just going to ask like 'what 16GB RAM should I get that's good and cheap?" But hopefully whoever suggest it can take something from your explanations.

I'm %99 set on waiting for another new, sealed (but without 3 year warranty) intel i7-4790k to pop up on ebay for around $260. I'll run it with the stock fan and heatsink compound and never OC it. If I do ever OC, I will upgrade to a water cooler or something and ask a forum to make sure my PSU along with everything else is to par.

DAW Digital Audio Work station stuff does use a lot of HyperThreading, that's sort of why I originally was going to get an AMD 8350 or 9590 but that idea just sort of faded away, nothing against AMD even though the 9590 runs hot as hell and can actually raise your electric bill with the adequate PSU.

So I'm looking for now is the mobo and the RAM 16gb to fit the 4790K, whatever does the job for a good price but aint cheap and gonna crap out or anything. These parts I might just buy used off ebay.
 

jasonlylevene

Member
Joined
May 4, 2002
Location
Florida
Lately, on new RAM, newegg has been about the best price source.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f31600c9d16gxm

Which is the same Ripjaws suggested above is about right at $117

Other options are only $1 or 2 cheaper, but slower CAS (and clock speeds), so that's the price point leader today.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f31333c9d16gao

That's the G.Skill Ares I recently purchased...it's the same speed as the Ripjaws, just with low profile heatsink. That's the low profile price leader today at CAS of 9 in 1600 speed.

Last month I got a deal on that Ares with rebate that made them $105. I was in preference for a 2400 CAS 11 only a few days earlier at $127, but the deal expired before I could place the order (turned into $160).

For $122 there's a 2133 at CAS 11

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/kingston-memory-hx321c11srk216

Not bad, but at $126

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f32400c11d16gxm

There's a 2400 at 11

These last few are relative to the long winded discussion I posted, and are today's lowest price options in that regard.

Tomorrow, they'll likely shift (it's that fast a change).

Note: some of those latter options MIGHT be 1.65v RAM....that's usually ok, I think the Extreme3 can handle that easily...just noting.
 
Last edited:

Theocnoob

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Location
Near Toronto Canada
Ok, blahcomp222, you've already got some good advice - I'm going to amplify.

I have an ASRock Extreme6 (overkill for your interests). I've had ASRock boards going back years now. One $60 board lasted 7 years doing 24/7 without maybe a day off once or twice a year - and it had no solid caps. It gave up, finally, after a GTA V binge my son put it through before I noticed lint had completely clogged the HSF. An $80 ASRock ran 24/7 for 5 years, and is still in service (replaced the $60 version when it quit).

Some will knock ASRock, but then some have unkind words for ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI....but the fact is ASRock has the value/performance market. It's tough to find a board to match the price with similar features, and I can't find real, tangible reasons to favor any of these boards. I was once an MSI fan (circa 2002), but at this point they're last on my list (they have some great exceptions).

The Extreme3 suggested (though I haven't had one of those) is a great choice.

Locked Xeons, or even the non-K versions of 1150 chips would be in line with your goals. Many of the free video products/encoders seem to assume 4 cores/threads, so HT may SEEM inapplicable, but...

You CAN run two instances at once with many such applications, where HT has some benefit to you. Aside from that, HT gives you availability for other tasks while video processes continue in the background. Unless the budget gets really tight, favor an HT version.

RAM can usually be purchased at the lowest price for the parameters you require without much regard for a specific brand/model. There are a few "don't buy" options, like white label (no brand) and certain "too good to be real" bargains. If 16 Gbytes is under $115 US as of Feb, 2015, it's probably not real. It could be the wrong RAM, like overstock registered ECC RAM that's not applicable to most 1150 boards.

You'll get a lot of warnings about brands, but there are only a few RAM chip makers in the world, and most sticks are fair at stock speeds - it's fair to stick with known brand names, but don't fall into paying high dollar for brand names because they're suggested. I've had AData and Transcend sticks, without any decorative heat spreaders, run for years (like 10 years) without incident.

I can't argue against the Ripjaws suggested thus far, but I loathe tall heatsinks. I actually avoid heatspreaders on RAM entirely if the price is better (and I've never had a reason to regret that), but my last purchase was G.Skill Ares series, with short, red heatspreaders that look great (and were on sale with rebate at the time) - excellent results.

There are RAM favorites, especially for overclockers, but for stock speeds you just need to focus on a few things (aside from being DDR3 for a DDR3 board, non ECC)...

First, prefer 1.5v. Higher performance RAM may be rated for higher than 1.5v, and that usually works out ok, but the standard spec is 1.5v and it means the speed ratings are....shall we say more native? Anyway, prefer 1.5v over higher voltages.

Anything over 1600 is overkill for your requirements - but sometimes deals come up where 1866 or even 2400 is on sale. As of today, it seems that 1333 and 1600 are within $1 (or $0). Both will work fine, and you will not notice any real time performance difference, and you may not even notice benchmark differences except in very rare cases.

There is a catch, and it's the other parameter that matters most in RAM. CAS (sometimes called CL). It's the first number in the timing sequence. Consider these two specs:

1333 9-9-9-24
1600 11-11-11-28

These are RAM timings for two different sticks of 8Gbyte chips (1). The "double" clock speed is the first number (you probably know), CAS (or CL) is the first number in the collection of 4 timings (all 2 digit or less).

It's better to have lower CAS. This represents the time it takes for RAM to point to a completely new address. The other timings are of limited importance (except to RAM overclockers). However, if any RAM parameter is going to matter at all in your selection, it's CAS.

