is my ram running at the right speed?

[socrgy9]

holy crap dude! thanks for that article! i had no idea about the memory controllers. i've been running these 1600 ram sticks since i built the system 3 years ago. although, i did have 2 x 2gb sticks of 1066 in with the 2x4gb sticks of 1600 up until about 1 month ago. thats when my buddy showed me why the ram was running slower than it could and so i took the 2 slower sticks out. but since around that time my computer seems to have been acting up. i'm actually in the middle of posting a BSOD crash thread right now. had the first actual blue screen only moments ago.

thanks! great article.

 

[carwiz]

First of all on an AMD system the really doesn't have anything to do with the max speed of supported ram as the memory controller (also known as an IMC) is built into the CPU and not on the motherboard (same applies to recent Intel CPU's). The motherboard's memory support pretty much ends at which type it supports (most are DDR3 now), and what settings the motherboard manufacturer includes in the bios. That is how they say that it supports all those speeds over 1333 MHz.

Seeing as you do happen to have an AMD based system, might want to give this a read,

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING AMD AM3 CPU's and RAM SPEEDS

before worrying too much about getting faster ram. The motherboard manufacturers can say whatever they want with regards to supported ram speeds, as long as it supports up to 1333 MHz AMD spec. If the IMC on the CPU won't run it at those speeds (above 1333 MHz), then it doesn't matter what the motherboards makers say.

Good info!
Another reason for making AMD processors good dumpster candidates.

 

[socrgy9]

ok so i went into the bios and dropped the dram freq to 1333, i also stepped up the timings from 10-10-10-28 to 9-9-9-24 and it seems to be running fine. u think running at 1600 could have damaged my processor in the past month?

 

[Raillex]

I've been running four 2GB sticks of Kingston HyperX at 1600MHz with 8-8-8-26 timings on my Phenom II X4 975 machine since last April, and haven't had any problems. The IMC on my chip can cope with speeds up to around 1866 MHz, so I've left plenty of headroom with my current setting.

You're only running two sticks instead of my four, and I seriously doubt you've hurt your IMC.

Edit: I forgot to mention that only some Phenom IIs are capable of running 1600MHz and higher, and those are the newer C3 steppings. Both CPU-Z and Aida report Phenom II stepping information.

 

[socrgy9]

yea i think when i bought my 965 BE it was before the new C3 steppings came out.

edit: of course i could be wrong. i downloaded that program you were using in your pics...AIDA64 extreme edition and maybe i do have the new C3 stepping.

 

[Raillex]

yea i think when i bought my 965 BE it was before the new C3 steppings came out.

edit: of course i could be wrong. i downloaded that program you were using in your pics...AIDA64 extreme edition and maybe i do have the new C3 stepping.

Yes, you do. Both programs show you've got a Revision RB-C3 stepping.

 

[socrgy9]

hmm, so my cpu should be fine with the ram @ 1600 like yours is?

 

[stormy13]

Everything you ever wanted to know about that particular motherboard (941 pages so far),

[Official] MSI 790FX-GD70 Owners Club

One reason that it isn't running stable with the memory is that you likely have the CPU-NB Voltage set to auto, which is the voltage for the memory controller. Right in the first post is what you are looking for,

Q: "Why wont my RAM work at its rated specs?"
A: Each set is different, but anything over 1333 is an overclock for the IMC. Also most RAM manufactures give a range of voltages(ex. 1.5-1.7) make sure to try manually setting your voltage to the higher of the two. Another thing, you may have to bump the CPU-NB volts to 1.3 or so depending on your exact setup. (let us know what is going on and we will try to help!)

Instead of auto set it manually to 1.3V, and then try the ram at 1600 MHz again. If it still isn't stable then bump it up by .25 and try again.

 

[fseal]

I feel I have to reiterate what essenbe said some time back.

"You won't notice a difference"

Really, you won't. Absolutely nothing will may any noticeable difference in any way between 1033 or 1600 or 2000. NOTHING AT ALL.

Having more ram rather than less ram will make potentially huge differences regardless of ram speed. An SSD will make your entire machine /feel/ 10x faster (though of course game frame rates will remain unchanged, but then your memory speed wont help with that either). A new video card can double frame rates, Overclocking your CPU can att a few % if you want to live on the edge. But memory bus speed? Keep it synced with processor and running at stock speeds for lowest wait states and cool and reliable performance. You DON'T want to mess with flaky memory settings or your entire system will dump and there is nothing at all to be gained from it.

Just get your system STABLE and stop worrying about memory speed. It's 100% all advertising gimmick. Get good ram, vetted for your motherboard, run it at stock speeds/Voltage and multiplier for the motherboard and compute happy.

 

[essenbe]

To reiterate what fseal said, I have run this computer with 1600, 1866 and 2133 ram. I can not tell a difference in any of them. If you were to sneak in and change the ram, I would never know unless I ran a benchmark, which is the only way you will be able to tell.

 

[Raillex]

I agree with the other posters on whether running DDR3 RAM at higher frequencies makes that much of a difference. It doesn't, and this has been demonstrated by reviewers on several reputable websites. I think you'll get a lot more bang for your overclocking buck by raising your CPU multilplier on that Black Edition chip than focusing on the RAM.

