Soldato
kimandsally said:I'm far from an expert on ram so I don't know what could be the cause of that, but my initial thought would be that it could be pushing the ram too far that could be why it works on such a low value poor performing T Ref value, it could be giving the ram the breathing space it needs to function, the problem is that there are so many adjustments that can be made and probably interact with each other it makes it very difficult.
If I were you I would lower the ram using a divider then play with one setting at a time and see what you can improve, I must say though before you rely too much on bandwidth settings do the above test, I spent a week doing it and covered every scenario and my results were ? I'll not tell you as if you do it and the same happens to you as me then we can do some head scratching, as I said I don't want to give you a hint but it should be very obvious whats happening after about 15 mins or so.
I'll try & give that a try sometime & see what results I get. Although when that will be I don't know. As I've about had enough at the moment of trying to squeeze more out of my system.
Jimbo Mahoney said:YooEntSeenMeROYT - have you seen the various posts on here, XS and DFI Street regarding Tref?
I'm surprised 0016 was the most stable.
It is my belief that the commonly referred to table of values is incorrect and has been compiled from what various Windows programs interpret the Tref to be.
In actuality, what many people believe is true (including me) is the following:
e.g. @ 200 Mhz, one cycle is 5ns.
Ideally, the memory wants refreshing every 7.8us (generally speaking).
To get this 7.8us, you need to use the correct Tref value, which is 1560 cycles (1560 x 5 = 7800 ns = 7.8us).
Of course, there will always be exceptions...
If too low a Tref is used, the memory will be refreshed more often, leading to increased heat and stability problems, giving errors.
If too high a Tref is used, the memory won't be refreshed enough and risks losing data, again giving errors.
Another thing to try is swapping the sticks round. As you might imagine, one stick is probably slightly better than the other and it is known that the slot closer to the CPU will help the poorer stick keep up with the stronger one. (Trace lengths and signalling blah blah).
HTH?
I have seen those various posts mate.
Currently the most stability I've had with a Tref that doesn't slow performance down is Tref 3072. Managed to get Prime stable for just under 6 hours with that value. Interestingly I had to turn my voltage down from 2.7 to 2.6v to get better stability at 2.5,4,3,6
2.7v would give errors on Memtest for Windows.
I'll try your suggestions of 2064 & 2336 & see what I get. I don't know when that will be though. As I won't be able to get back in front of my PC for a few days.
However I think I did try those values before after reading your posts on the Xtreme forum & looking at that spreadsheet tool. However they may not have worked then due to using to high a voltage. As I've said above that my Gskill doesn't seem to like any voltage above 2.6v @ 280 FSB/HTT.
I may try upping my core voltage if Prime fails on a small sized FFT value (that fits in the CPU cache) as it#s only at 1.52v for 3079mhz at the moment
Cheers again for the suggestions guys.