What RAM should I get?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TNA
  • Start date Start date

TNA

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
31,067
Location
London
From what I can tell so far my RAM is dying. So I am looking for 4gb on two sticks.

My mobo is the Asus P5K-E WIFI-AP. Looking at the QVL, I cant find any 2gb (per stick) memory on it. But it does say it supports 8gb of RAM so it has to use 2gb. Any ideas about this? Anyone got this mobo and using 4gb ram with 2 sticks?

Any recommendations on ram would be great.


I am currently looking at these babies:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...orsair 4GB DDR2 XMS2 PC2-6400C5 TwinX (2x2GB)

I am also considering these:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...l Channel Platinum Series DDR2 (OCZ2P10664GK)


Does anyone know if there is a big difference from 1066Mhz running at 5-5-5-18 to 800MHz running on 4-4-4-12? or even 800MHz running on 5-5-5-18?

Going from my XMS2 4 sticks of 1gb, to the OCZ which is what is in my system now for testing, I noticed 3-4C increase in case temp. The only difference is the my Corsair sticks ran on 2.1v and these run on 2.2v. But even on 1.8v they were still hotter than my Corsair RAM. Any ideas on this?

I am think, might as well go for the Corsair ones which run on 1.8v and is 5-5-5-18 as I wont see much, if any gains by going for faster memory, and these will run cooler. Also some people don't recommend OCZ memory for this mobo. But my cousin been running them for as long as I had my ones, and my ones died first :(
 
If you're running your Q6600 at 400x9 then the Corsair will be grand. PC2-8500 would be pointless tbh.
 
I have been using 9x400 for the past year or so, but will be going up to 9x425 when I get my new ram. I know its stable because its gone through stability tests and works nicely on air. I just needed to bump the v-core from 1.425 to 1.45 and enable load line calibration.

As far as i know 1.45 should be a safe voltage to run at on 24/7 used system. Also 2 sticks vs 4 will help a bit I think.

I wont bother with the magic 4GHz though, as I don't think it will happen. I tried it before and it goes to windows, but wont pass any stability tests. Plus you need 1.5v+ which is not a good idea for 24/7 operation on air.

Any other recommendation lads?
 
Last edited:
Just ordered it. Free delivery too. For £36.79 I think is an excellent price for that RAM :)
 
lol. I found that after what you said. I did not get a chance to read it yet properly though. From what I can see it does not overclock much. But will it do 5-5-5-18 @ 850MHz with 1.9v or 2v?

Thats all i need it to do really :)
 
I ordered the Corsair as well, they should be here tomorrow.
They don't fair that well in those tests but hopefully they will be more
stable and spend more time in my pc than in the post as my ballistix. The
fail rate of these ballistix is incredible.:confused:
 
But all those tests show is it wont overclock much. But if you was planing to overclock a lot I am sure you would have went for a 1066MHz memory.

But from the research I have done it will do 5-5-5-18 850MHz @ 1.9v or at most 2.0v.

The only reason I want it to go to 850MHz is so I can go to 3825MHz on my Q6600 and keep memory and CPU 1:1

What would you guys recommend? I should run that setting on 2.0v instead of 1.9v? Will the 50MHz OC need the extra voltage?
 
I don't rate it, the same Series but the 4:4:4:12 model will run 1000mhz no problem.

I have had it on AMD rigs at 4:4:4:12 2T 1000mhz or 4:4:4:12 1T 800mh both @ 2.1v

I have not got that on an Intel but 4:4:4:4 800mhz or 5:5:5:15 1000mhz both @ 2.1v

IMO its 5:5:5:15 for a reason (fails tests to be 4:4:4:12 part).
 
helmutcheese said:
I don't rate it, the same Series but the 4:4:4:12 model will run 1000mhz no problem.

I have had it on AMD rigs at 4:4:4:12 2T 1000mhz or 4:4:4:12 1T 800mh both @ 2.1v

I have not got that on an Intel but 4:4:4:4 800mhz or 5:5:5:15 1000mhz both @ 2.1v

IMO its 5:5:5:15 for a reason (fails tests to be 4:4:4:12 part).
Click to expand...