Having said that, I'm running my four 2GB sticks @ 1600MHz with CPU/NB voltage set at 1.22v and RAM voltage at 1.65v. Hard to say whether those setting will let you run two 4GB sticks stably on your board using your chip. You'll have to experiment to find out.

 

[socrgy9]

hmm, i guess i thought there would be a noticeable difference. guess ill just set it and leave it. thanks to all for all the info!

 

[sreedhav]

If you were to install 2 sticks of DDR3-1333 they would run at 667, 2 stciks of DDR3- 2133 would run at 1066, 2 sticks of DDR3-1866 would run at 933. Again, DDR is Double data rate and the sticks are in dual chanel mode as they should be. Yes, you could probably overclock them, But, I would strongly advise against trying it unless you understand exactly what you are doing. One slight mistake and your computer will BSOD and cause all kind of trouble. It would also depend on the quality of the ram as Profdlp said.

Dear essenbe,
I am quoting a relevant part of your's here "Again, DDR is Double data rate and the sticks are in dual chanel mode as they should be." Unquote.

The Threadstarter's first post shows in his Speccy thumbnail : Channel#: Dual

Now, kindly view and comment on my Speccy thumbnail which shows Channel#: Single. Please see my specs. if needed.

regards and thank you,
sreedhav

 

[profdlp]

Dual-Channel is not the same as Double Data Rate. The one stick of RAM you have is running at 1333 (665 X 2 = ~1333). If you added a matching stick you would have Dual-Channel.

You can read about Dual-Channel here: Multi-channel memory architecture

 

[sreedhav]

Dual-Channel is not the same as Double Data Rate. The one stick of RAM you have is running at 1333 (665 X 2 = ~1333). If you added a matching stick you would have Dual-Channel.

You can read about Dual-Channel here: Multi-channel memory architecture

Thanks for the reply! A rep is winging your way!

regards,
sreedhav

 

[essenbe]

Dual-Channel is not the same as Double Data Rate. The one stick of RAM you have is running at 1333 (665 X 2 = ~1333). If you added a matching stick you would have Dual-Channel.

You can read about Dual-Channel here: Multi-channel memory architecture

Thanks Prof, You're just faster than me.

 

[socrgy9]

i found this while browsing/researching: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition - HDZ965FBK4DGM (HDZ965FBGMBOX)

check out the supported memory down towards the bottom...
"Notes on AMD HDZ965FBK4DGM
The processor has unlocked clock multiplier
The fastest supported memory is DDR2-1066 and DDR3-1333"

any ideas? i guess a better thread title now would be "what should my ram speed be?"

 

[essenbe]

Read post #13. All AMD boards without the Bulldozer chips and chipsets on the motherboard have a memory standard of DDR3-1333. If you run it faster than that, you are overclocking the memory. The memory controller is in the chip and the only way to run it at a higher speed is to overclock it.

 

[socrgy9]

I've been running four 2GB sticks of Kingston HyperX at 1600MHz with 8-8-8-26 timings on my Phenom II X4 975 machine since last April, and haven't had any problems. The IMC on my chip can cope with speeds up to around 1866 MHz, so I've left plenty of headroom with my current setting.

You're only running two sticks instead of my four, and I seriously doubt you've hurt your IMC.

Edit: I forgot to mention that only some Phenom IIs are capable of running 1600MHz and higher, and those are the newer C3 steppings. Both CPU-Z and Aida report Phenom II stepping information.

here is what i was referencing. raillex mentions that some phenom IIs can handle higher memory speeds. i found this link: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition - HDZ965FBK4DGM (HDZ965FBGMBOX)

what does it matter if my processor's "fastest supported memory" is DDR3-1333 as opposed to the motherboard? basically, if i run it faster because the motherboard can, what does that mean for the processor that supports a slower speed?

or is the info in the link i found wrong? can the cpu handle faster? and/or where's the documenting proof that it can?

 

[profdlp]

...what does it matter if my processor's "fastest supported memory" is DDR3-1333 as opposed to the motherboard? basically, if i run it faster because the motherboard can, what does that mean for the processor that supports a slower speed?

If the memory controller is built into the motherboard then the motherboard is the limiting factor. If the memory controller is built into the CPU then the CPU is the limiting factor.

Think of it like the difference between driving an automatic transmission car and driving a stick. For two cars with similar engines your top speed down a drag strip is still dependent on switching gears fast enough - it's just a question of who or what is doing it.

or is the info in the link i found wrong? can the cpu handle faster? and/or where's the documenting proof that it can?

The word "can" in that sentence is where the real question lies. By definition, overclocking is the process of making a computer run faster than it's rated speed. "Can" a computer do that? Sure. But it depends on the individual components involved. AMD is telling you that the memory controller built into the CPU is rated at a max of 1333. What it's rated at and what it can actually do may be two different things. There seems to be a good body of evidence to suggest that a lot of people are squeezing more out of CPU-based memory controller such as yours. Whether you can do it or not is unknown and can only really be answered by trying it.