Gigabyte GA-P35 DS3P - RAM?

Paul,

I ran Prime 95 up to level 5 w/ no problems. CPU core temps got to 58-60°
C, both cores @ 100%

I didn't want to run longer until i reported back


thx

bob

"Paul" wrote in message ...
bob johnson wrote:
Here are my settings:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/...df36ef99_m.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/...3e345129_m.jpg

How do I start pushing my memory from here?

thx

bob

LOL. Nice work :-)

If I'm reading those pictures correctly, you've got four
sticks of RAM running at DDR2-1088 5-7-7-21 2T.

The E4500 is 2.2GHz/FSB800 (11x multiplier).

http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLA95

So, to start, to make FSB800, is 200 x 4 (quad pumped FSB).
So 200MHz is the CPU input clock.

You bought DDR2-800 RAM. The BIOS used a 1:2 ratio, because you
asked for DDR2-800, causing the 200MHz CPU clock, to be multiplied by 2/1.
That gets us to 400MHz feeding into the memory. The memory doubles that
again (because it is double data rate), to give the transfer
rate on the memory bus. That is DDR2-800.

So, *before* you started overclocking, the RAM was running at
its rated spec of DDR2-800.

Now, we turn up the clock. What happens ?

You set the CPU clock to 272MHz, from the old value of 200MHz.
272 x 11 = 2.99GHz for CPU core.

But you forgot to turn down the memory setting, before turning
up the CPU, because the memory gets overclocked at the same
time as the CPU.

272 x (2/1) x 2 = DDR2-1088 :-)

You've already significantly pushed your memory, and
didn't even adjust or relax CAS :-) Gutsy.

Have you tested this ? I cannot imagine getting that
lucky, and the whole thing is stable. Memtest86+
is one program you can start with. Test with memtest86+
first (memtest.org), before you go further. Maybe Vdimm
already got turned up, and that is how you got this far.

Prime95 is for when you really think things are stable,
and need confirmation of that. This version runs in Windows.
I'm pretty sure this won't run for more than 10 seconds,
with your current settings.

http://www.mersenne.org/gimps/p95v255a.zip

Now if I tried that, my wheels would fall off at DDR2-801 :-)

Paul


"bob johnson" wrote in message
news
TEST



"bob johnson" wrote in message
. ..
The main enable/disable setting in the bios somehow turned off to
disable. I'm back to 2.99 and my ram score went to 5.8, also!


thx

bob


"Paul" wrote in message
...
bob johnson wrote:
Found this review w/ my same MB

"Pros: After a quick oc to 3ghz I noticed my ram timings dramatically
increased. I decided to get a 1:1 ratio with my q6600. So at a fsb of
333mhz and the ram's frequency at 333mhz (667), I was able to obtain
3-3-3-8 instead of the advertised 4-4-4-12 at 667. It runs alot
faster than at 5-5-5-15, or 4-4-4-12 at 800mhz. I'm so excited I was
able to push this ram so far for the price."


bob


Perhaps there are other ratios besides 1:1 for the memory. So you have
room to do some experiments (verifying the impact with SuperPI each
time).

With regard to the mysterious return to 200MHz, that happens on an
"overclocking failure". Some motherboards, if the computer doesn't
POST
properly, even just once, return to stock (200MHz or whatever) on the
next POST. Usually, there is some warning that it happened, but if you
weren't watching the screen at the time, you might have missed it.
Maybe you were prompted to press F1 or a similar key at some point ?
Check you manual, for details, as it might give the feature a name.

If you can get the RAM to run DDR2-800, then 5-5-5-15 is the official
timing.

Paul


"
"bob johnson" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, Paul

I have been running this for a few months. Something must have
changed. I'll reboot and report back.

Here is the SPD:

266 400
4.0 5.0
4 5
4 5
10 15
14 21

1.8v 1.8v


Link to ram:


http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820231098


thx

bob

bob johnson wrote:
LOL

Dumb luck. I've been playing COD4, UT3 FSX, etc, all with no problem.

I thought lower memory settings were faster (3/3/3/8) instead of what
cpu-z is reporting for me (5/7/7/21)?

I had memory speed set to "auto" in the bios thinking it would compensate?


cpu-z reports memory @ 544mhz. I thought I my memory is 800mhz?

