FSB:Memory Ratio

MoodyMan · 2 Oct 2007 at 13:55

I've read a lot of threads which suggest that ideal ratio is 1:1.

I assume that this is the case because going with a lower rato (ie. memory running at lower speed than FSB) would result in a bottleneck.

Is this correct?

Cob · 2 Oct 2007 at 17:26

The only time you would run the memory slower than the FSB these days is with an nVidia Intel chipset if you have slowish memory, or with an older AMD 939 chipset.

Nowadays it's more of a case of whether you should run the memory faster than the FSB. The benefits of doing it are pretty small, but it does no harm if your memory can handle it.

Greenlizard0 · 2 Oct 2007 at 17:28

Hmm...I have wondered about this myself, my memory (DDR2 667MHz) is a lot older than my CPU (FSB 1000MHz). I had often wondered whether to sell my older ram and contribute the funds to a new faster 2GB pair.

Though saying that I have no idea whether AMD are going to be keeping the AM2 socket or not, or whether their true quad cores are going to have to be sat in something different.

Cob · 2 Oct 2007 at 17:31

The new AMD quad-cores will be backwards compatible with AM2, but they will lose some functionality that the new AM2+ socket will offer (HT 3.0 etc).

Greenlizard0 · 3 Oct 2007 at 19:25

Ok Thanks.

Can anybody help with my other question please?

Cob · 3 Oct 2007 at 19:33

Is it 2x1gb of DDR2 667MHz?

If so then there's no reason to upgrade on an AMD system. It's fast enough.

If it's 2x512mb or 1x1gb then yeah 2x1gb will make a difference.