Synchronized graphics core and memory speed?

I know (at least I suppose so) that when overclocking CPU it's always
good to have synchronized FSB and memory speeds. Is it similar when
overclocking graphic card? eg. now (I'm going to upgrade anyway, but
it's good to know) I have GeForce MX 400 with standart values of
200/165. Core speed I can get to 210 but memory only to 200. What is
better idea, get most from both or set it all on 200 (or maybe on some
particular ratio)? When bechmarking I get different answers from
different tests and this is also about principle.

Thanks for any advice.

I use the approach of upping the memory, until I start getting artifacts in
graphically intense games/benchmarks. Then, bump down about 10MHz below the
highest stable clock. After I've determined the highest memory clock, I
then start upping the GPU until I get tearing and go down 10MHz below that.
The biggest performance gain you will see is from upping the memory clock.
It takes quite a bit more increase in MHz, for overclocking the core to give
equal performance increase.

-
stood up at show-n-tell, in
, and said:

I know (at least I suppose so) that when overclocking CPU it's always
good to have synchronized FSB and memory speeds. Is it similar when
overclocking graphic card? eg. now (I'm going to upgrade anyway, but
it's good to know) I have GeForce MX 400 with standart values of
200/165. Core speed I can get to 210 but memory only to 200. What is
better idea, get most from both or set it all on 200 (or maybe on some
particular ratio)? When bechmarking I get different answers from
different tests and this is also about principle.

Thanks for any advice.

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit