# HT Link Speed / Northbridge speed



## mdocod

HT Link speed on the AM3+ platform is primarily set by the chipset.

(most) 760G default to 2200MHZ
970 defaults 2400mhz
990X and 990FX defaults to 2600mhz
(IIRC)

There are some 760G boards that supposedly "support" 2600mhz HT link but I can't fathom why.

The CPUs themselves can handle over 3000mhz usually, but the AM3+ chipset struggle with these speeds.

It's important to note that the default HT link speeds on the 760G and 970 chipsets support more bandwidth than all the PCIE lanes and SATA connections combined, so there's really no point in overclocking the HT link on these platforms. In some (very few) cases there may be minor benefits on the 990FX chipset derived from pushing slightly beyond the default 2600mhz HT link speed when working with multiple GPUs. Otherwise don't bother.

The minor fluctuations in speed are normal. Likely caused by the reference clock generator not maintaining perfect accuracy. Normal in my experience.


----------



## XLifted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mdocod*
> 
> HT Link speed on the AM3+ platform is primarily set by the chipset.
> 
> (most) 760G default to 2200MHZ
> 970 defaults 2400mhz
> 990X and 990FX defaults to 2600mhz
> (IIRC)
> 
> There are some 760G boards that supposedly "support" 2600mhz HT link but I can't fathom why.
> 
> The CPUs themselves can handle over 3000mhz usually, but the AM3+ chipset struggle with these speeds.
> 
> It's important to note that the default HT link speeds on the 760G and 970 chipsets support more bandwidth than all the PCIE lanes and SATA connections combined, so there's really no point in overclocking the HT link on these platforms. In some (very few) cases there may be minor benefits on the 990FX chipset derived from pushing slightly beyond the default 2600mhz HT link speed when working with multiple GPUs. Otherwise don't bother.
> 
> The minor fluctuations in speed are normal. Likely caused by the reference clock generator not maintaining perfect accuracy. Normal in my experience.


Excellent answer









Do you personally think is is better to overclock using FSB instead of moving up the multiplier? (I will still set my memory chipset at stock speed as I don't have heat spreaders on them)

Is there particular benefit of overclocking FSB versus multiplier approach? (I watched several youtube video tutorials on FSB versus multiplier, but no explanations there)


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XLifted*
> 
> Excellent answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally think is is better to overclock using FSB instead of moving up the multiplier? (I will still set my memory chipset at stock speed as I don't have heat spreaders on them)
> 
> Is there particular benefit of overclocking FSB versus multiplier approach? (I watched several youtube video tutorials on FSB versus multiplier, but no explanations there)


Overclocking the FSB was giving good results in K10 architecture, because the CPUs were liking the high NB speed. The gains were maximum in Thubans. In Piledriver the benefit is virtualy zero. If you look around the official 8320/8350 thread in the CPU section, you will notice that the vast majority is just using the multiplier.

The heatspreaders in DDR3 RAM are mostly decorative. They do nothing of substance, they don't heat up much. Some even claim that are worse for cooling and run then naked.


----------



## XLifted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> Overclocking the FSB was giving good results in K10 architecture, because the CPUs were liking the high NB speed. The gains were maximum in Thubans. In Piledriver the benefit is virtualy zero. If you look around the official 8320/8350 thread in the CPU section, you will notice that the vast majority is just using the multiplier.
> 
> The heatspreaders in DDR3 RAM are mostly decorative. They do nothing of substance, they don't heat up much. Some even claim that are worse for cooling and run then naked.


That's great to know, I wondered why he was doing it through Northbridge, he was saying it will boost ram speed too.

I have my ram at 1333 Mhz, so it's really bottom tier memory module from Crucial (it's in my signature), considering what you said is there a benefit to overclocking in my case or is it safe for that matter?

I have a big 150 mm noctua fan on the side of case, directly over ram chipsets.

