Whats better for OC'in 1600/1866/2000 - Or doesn't it matter?

BoroRob_UK · 2 Dec 2009 at 21:12

Hi All,

Im getting a new system for christmas and am debating wether or not to go for 1600Mhz, 1866 or 2000..

Which would be more suited for overclocking? Or doesn't it matter ?

I want the best for my system and was thinking of going for the Corsair Dominator GT 2000Mhz ?

Thanks - Rob

MeMeMeMe · 3 Dec 2009 at 04:03

It might make a difference knowing whether you are going intel or amd.

ETNiES · 3 Dec 2009 at 06:52

If you've got the money then go for it, depending on what your actually gonna be using the pc for you probably wouldn't notice to much of a difference anyway.

SMAndy · 3 Dec 2009 at 08:22

If you want to get a good cpu overclock by messing with the FSB/HT Ref/Bclk, then get memory one higher than you're going to run it at.

If you buy 1600 and run it at 1333, you can increase the FSB lots to get it heading towards 1600, and you know you're not limiting your overclock that way. Otherwise, I agree with ETNiES. Chances are you won't notice a difference whichever speed you go for. (as long as you go higher than 1066MHz)

JonJ678 · 3 Dec 2009 at 08:43

If your budget lets you consider the 2ghz corsair I'm going to assume you're looking at x58.

In which case I suggest 1600 cas8 as the sensible ones to buy. 1333mhz will perform the same, but at least this way you know you're one notch above minimum and you get to use the excellent corsair dominator.

By all means spend more if you like, but it will make no difference to your overclock, and no difference to the performance of the computer.