I'll keep reading, too. A lot to learn

I'll also get memtest and report back.

Thanks, Paul


bob

I believe the 544MHz, is the clock signal feeding into the DIMM.
The DIMM transfer memory twice per clock cycle, leading to a
transfer rate of DDR2-1088.

If you put everything back to stock, your memory is DDR2-800, then
you should see CPUZ report 400Mhz clock. And if the BIOS is set
to "Auto" for memory, the timing values should reflect the
contents of the SPD table entry for DDR2-800.

And your suggested timings, of 3-3-3-8 versus 5-7-7-21, in the
first case means the memory has to return data in 3 cycles. Versus
5 cycles for the second set of numbers. The thing is, when you
increase the memory clock, that means the interval of each
clock cycle is smaller (clock period). The CAS should be increased,
as the clock is increased, in order that the same amount of time
is allowed to elapse, before looking for data from the RAM.
The BIOS, should take the timing numbers from the SPD tables,
and scale them according to the frequency. The BIOS should round
up, to the next full cycle, because rounding down would make
the timing too tight.

If you were to try 3-3-3-8 at DDR2-1088, the RAM will error
like crazy. CAS5 is already pretty tight at that speed.

Paul

Thanks, Paul

My memory is rated at 5/5/5/15, if I'm not mistaken?

So, if cpu-z is reporting 5/7/7/21, does that mean it's not running to spec
(slower)?

thx

bob




"Paul" wrote in message ...
bob johnson wrote:
LOL

Dumb luck. I've been playing COD4, UT3 FSX, etc, all with no problem.

I thought lower memory settings were faster (3/3/3/8) instead of what
cpu-z is reporting for me (5/7/7/21)?

I had memory speed set to "auto" in the bios thinking it would
compensate?


cpu-z reports memory @ 544mhz. I thought I my memory is 800mhz?

I'll keep reading, too. A lot to learn

I'll also get memtest and report back.

Thanks, Paul


bob

I believe the 544MHz, is the clock signal feeding into the DIMM.
The DIMM transfer memory twice per clock cycle, leading to a
transfer rate of DDR2-1088.

If you put everything back to stock, your memory is DDR2-800, then
you should see CPUZ report 400Mhz clock. And if the BIOS is set
to "Auto" for memory, the timing values should reflect the
contents of the SPD table entry for DDR2-800.

And your suggested timings, of 3-3-3-8 versus 5-7-7-21, in the
first case means the memory has to return data in 3 cycles. Versus
5 cycles for the second set of numbers. The thing is, when you
increase the memory clock, that means the interval of each
clock cycle is smaller (clock period). The CAS should be increased,
as the clock is increased, in order that the same amount of time
is allowed to elapse, before looking for data from the RAM.
The BIOS, should take the timing numbers from the SPD tables,
and scale them according to the frequency. The BIOS should round
up, to the next full cycle, because rounding down would make
the timing too tight.

If you were to try 3-3-3-8 at DDR2-1088, the RAM will error
like crazy. CAS5 is already pretty tight at that speed.

Paul

bob johnson wrote:
Thanks, Paul

My memory is rated at 5/5/5/15, if I'm not mistaken?

So, if cpu-z is reporting 5/7/7/21, does that mean it's not running to
spec (slower)?

thx

bob


Your memory is DDR2-800 5-5-5-15, but it is running
at DDR2-1088. The BIOS appears to have scaled the timing
numbers, except CAS. So CAS is tighter than the spec
for the memory.

Paul

'Elcaro Nosille' wrote:
Not with today's chipsets. I've testet different ratios with my
Core II Extreme (non-locked multiplier) and I found that a awry
multiplier of 1:1.2 (1333/333MHz FSB and 800MHz got the highest
memory-thgoughput and the lowest memory-latency.
_____

My post stated "You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU."
My statement is correct (and a little obvious.) I am not quite sure WHAT
your statement means; did you overclock? Did you use an increased CPU
clock multiplier and a 1333 MHz stock FSB (333 MHz CPU clock)? Are you
using DDR2-800 memory? What is the rating of your selected memory? CAN
your selected memory run at 1:1 or even 2:1 Memory clock : CPU clock ratios?
Is a large increase in memory parameter timing delays necessary when your
selected memory is used at speeds above DDR2-800 equivalent?