And what kind of performance benefit will running it at 4-4-4-12 yield? Will I get more more fps in games? From my experience, I think not. I mean should I pay 100% more for a mare 1% performance increase?

You don't rate it because its not the best, but for price for performance I rate it very high! For what it is, its a great price, for a overclocker looking to squeeze that extra percent or two its not. If you want to overclock just go buy a 1066MHz ram, but those will cost you a hell of a lot more. If I knew I would get 2-3 frames extra in games or my system would be more responsive, then I would pay the extra, but it wont.
 
Your asking a question like another peep in another thread !

I cannot answer that but there is different spec's for a reason not for sake of it, it may be a few % but a few % in PC terms is a lot.

Again they are binned C5 because IMO they fail C4 so OC crap like review shows, I would not even hope to get 1066mhz out of any 800mhz Ram but the timings would be lower at up to 1000mhz for me to be happy.

Infact I only now use XMS for basic customer builds as its so cheap, that normal stuff used to cost £142 back in March 2007 for 2GB (2x1GB)

If you want to look at it your way, then buy that crap Kingston at 7:7:7:20. :p
 
Last edited:
All I am saying is that there is not a big difference from C5 to C4 from what I can see in reviews. So why pay the extra £20-30 for C4 version? Keep in mind I paid extra £15 a few years ago when I went for my first XMS2 ram to get the C4 over the C5, thinking there would be a big difference, but not really. The difference back then was the £15 was on top of the price of £130 from what I recall. Curently however C4 version is nearly double the cost of C5. See what I am saying? If all I will ever go up to is 850MHz which these will happily do. So why pay for something I wont use?

As I said before. If there was a difference in performance I would go buy 1066MHz memory and overclock them. But once you go past a certain point, the performance gain is just not there with the c2d architecture.

If you want to look at it your way, it sounds like your saying don't buy the 260 GTX because they are binned 260 GTX's because they fail to be 280 GTX's. lol. Well yeah... But the difference being there is actually a noticeable difference in performance from the 260 to the 280. Now show me that on memory from C5 to C4 ;)
 
Last edited:
Why ?, because its faster, and again if there was no real difference it would not be manufactured., its not all a con you know. ;)

Again if it is failed C4 is will always not clock as high IMO.

Changing the topic to GPU's is not going to change that.

Actually many GPU Cores are failed Cores from above models (I dont know about the current GTX though), the exact same for CPU's.

Do you think they sample throw them out, AMD make them into Tri-Cores. ;)

I gave my input/opinion (that's all it is) as I have owned lots of the normal C4 and lots of the XMS C4, even back 3 years ago I always paid the tad higher for C4.

There is nothing wrong with the performance of a C2D, you think you would even reach a FSB to match 1:1 of 1066mhz with your Mobo or CPU ?

Even though Timings gain more on AMD CPU's its still better IMO to have 800mhz 4:4:4:12 than 800mhz 5:5:5:15 or 18.
 
Last edited:
Not to sound like I am arguing here, and I do appreciate your input. But I think you are missing the point I am trying to make here. I am not saying 4-4-4-12 is not faster than 5-5-5-18. I am saying the price for performance is not there.

I am not changing the topic to GPU or anything else, I used that to give you an example of what I am try explain to you regarding the memory. Just like you went on to do the same about AMD's cpu's which I already know about ;)

As for what your saying about if there was not a difference it would not be manufactured. True. There is a difference, just a very very small one in this case. But there are people out there that will pay crazy money for that extra performance, however small it is. And trust me, if people pay, the companies will make it.

All one needs to do is put them selves in my position and you would get what I am saying. I have had this setup for over a year, its not new and cutting edge anymore, why go ott on spending on it? Why go pay 50% extra for performance i wont even notice?

Just show me real world benefits of going C4 and I will go sell these and pay the extra and buy the faster ram. But from what I gather the word on the street is that there is no noticeable difference ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom