Get RAM to correct HZ

-fedexer- · 31 Oct 2010 at 20:56

Hi guys, i've been trying to get my Corsair XMS3 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-16000C9 2000MHz ram to 2000MHz, as currently they are being picked up at 1000MHz in the bios.

I have attempted to change the QPI/VDIMM core voltage to 1.65v as stated, but this resulted in my computer failing to boot and a message stating overclock failed to be displayed. I'm using the Asus P6X58D-E Intel X58 mobo, am i altering the incorrect setting in the bios?

I seem to be at a loss here :S

Hopefully someone can help,

-fedexer-

ShakeNBake · 31 Oct 2010 at 21:59

they are usually displayed at half the actual MHz in CPU-z, but shouldn't be like that in the bios.
maybe it is something to do with your cpu. the fsb or base clock speed needs to be in a certain ratio with the ram speed.

RJC · 31 Oct 2010 at 22:13

Adjust the DRAM bus Voltage to 1.65v ~ (page 3-15 in the manual) and manually adjust the DRAM frequency, this should be a multiplier setting.

Another option is to load the XMP profile.

1Day · 1 Nov 2010 at 11:29

Post a screenshot of CPU-z the memory tab. I wonder if your ram is running at the correct speed but because of how it is represented you might think it is not.

-fedexer- · 1 Nov 2010 at 18:23

Sorry i havent replied yet, been busy at uni, so i downloaded cpu-z and here's the result:

It would seem that it's running at 2000MHz from that picture?

- Which makes me wonder why the bios shows it at half of this? :S

Canar · 1 Nov 2010 at 18:26

to me that looks like you running at 1066mhz mem as it 533 x2

would help on other specs of your pc tho

RJC · 1 Nov 2010 at 18:29

Your running 1066mhz, check the BIOS for the XMP setting, this should load the setting correctly.

Liampope · 1 Nov 2010 at 18:37

What's your CPU running at?

If it's running at stock BCLK of 133MHz and you have mem multiplier x8, that would give your current RAM speed of 1066MHz. You need to get your mem multiplier up, but depending on what your mem multiplier options are, you still might not get anywhere near 2000MHz RAM without a big BCLK increase which in turn will overclock your CPU. My mobo, for example only goes up to x10 mem multiplier, so for me to get 2000MHz RAM I'd need 200 BCLK (200x10=2000). That would actually be fine for me as I have an i5 OC'd to 4GHz with 200 BCLK x 20 CPU multiplier, although as I only have 1600MHz RAM, I am using the x8 mem multiplier (200x8=1600). Your mobo may have a 12x mem multipler, which would mean you could get your 2000MHz RAM with a 166 BCLK, or even higher - not sure. What are your other settings as mentioned above?

-fedexer- · 1 Nov 2010 at 19:07

Right i attempted to enable the X.M.P profile, which indeed set the ram clock to 2006MHZ, however following this, the mobo's built in safety net failed to let me boot, as apparently the o.c had failed, aka the mobo doesn't like the x.m.p being set? :S

and the first page from cpu-z:

all settings are at stock as i've not risked o.cing yet, as i can't even get the ram set-up correctly >.<
So either stock or "auto" settings

momo56 · 1 Nov 2010 at 22:11

Enable the xmp and raise the the qpi to 1.45v and keep going up till you can sucessfully boot.

I think 2000mhz ram in general is just troublesome. I myself have 2000mhz dominator GT sticks. Had to RMA a set. At stock the qpi need to be at 1.4v and when the i7 920 overclocked to 4.2 ghz the qpi needs to be at 1.6v for me. My xmp profile had the qpi voltage at 1.25 which is near impossible for ram at 2000mhz.

momo56 · 1 Nov 2010 at 22:12

basically in my experience you even have to tweak the xmp settings as they arent fully right.

1Day · 1 Nov 2010 at 22:49

The thing to understand about XMP profiles is that they are assuming your CPU is able to do the same stuff as the CPU's they used for the testing. And that your motherboard is one of those that they tested on. Now not all CPU's are equal. Some will have a better BLK ceiling, others will have a great un-core, others will have a brilliant QPi frequency - and if you are really lucky you have a CPU that has all three. But there is no guarantee that you will have any. All you are guaranteed to get is a CPU that will run the specified speed (frequency) that is rated on the box. Most of the time you do have some overhead to play with. It is all down to luck of the draw.

The more you play around with your system the more you learn about your hardware. People here can help you sure, some will even give you a bunch of stetting s to try. But those settings are the settings that work on their system. They most probably will work for you. But since each system is unique, yes unique even with the same parts, there is no certainty that those settings will be the right ones for you. Play around. Learn about your kit and you will find out for yourself what the right settings are for you.

It is not as hard as you might think it is. Take your time and enjoy the ride. Ask questions and read stuff. But most of all try and find out what works on your set up.

Liampope · 1 Nov 2010 at 23:00

From, like, every thread about it, 2000MHz RAM seems to be a right pain in the bum! For the money and hassle is it really worth it? Anyone can point to any benchmarks - gaming preferably? Are you better off going for 'normal' 1600 with tight (C7) timings, or for the small performance gains are you just as well to stick to safe/cheap 1600C9?

-fedexer- · 2 Nov 2010 at 07:12

Yeah i'm starting to wonder the same tbh, is 2000MHz worth it, oh well... Yeah i'll start tweaking shortly 1Day, just going to get the next week at uni out of the way as i have tests, and then i might get some peace to sit back and start playing :eek:

1Day · 2 Nov 2010 at 10:36

Liampope said:
From, like, every thread about it, 2000MHz RAM seems to be a right pain in the bum! For the money and hassle is it really worth it? Anyone can point to any benchmarks - gaming preferably? Are you better off going for 'normal' 1600 with tight (C7) timings, or for the small performance gains are you just as well to stick to safe/cheap 1600C9?

Real world stuff you will be hard pressed to notice any difference. It is only when you benchmark that you really get all excited about a few MHz more or a tighter latency here or there. OK if you render graphics or some other media intensive stuff then your needs are for size rather than speed. A combination of both is great but very very expensive. So no it is not really worth it mate.