In other words, DID you select memory based on the FSB speed for the CPU?
Perhaps your selection of CPU clock limits the memory through-put. After
all, a faster memory clock speed, even with higher memory parameter timing
delays can give greater memory through-put IF "you select RAM based on the
FSB speed for the CPU; using a 1333 MHz FSB and a 2:1 Memory clock : CPU
clock ratio will offset the disadvantage of quite a bit higher memory
parameter timing delays. If you had selected DDR2-1333 (PC10666) and used a
2:1 Memory clock : CPU clock ratio you would very likely be seeing higher
memory through-put (though perhaps not enough of an increase to justify the
added cost.) And as I posted, and you failed to fully quote:

"You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU. And on whether
or
not you intend to overclock by raising the FSB speed. And whether or not
you wish to run the Memory clock synched to the CPU clock. And whether or
not you are willing to spend the money for the diminishing performance
returns as you increase the RAM speed. And THAT is affected by the size of
the L2 cache, the applications you use, and the number of cores in the CPU.
FINALLY, after all those decisions, THEN you want to make sure the
motherboard can handle the Memory clock speed of the RAM you select."

and

"Oh, yes, also you must select the right TYPE of RAM for the motherboard
DDR2
or DDR3."

and

"Plus consider that a 32-bit Windows operating system can't use much more
than 2 GBytes of memory, especially if you one or two display adapters with
large memories (each byte of display adapter memory makes one byte of
motherboard memory between 2 GBytes and 4 GBytes unusable.)"


At any rate your comment "Not with today's chipsets" misses the point (and
is incorrect.)

Phil Weldon

"Elcaro Nosille" wrote in message
...
Phil Weldon schrieb:

You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU. ...

Not with today's chipsets. I've testet different ratios with my
Core II Extreme (non-locked multiplier) and I found that a awry
multiplier of 1:1.2 (1333/333MHz FSB and 800MHz got the highest
memory-thgoughput and the lowest memory-latency.

'bob johnson' wrote:
I have this same MB and 4GB of this ram:

http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820231098

Vista is giving me a 4.8 rating (lowest one) and I wondered if my bios
settings are set wrong?

I'm running a C2D 4500 2.4@ 2.9 mhz on "auto voltage" (OC setting) or
similiar.

all my friends w/the same ram on Asus MB's are getting a rating of
5.7/5.8.
_____

The Vista Performance Information rating is not useful for your purpose.
The ratings were more or less scaled to the best performing systems in mid
2006. Now, in early 2006, almost ANY Core 2 Duo system using a 3.0 GHz CPU
speed will get the max CPU rating of 5.9. Just as almost ANY 2 GBytes of
memory running at PC1066 equivalent will get the max memory rating of 5.9.
As almost ANY 300 GB or larger 7200 rpm SATA hard drive will get the nearly
the max hard drive rating of 5.9. As ANY nvidia 8800 series display adapter
will get the max gaming, business, and Aero rating of 5.9.

For example, my EVGA 680i mother board with a E4300 @ 2.7 GHz, 2 GBytes of
DDR2-1066 memory @ DDR2-1200 speeds, an EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS, and Seagate
500 GByte 7200 rpm hard drives gets ratings of
CPU 5.5
Memory 5.9
Aero 5.9
Business & Gaming Graphics 5.9
Hard Drive 5.9.

The best fine-grained, free performance testing suite I know of is SiSoft
Sandra Lite XIIc available at
http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/ .
SiSoft Sandra reports a large number of performance parameters for memory,
CPU, and storage. AND it provides comparisons with hundreds of CPUs,
chipsets, memory arrangements, and storage configurations. SiSoft Sandra
XIIc is the opposite of a 'real world' benchmark; it is most useful in
determining the effect of system changes and less useful for determing the
real gains in computing power.

At the moment 3DMark2006 is the best fine-grained, free, graphics
performance test suite.

These benchmark programs, used in conjunction with the stress test 'Paul'
recommends will help you pick the best setup for your system components.

