Overclock G.Skill Ripjaws-X for 7.9 windows score?

Tempest

Tempest

Tempest

Associate
Joined
9 Jul 2011
Posts
18
First, yes, I know it does not matter, it's just for the sake of it.

I have some G.Skill Ripjaws-X memory with the following spec:

F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL
DDR3-1600
PC3-12800
CL9-9-9-24 1.5v

All running at stock speed, and giving me a windows experience score of 7.8

Now, I admit I know nothing about overclocking memory, or what numbers to change for the best result with the most chance of an improvement.

Are there any changes I can make to perhaps get my score from it's current 7.8 to the magic 7.9 result?

Many thanks :)
 
Just to add, yes, of course, I realise my score of 7.8 is nothing to be sniffed at.
I'm just not sure what would be needed to get that extra 0.1 from the score?

Much more expensive and faster RAM, though from what I've heard it makes pretty much no difference to a Sandy bridge system to have faster RAM anyway.

Wondered if there are any safe things in the CL9-9-9-24 numbers or the 1600 I could tweak a little without causing too much stress on anything?
 
You could go to the effort of doing all that but the difference you will notice would probably be minimal. I would say its not worth the hassle.
 
Tommyzz said:
You could go to the effort of doing all that but the difference you will notice would probably be minimal. I would say its not worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

Oh indeed, I fully understand that. :)

I just wondered if there were any small simple tweaks I could try to gain a little performance boost without straining anything?
 
!TIMMY! said:
My G Skill is running at 1600mhz, 8-8-8-24 timings and still gets 7.8 just for your reference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information.

As I said, I know it's not worth doing in reality, it's just if I was one tiny tweak away from a 7.9 then it would be nice to get there.

The last 0.1 I believe is hard to get.
My CPU score I have had up to 7.8, but from what I've read, I think you need to get to 5.2Ghz to get that last 0.1 and get up to 7.9 which is a major leap and push to get the last bit.

Not that anyone seems to really know how the msoft index score thing is calculated anyway.
I'd like a 0-100 scale personally as the current 0? to 7.9 scale is not very informative.

I've never realy understood memory timings, apart from lower CAS = better and higher speed (1300,1600,2000) = better

All the other bits 9-9-9-24 are a mystery to me, and I something I need someone to explain so I can learn, and which of these changes makes the most difference, and/or are more lightly to work successfully.

If we assume that anything (memory included) has to work as advertised, perhaps in a less than ideal (hot) environment, then, perhaps there is a small degree of safe tweaking that can be normally had if you know which tweaks to do.
 
The workings of the WEI are somewhat of a mystery but they're not always just based on speed, quantity can come into it.

You may only be able to get to 7.9 on the memory score if you have a certain amount of RAM.

If that's the case how much you would need I have no idea.
 
Surveyor said:
The workings of the WEI are somewhat of a mystery but they're not always just based on speed, quantity can come into it.

You may only be able to get to 7.9 on the memory score if you have a certain amount of RAM.

If that's the case how much you would need I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Well I have 16GB and think that's enough for now :D

I won't not mind, but it would be nice (and I'm sure we would all agree) if Msoft actually explained, even in a roughish way, what was needed for what score or, as you say, perhaps quantity and not speed may be needed for some number to change.

As with all things, It's the lack of information and communication that frustrates people.
It's like being told you have failed a test, but not being told what it was that you failed on. If you explain the area which caused the fail then you can work on that so you may pass the test in future.
 
Last edited:
I just found this:

If you browse to c:\windows\performance\winsat\ and look in the datastore folder, you'll find an XML file that describes the test results in detail. Here's the relevant Metrics section:

<Metrics>
<CPUMetrics>
<CompressionMetric units="MB/s">43.83377</CompressionMetric>
<EncryptionMetric units="MB/s">23.30456</EncryptionMetric>
<Compression2Metric units="MB/s">138.22060</Compression2Metric>
<Encryption2Metric units="MB/s">178.69444</Encryption2Metric>
<DshowEncodeTime units="s">19.18101</DshowEncodeTime>
</CPUMetrics>
<MemoryMetrics>
<Bandwidth units="MB/s">3316.58691</Bandwidth>
</MemoryMetrics>
<GamingMetrics>
<AlphaFps units="F/s">49.85000</AlphaFps>
<ALUFps units="F/s">40.82000</ALUFps>
<TexFps units="F/s">45.64000</TexFps>
</GamingMetrics>
<GraphicsMetrics>
<DWMFps units="F/s">88.73640</DWMFps>
<VideoMemBandwidth units="MB/s">4695.65000</VideoMemBandwidth>
<MFVideoDecodeDur units="s">2.93202</MFVideoDecodeDur>
</GraphicsMetrics>
<DiskMetrics>
<AvgThroughput units="MB/s">31.75583</AvgThroughput>
</DiskMetrics>
</Metrics>

Which seems to imply MB/s bandwidth is the number that's looked at for memory.
 