Here's where it gets confusing: CAS is related to the RAM clock speed.

In reality, CAS is a REAL TIME delay. That is, there is a WALL CLOCK amount of time the circuits require in order to do their work no matter what clock speed is selected, and they can't easily go faster. If you buy RAM rated for, say, 2400 on a special sale, the CAS listed is relative to the 2400 speed.

Let's say you found a sale on 2400 11-11-11-28 RAM

If you ran the 2400 RAM at 1600, which it will do fine, the CAS would be set lower than 11 (likely 9, could be 8 - I'll check in a moment). This is not overclocking, it happens to be correct stock because this is a REAL TIME variable, relative to the RAM's operating speed.

In other words, comparing the CAS speed of, say, 1333 RAM (commonly 9) to the CAS speed of, say, 2400 RAM (commonly 11) does not mean the CAS of 11 is actually slower...because it's RELATIVE to the clock speed.

Here's how:

2400 RAM would be clocked at 1200 (it's doubled)...the CAS is set as a count of those 1200 ticks...so let's say that's as CAS of 11 (typical for 2400 RAM).

At 1200 million ticks per second, one tick takes 0.00000000083333333333 of a second, or 0.833 nanoseconds. (it's 1/1200 million).

11 of those is about 9.1667 nanoseconds of real time.


Now, let's say you ran that RAM at 1600. That's clocked at 800Mhz, which means each tick is 0.00000000125000000000 of a second, or about 1.25 nanoseconds.

8 * 1.25 = 10....or 10 nanoseconds of real time.

Notice that's actually longer than the 9.1667 calculated for the 2400 @ CAS of 11?

This means that 2400 RAM of CAS 11 would commonly run at CAS of 8 if you operated at 1600 Mhz.

You'll notice that most 1600 RAM is sold with CAS of 9, and 11 is also common (much slower, longer CAS than this 2400 would be set).

Since CAS is an integer, you can't dial in really tight timings, but as long as you honor the rated real time delay (let it take what real time the RAM requires), running higher speed RAM at a slower setting can offer, frequently, the benefit of tighter CAS timings WITHOUT overclocking anything.

1333 and 1600 are close matches, but usually 1600 CAS 9 can run at CAS 8 when clocked at 1333.

It also happens to be that 1600 with CAS 11 can't usually run at CAS 9 when clocked at 1333...it usually has to be 10, because if you repeat the math above you'd find that for 1600, CAS of 11 relates to 13.75 ns, where as at 1333 CAS of 9 would be 13.5 ... a little faster than the rating, so it has to be a 10.

Why do I state that?

Well, if you pay for 1600 CAS 11 (which is a bargain speed), but ran it at 1333 CAS of 10 to be complaint, the actually time of your delay would be 15 ns.

That RAM could run at 13.75ns, but if you're underclocking it to 1333 your only choices are CAS of 11 = 16.5ns, CAS of 10 = 15 ns, or the CAS of 9 which is too fast at 13.5 ns.

This math applies to 1866 you might run at 1600.

Let's say you find a bargain 1866 of CAS 9 on sale. That RAM can run CAS at 9.64630 ns, which is much faster than the 1600 CAS 11 we just examined.

Let's say you run that at 1600 (you're not overclocking your board remember, 1866 is an overclock speed).

So, at 1600 your options are....CAS 9 = 11.25 ns, CAS 8 = 10 ns, CAS 7 = 8.75 ns....and CAS 7 is too fast for that 1866 RAM, so CAS 9 = 10 ns is your best STOCK SPEED choice.


When I search for RAM, I setup a spreadsheet that does this math, look for the bargains, and judge how I might actually run that RAM. I don't overclock RAM (it's a waste to bother really)...but I do want the best CAS performance for my purchase, and because CAS is an integer, there are odd alignments sometimes, and they can be deceiving.

To realize that a 1600 CAS 9 might actually operate faster than a downclocked 1866 CAS 11 may automatically make sense to you.

To realize that a 2400 CAS 11 downclocked to 1600 would run FASTER for you than a stock 1600 CAS 9 may not automatically make sense to you, but it's true.

RAM prices, sales, deals...they move so fast that making a recommendation is tough (you could miss a deal).

Especially for a target where RAM is not to be overclocked, knowing this bit of math can help you find a real bargain...or avoid overpaying for something that offers little or no real benefit.

Real world CAS differences of more than 1.25 nanoseconds is tangible performance gains.


......and once again I've gone on until everyone is asleep, right?

right....

You're going to frighten the poor guy right off of building his own computer. He doesn't need to know all that. We can just suggest a ram KIT to him and let him have at it. :p
 

Theocnoob

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Location
Near Toronto Canada

Theocnoob

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Location
Near Toronto Canada
Sorry guys, didn't mean to offend.

My bad.

You didn't offend anybody. You're the most knowledgeable and helpful person I've probably ever seen on this forum. You know 100x more than I do that's for sure. I just have noticed that when you're helping somebody who is relatively new to the whole concept of what he's getting into, getting super technical can scare people away. It's sort of like throwing a toddler in the deep end of a swimming pool versus carrying them slowly into the shallow end with those water wings on. Please keep being yourself. I didn't mean to offend you.
I'm just saying, it's unnecessary information for this person at this point. Marty didn't need to know how the DeLorean worked for it to get him back to 1955. He just had to get it up to 88MPH.

I still think the mods should blue you. You deserve to be blue. I guarantee you that if you start showing up every day and making your presence felt they will blue you. And possibly even green you, should you be interested.