Phil Weldon


"bob johnson" wrote in message
...
Hi Guys

I have this same MB and 4GB of this ram:

http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820231098

Vista is giving me a 4.8 rating (lowest one) and I wondered if my bios
settings are set wrong?

I'm running a C2D 4500 2.4@ 2.9 mhz on "auto voltage" (OC setting) or
similiar.

all my friends w/the same ram on Asus MB's are getting a rating of
5.7/5.8.


thx

bob

"bornfree" wrote in message
...
On 28 Feb, 12:27, Unknown wrote:

I called the vendor tech support and discussed the situation. He
looked up the order and they had installed DDR2 533 memory. The board
supports DDR2 667, 800, & 1066.


I currently have DDR2 800 installed. Will going up to 1066 make a
noticeable difference to performance?

My CPU is an Intel E6300 OC'd to 2.8Ghz. My HDD is a 500GB Samsung
7,200RPM SATA.

'Elcaro Nosille' wrote:
I've got a Gigabyte-board with an Intel P35 chipset and I get a higher
throughput and a lower latency in memory-bandwith and lower latency
when using a 1:1.2 multiplier (1333/333MHz FSB and 800/400MHz DDR2
-SDRAM clocking) than when using a 1:1 multiplier.
Your recommendation of 1:N-ratios comes from times when the chipsets
weren't as efficient as today.
_____

Today, you can forget this rule.Just to clarify, when you post 1:1.2 do you
mean a ratio of 1 to 2 (1/2)? [This is a somewhat murky area since various
motherboard manufacturers use two different ratios; Memory Clock : CPU
clock and CPU clock : memory clock.

Your reply still fails to quote the my entire post. Do you mean to indicate
that we agree on everything but the Memory clock : CPU clock ratio?

Motherboards based on the nVidia 680i series chipset DO show increased
memory through-put when operated at higher Memory clock : CPU clock ratios
given tight enough memory parameter delays. Though as stated, the increased
performance may not be worth the added cost. Which is why

"You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the CPU. And on whether
or
not you intend to overclock by raising the FSB speed. And whether or not
you wish to run the Memory clock synched to the CPU clock. And whether or
not you are willing to spend the money for the diminishing performance
returns as you increase the RAM speed. And THAT is affected by the size of
the L2 cache, the applications you use, and the number of cores in the CPU.
FINALLY, after all those decisions, THEN you want to make sure the
motherboard can handle the Memory clock speed of the RAM you select."

Phil Weldon

"Elcaro Nosille" wrote in message
...
Phil Weldon schrieb:

My post stated "You should select RAM based on the FSB speed for the
CPU." My statement is correct (and a little obvious.) I am not quite
sure WHAT your statement means; did you overclock? Did you use an
increased CPU clock multiplier and a 1333 MHz stock FSB (333 MHz CPU
clock)? Are you using DDR2-800 memory? What is the rating of your
selected memory? CAN your selected memory run at 1:1 or even 2:1
Memory clock : CPU clock ratios? Is a large increase in memory
parameter timing delays necessary when your selected memory is
used at speeds above DDR2-800 equivalent?

I've got a Gigabyte-board with an Intel P35 chipset and I get a higher
throughput and a lower latency in memory-bandwith and lower latency
when using a 1:1.2 multiplier (1333/333MHz FSB and 800/400MHz DDR2
-SDRAM clocking) than when using a 1:1 multiplier.
Your recommendation of 1:N-ratios comes from times when the chipsets
weren't as efficient as today. Today, you can forget this rule.

sorry

they were only 30k


bob



"RobV" wrote in message
...
bob johnson wrote:
OK

Got my OC back. Now, how to push my memory carefully and w/
stability?

Just a friendly notice here, Bob. alt.comp.hardware.overclocking is a
text only news group. As such, if you would like those reading to see a
picture of something, the correct thing to do is post it at a web site,
then give the link to the web address.

Posting pictures, or attachments, isn't too large a problem for those of
us using Outlook Express, but many folks use a strict newsreader program
that shows HTML, pictures, attachments and such as just a jumble of
characters, letters and numbers.

News groups that allow these things will have binary in the NG name.

Now, carry on...;-)

'Elcaro Nosille' wrote:
No, I mean 1 : 1.2, i.e. the clock-rate of the DDR2-memory
(400MHz) is 1.2 times higher than the clock-rate of the
FSB (333MHz).