2133mhz 9-9-9-27 4gb gets 7.9
1600mhz 9-9-9-24 8gb gets 7.8
1600mhz 9-9-9-27 16gb gets 7.9
1600mhz 8-8-8-24 8gb gets 7.9
1600mhz 8-8-8-24 16gb gets 7.9

This is for my own personal system.

The issue is the other clocks/timings may be different from kit to kit leading to an kit with the same base line settings as above but with a different score.

WEI is too unreliable to be looking at.
 
Andrew Moore said:
2133mhz 9-9-9-27 4gb gets 7.9
1600mhz 9-9-9-24 8gb gets 7.8
1600mhz 9-9-9-27 16gb gets 7.9
1600mhz 8-8-8-24 8gb gets 7.9
1600mhz 8-8-8-24 16gb gets 7.9

This is for my own personal system.

The issue is the other clocks/timings may be different from kit to kit leading to an kit with the same base line settings as above but with a different score.

WEI is too unreliable to be looking at.
Click to expand...

Thanks for those numbers, and yes I know what you mean about the WEI.
It's just another thing to look at that means little in the real world.

Forgive my ignorance, but the last digit (24, 27) what does that refer to with regards memory specs?

I found this page myself which I guess explains it: http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/AMD/memory/131

I'm a bit puzzled why your score went from 7.8 to 7.9 on your 1st two examples:

1600mhz 9-9-9-24 8gb gets 7.8
1600mhz 9-9-9-27 16gb gets 7.9

When you went from 24 to 27 as going up from 24 to 27 would be slower would it not?
 
Last edited:
Based on the numbers posted by Andrew Moore your 16GB, 1600MHz, 9-9-9-24 should (in theory) give you 7.9.

Are you sure the RAM is running at 1600MHz?

Check the memory tab in CPU-Z.

It should say 800MHz which is doubled to 1600MHz as it's Double Data Rate.
 
Surveyor said:
Based on the numbers posted by Andrew Moore your 16GB, 1600MHz, 9-9-9-24 should (in theory) give you 7.9.

Are you sure the RAM is running at 1600MHz?

Check the memory tab in CPU-Z.

It should say 800MHz which is doubled to 1600MHz as it's Double Data Rate.
Click to expand...

I just ran CPU-Z and it reports the following:

798.2
11
11
11
28
2T
 
You need to manually set the timings in the BIOS.

CL 9
TRCD 9
TRP 9
TRAS 24

You may, or may not, get away with a Command Rate of 1T.

Disable Spread Spectrum in the BIOS and it should round the speed up to 800MHz.
 
Thanks.

Just a little update:
In my Gigabyte BIOS it had something called X.M.P Extreme Memory Profile.

I set this to profile 1 (the only option there!) and it put the memory to the correct timings of 9.9.9.24

Booted windows, checked CPU-Z and all was now correct. Ran the Windows test and still the same 7.8 result.

So, at least I'm now running the right numbers (not sure why it's not right be default without X.M.P enabled)

I did try manually setting it to 8.8.8.24 but windows bombed to blue screen during bootup.

I tried changing to 9.9.9.27 (which I thought would be slower) but still gave the same 7.8 scrore.

Just changed to 9.9.9.22 (windows booted fine) and again gave the same 7.8 score.
 
Tempest said:
Thanks.

Just a little update:
In my Gigabyte BIOS it had something called X.M.P Extreme Memory Profile.

I set this to profile 1 (the only option there!) and it put the memory to the correct timings of 9.9.9.24

Booted windows, checked CPU-Z and all was now correct. Ran the Windows test and still the same 7.8 result.

So, at least I'm now running the right numbers (not sure why it's not right be default without X.M.P enabled)

I did try manually setting it to 8.8.8.24 but windows bombed to blue screen during bootup.

I tried changing to 9.9.9.27 (which I thought would be slower) but still gave the same 7.8 scrore.

Just changed to 9.9.9.22 (windows booted fine) and again gave the same 7.8 score.
Click to expand...

XMP profile may be setting the memory voltage too high.

Quite often it's around 1.65V and you want it nearer 1.5V.
 
Surveyor said:
XMP profile may be setting the memory voltage too high.

Quite often it's around 1.65V and you want it nearer 1.5V.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that tip.

I checked in CPU-Z and also in the BIOS and both are reporting 1.5v so I guess it's fine.

I just found another BIOS setting called "Performance Enhance" which I set to Extreme (that sound good!) :D

But made no difference either.

I'm running my CPU at stock speeds right now, so not sure if that has any bearing on the memory.

But if nothing else it's nice to know my memory is at least running at's it's correct 9-9-9-24 speeds and not what it was on before.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom