PDA

View Full Version : DDR2 RAM not running at right speeds



scratta
19-01-2008, 11:33 AM
Hi, I recently put together a really cheap computer with these specs:
Asus M2A-VM motherboard
Brisbane Athlon64 X2 4000+ stock 2.1ghz (10.5 x 200)
2GB Transcend Jetram DDR2 667
Nvidia 8600GT
Seagate 160GB HDD
Silverstone ST400 PSU

However it appears the combination of 667 ram and the 4000+ CPU is causing the memory to run at slower speeds. I remember reading something about dividers and how the 2.1ghz of the CPU is divided by 7 to give 300mhz. So does this mean I should raise the CPU to 2.3 or 2.4 ghz to bring the ram closer to 333 (x2 = 667 etc)? Apparently the increased wait state caused by the asynchronous ram and cpu can be a hit on performance, although Im not sure if Im on the right track there!

This is the CPU-z memory panel: http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=667ramgv9.jpg

Any help would be much appreciated :)

darroll
19-01-2008, 01:36 PM
The divider ratio is just for your CPU. If you increase the voltage your CPU runs faster and much hotter.
If your memory is slow you will have to go to high speed memory chips.
Why waste your money and stay with what you have. d

jason_f90
19-01-2008, 03:39 PM
What speeds are the memory currently running at? Does it let you run them at 667mhz in the BIOS?

password
19-01-2008, 08:36 PM
For mine i have 1gb or ram and the same set up but the Bus speed for the ram is 669.3 MHZ!!

Thats not right is it?

Agent_24
19-01-2008, 10:01 PM
It's just slightly overclocking it by a couple of Mhz, nothing to worry about

Agent_24
19-01-2008, 10:05 PM
Hi, I recently put together a really cheap computer with these specs:
Asus M2A-VM motherboard
Brisbane Athlon64 X2 4000+ stock 2.1ghz (10.5 x 200)
2GB Transcend Jetram DDR2 667
Nvidia 8600GT
Seagate 160GB HDD
Silverstone ST400 PSU

However it appears the combination of 667 ram and the 4000+ CPU is causing the memory to run at slower speeds. I remember reading something about dividers and how the 2.1ghz of the CPU is divided by 7 to give 300mhz. So does this mean I should raise the CPU to 2.3 or 2.4 ghz to bring the ram closer to 333 (x2 = 667 etc)? Apparently the increased wait state caused by the asynchronous ram and cpu can be a hit on performance, although Im not sure if Im on the right track there!

This is the CPU-z memory panel: http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=667ramgv9.jpg

Any help would be much appreciated :)

If the divider was 6.5 - that would get you 323Mhz which would be closer - but I'm not sure if decimals can be used here.

It could just be the way your motherboard is made - but check that you're not running it forced to 300mhz in some BIOS setting somewhere

scratta
20-01-2008, 11:31 AM
Went through BIOS, and even when manually set to run at DDR667 it still reverts to 300mhz in windows. Upped FSB to 220 which brings RAM to 330 (x2=660) and processor speed to 2.310ghz. Does it have to be exactly 667mhz (which would mean running the processor at 2334.5 mhz on a 222.33 FSB) or is this close enough? What sort of programs should I run to test the stability of this fairly small overclock?

Thanks for everyone's help so far! :D

Edit: Added images
Processor new speed:
http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=23ghzocli4.jpg
RAM new speed:
http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=667ramocei6.jpg

Agent_24
20-01-2008, 11:39 AM
You don't need to run your RAM at exactly what it says on the label, you can definitely run almost all RAM slower (although some get funny when you go too low) and overclock some of it quite well too.

It would be due to limitations of your motherboard, that you can't run it at the correct speed without overclocking, because the RAM divider can't be 6.5, but 600 is 'close enough' so they don't care.

That or get a CPU with a different speed to begin with.

If you want to test your overclock go with something like prime95 and run it for several hours (the longer the better)