Motherboards based on the nVidia 680i series chipset DO show
increased memory through-put when operated at higher Memory
clock : CPU clock ratios given tight enough memory parameter
delays.

So it seems Intel did a better Job on that. I clocked my Core
II Extreme at a FSB of 400/1600MHz (core-clock 3.2GHz) so that
the memory-FSB-ratio is 1:1 and the memory-throughput was sligh-
tly lower than at 333MHz (equal memory-clocking of 400MHz aka
800MHz DDR).

And there's another thing to mention: latency is a more
important parameter than throughput in real-world-apps.
_____

Thanks for the clarification. The [,] [.] difference is sometimes
confusing. Especially when combined with differing nomenclature for the
ratio between CPU clock and memory clock (likely aggravated by meddling
sales department meddling in engineering department specifications and
performance data.

As for your
And there's another thing to mention: latency is a more
important parameter than throughput in real-world-apps

the larger the L2 cache and the greater the L2 cache associativity the less
important main memory latency AND through-put for 'real world' performance.
Given optimization for L2 cache size, main memory through-put AND latency
become less important for 'real-world' performance. For 'real world'
performance, memory though-put IS dependent on latency AND memory clock
speed. After all, we use computer SYSTEMS (see 'Amdahl's Rule of Thumb',
also known as 'Amdahl's Other Law': "one byte of memory and one byte of I/O
are required for each instruction per second supported by a computer"; part
of

"3. Amdahl's system balance rules
Gene Amdahl is famous for many rules of thumb.
For data engineering, there are four famous ones [6]:
10. Amdahl's parallelism law: If a computation has a
serial component S and a parallel component P, then
the maximum speedup is (S+P)/S.
11. Amdahl's balanced system law: A system needs a bit
of IO per second for each instruction per second:
about 8 MIPS per MBps.
12. Amdahl's memory law: ? ? 1: that is, in a balanced
system the MB/MIPS ratio, called alpha (? ), is 1.
13. Amdahl's IO law: Programs do one IO per 50,000
instructions."
http://research.microsoft.com/~gray/...ineering.pd f .
Also see

Petascale Computational Systems:
Balanced CyberInfrastructure in a Data-Centric World
Gordon Bell1, Jim Gray1 and Alex Szalay2
1. Microsoft Research
2. The Johns Hopkins University

, , Szalay@
http://research.microsoft.com/~gray/...%20systems.pdf
..)

Phil Weldon




"Elcaro Nosille" wrote in message
...
Phil Weldon schrieb:

Today, you can forget this rule.Just to clarify, when
you post 1:1.2 do you mean a ratio of 1 to 2 (1/2)?

No, I mean 1 : 1.2, i.e. the clock-rate of the DDR2-memory
(400MHz) is 1.2 times higher than the clock-rate of the
FSB (333MHz).

Motherboards based on the nVidia 680i series chipset DO show
increased memory through-put when operated at higher Memory
clock : CPU clock ratios given tight enough memory parameter
delays.

So it seems Intel did a better Job on that. I clocked my Core
II Extreme at a FSB of 400/1600MHz (core-clock 3.2GHz) so that
the memory-FSB-ratio is 1:1 and the memory-throughput was sligh-
tly lower than at 333MHz (equal memory-clocking of 400MHz aka
800MHz DDR).

And there's another thing to mention: latency is a more
important parameter than throughput in real-world-apps.

I see,

So what is the difference between SPD and Memory in cpu-z? SPD just reports
the spec not the actual speed?


Also, is it safe to run as I am (scaled down timing)? I'm still a little
confused because I though the Gig MB was suppposed to compensate everything
but cpu speed unless you choose to do so!

thx

bob



"Paul" wrote in message ...
bob johnson wrote:
Thanks, Paul

My memory is rated at 5/5/5/15, if I'm not mistaken?

So, if cpu-z is reporting 5/7/7/21, does that mean it's not running to
spec (slower)?

thx

bob


Your memory is DDR2-800 5-5-5-15, but it is running
at DDR2-1088. The BIOS appears to have scaled the timing
numbers, except CAS. So CAS is tighter than the spec
for the memory.

Paul