Which is better for overclocking? I'm going to be using a 2100+ aiuhb tbred b. The 3200 seems to have lower timings but the 3500 has a higher mhz rating. Which do I go with? I want to high 2.4 ghz.
Printable View
Which is better for overclocking? I'm going to be using a 2100+ aiuhb tbred b. The 3200 seems to have lower timings but the 3500 has a higher mhz rating. Which do I go with? I want to high 2.4 ghz.
Both are excellent sticks though I'd go with the PC3500.
Do ya think I would need the extra few mhz to reach the higher overclock? Just was wondering cause the low latency is 400 mhz but it has faster timings. I'm just wondering if you can adjust the timings on the 3500 to make it as low as it is on the 3200 without overheating the memory.
Yep, you sure can. I can run my PC3500 at 2-2-2-6 218.6(437mhz) no problem w/2.7v even though its recommended timings are 2-3-3-7. I'm sure theres alot more to this stick though I haven't tried higher.
Alright, I might have to go with it. Because apparently the Epox 8rda+ and the 2100+ HATE overclocking with hyper-x 3500. So I'll get 2 sticks of this. However I have no idea what the 2-2-2-etc etc is. I know the lower the better but why are there 4 or 5 of them and what do each control? How do you increase vdimm and when do you know you need too? Ah so many questions, this overclocking thing is hard :(
Rojakpot's BIOS Guide Scroll to "Memory Subsystem". The memory settings for my mobo are titled SDRAM Cas Latency, SDRAM RAS to CAS Delay, SDRAM RAS Precharge Delay, and SDRAM Active Precharge Delay. They may be slightly titled differently for that motherboard. Find afew reviews of that mobo and go to the BIOS sections. I've seen quite afew list the memory timings. Then get the descriptions at Rojakpot's BIOS guide.
I can hit DDR450 before I need to get really relaxed on the settings.. The board only offers a max of 2.6v so I cannot get as high as I like.. But with 2.5-3-3-7 I can hit DDR490 v2.6
Dude, that sucks. :(Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
The board only offers a max of 2.6v
True. But DDR490 @ 2.6 Vdimm is pretty schweet if you ask me.Quote:
Originally posted by Pyro
Dude, that sucks. :(
But my Canterwood offers a +.3!!!Quote:
Originally posted by janko10
True. But DDR490 @ 2.6 Vdimm is pretty schweet if you ask me.
I wish I can get DCDDR to work at a 4:5 but it doesnt like it at any FSB overclock!!!
But 1:1 runs flawless...
Alientank,
3200LL/3500C2
same stuff different label. literally.
quite nice clocks you got there colossus. i might hafta pick some of that up.
Best regards,
Maxvla
Says who???? I have seen many people with these combos do well. Where have you heard of large people having problems??? Not saying you are a liar, but just wanna see why you are assuming the combo wouldn't do well.Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
Alright, I might have to go with it. Because apparently the Epox 8rda+ and the 2100+ HATE overclocking with hyper-x 3500.
It's only the HyperX 512mb dimms we are having problems with. There's threads here, amdforums.com, and aoaforums.com. Check the thread with "Can't reach 168mhz" for more info.Quote:
Originally posted by Royal Oaks
Says who???? I have seen many people with these combos do well. Where have you heard of large people having problems??? Not saying you are a liar, but just wanna see why you are assuming the combo wouldn't do well.
Most people are getting great results with the 256mb dimms.
Hmm, I checked that thread here, but one instance wouldn't be enough for me to call it a problem. Also, I read AOA (not as much anymore) but I haven't seen anything about it. I guess I have to check there. The other forum which I read is Xtreme, and most people there are using 2x256. This combo doesn't seem to produce big problems, but I would imagine I would have heard about the 512 thing there. I will check around on this...Quote:
Originally posted by janko10
It's only the HyperX 512mb dimms we are having problems with. There's threads here, amdforums.com, and aoaforums.com. Check the thread with "Can't reach 168mhz" for more info.
Most people are getting great results with the 256mb dimms.
edit: Just caught your thread over there. I am very aware of the problem with NF7-S V2.0 and Hyper-X. However, like I said I have to check around more about the Epox board, to call it a problem.
last edit: Are you sure of your CPU stepping??? A JIUHB 2100+??? Do those even exist??? Not calling you an idiot, but I thought all 2100+ chips were A---- while lower end T-Bred B's (1700+) were J----. I do not remember for sure, but I thought when the first T-Bred B chips were surfacing there were some JIUHB 2100+'s, but very few. I don't know maybe I'm going crazy...
I can't remember my damn stepping. For some odd reason, I feel like I remember it being a J. Only reason I remember that was cause I looked here and it said the A's were better than the J's and I remember feeling dissappointed. I'm too lazy to take HSF off plus I KNOW if I do it just for curiosity sake, I'll F something up or break my core reattaching it.Quote:
Originally posted by Royal Oaks
Hmm, I checked that thread here, but one instance wouldn't be enough for me to call it a problem. Also, I read AOA (not as much anymore) but I haven't seen anything about it. I guess I have to check there. The other forum which I read is Xtreme, and most people there are using 2x256. This combo doesn't seem to produce big problems, but I would imagine I would have heard about the 512 thing there. I will check around on this...
edit: Just caught your thread over there. I am very aware of the problem with NF7-S V2.0 and Hyper-X. However, like I said I have to check around more about the Epox board, to call it a problem.
last edit: Are you sure of your CPU stepping??? A JIUHB 2100+??? Do those even exist??? Not calling you an idiot, but I thought all 2100+ chips were A---- while lower end T-Bred B's (1700+) were J----. I do not remember for sure, but I thought when the first T-Bred B chips were surfacing there were some JIUHB 2100+'s, but very few. I don't know maybe I'm going crazy...
But people with A's (AUI...'s, not A core ;) )have had problems with the 512mb HyperX too. It doesn't seem like that many cause most people seem satisfied with 180mhz. But I'm not cause I expect PC3500 ram to at least pull to PC3200 specs (200mhz) and it can't even do that. How's it rated at PC3500 then? See what I mean? The ram PROBABLY can go much higher, there's just some issue with it and the EPOX.
Between here and amdforums.com, I think there were about 8-10 of us or so that couldn't get over 180mhz. You gotta remember that just about every sig/config I see with HyperX turns out to be 2x256mb sticks and not 512mb sticks, so that may be why it seems like not a big issue. That and the fact everybody seems content with 180mhz (still drives me bananas).