I never tried to overclock them because I thought I needed those fancy ram modules like Rip Jaws and stuff


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XLifted*
> 
> That's great to know, I wondered why he was doing it through Northbridge, he was saying it will boost ram speed too.
> 
> I have my ram at 1333 Mhz, so it's really bottom tier memory module from Crucial (it's in my signature), considering what you said is there a benefit to overclocking in my case or is it safe for that matter?
> 
> I have a big 150 mm noctua fan on the side of case, directly over ram chipsets.
> 
> I never tried to overclock them because I thought I needed those fancy ram modules like Rip Jaws and stuff


If you want to overclock the RAM, then yes, you need to do that. But it's not benefiting the CPU performance itself like it was doing in Phenoms. The max stock RAM speed in Piledriver is 1866Mhz. Most people run 1600Mhz kits. The difference is minimal (like 1%-2%). Of course there are always those who chase even the 1% and try to overclock. But the highest speed gain is seen in APUs, because the integrated GPU likes the higher bandwidth. Not in the FX line. Myself, i have ran with 1333T1 CAS8 and 1600T2 CAS9 and couldn't tell the difference. Ideally you 'd want 1866Mhz RAM. But 1600 will do fine. In AMD, the bandwidth doesn't increase greatly as you climb with frequency. This is more an Intel thing. The AMD IMC works differently, doesn't show big improvements but does like low timings. If you have 1333, you may try to use the bus to bring it up to 1600 and bump the RAM voltage to stabilize it, maybe loosen timings, but it would be a close call still. How much, i don't know, someone else may know, i am not much of an overclocker.







But you would be better off with buying a new kit at 1866 or 1600 and just raise the multi and be done with it. You may even be in position to tighten the timings more if you get a good kit.

My RAM runs at 33C and sligthly overvolted. The last RAM that was heating up somewhat significantly was DDR2 high performance RAM that was running 2.0v instead of the canonical 1.8v.

If you buy new RAM, buy 1.5v kit. But DDR3 in general doesn't heat enough to cause problems. But even if you go to 1.65v, the heatsinks are more for "show". They 've become more of an eye candy than a real useful thing.


----------



## XLifted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> If you want to overclock the RAM, then yes, you need to do that. But it's not benefiting the CPU performance itself like it was doing in Phenoms. The max stock RAM speed in Piledriver is 1866Mhz. Most people run 1600Mhz kits. The difference is minimal (like 1%-2%). Of course there are always those who chase even the 1% and try to overclock. But the highest speed gain is seen in APUs, because the integrated GPU likes the higher bandwidth. Not in the FX line. Myself, i have ran with 1333T1 CAS8 and 1600T2 CAS9 and couldn't tell the difference. Ideally you 'd want 1866Mhz RAM. But 1600 will do fine. In AMD, the bandwidth doesn't increase greatly as you climb with frequency. This is more an Intel thing. The AMD IMC works differently, doesn't show big improvements but does like low timings. If you have 1333, you may try to use the bus to bring it up to 1600 and bump the RAM voltage to stabilize it, maybe loosen timings, but it would be a close call still. How much, i don't know, someone else may know, i am not much of an overclocker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you would be better off with buying a new kit at 1866 or 1600 and just raise the multi and be done with it. You may even be in position to tighten the timings more if you get a good kit.
> 
> My RAM runs at 33C and sligthly overvolted. The last RAM that was heating up somewhat significantly was DDR2 high performance RAM that was running 2.0v instead of the canonical 1.8v.
> 
> If you buy new RAM, buy 1.5v kit. But DDR3 in general doesn't heat enough to cause problems. But even if you go to 1.65v, the heatsinks are more for "show". They 've become more of an eye candy than a real useful thing.


Thank you for that advise









I watched LinusTechTips video a while back where he was debunking improvements for gaming when it comes to overclocking ram/buying expensive ram and the 1600 was compared to the fastest one on the market, can't remember the number.

The difference in Battlefield 3 was 2-3 frames (if I remember correctly)....LOL!

So he pretty much benchmarked and made a verdict not to waste money on unnecessary things.

The quality of the ram is more important from my understanding, of course timing and ram headroom (the higher the better 8 GB stick x 2, 16 gb x 2, etc)

Maybe for extensive workstation applications that render thousands of tasks, but for games (which is my approach) is not needed.

Of course I only know as much as the next man that is telling me this and based on his/her credentials. But I think some gamers deceive themselves according to Linus


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XLifted*
> 
> Thank you for that advise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched LinusTechTips video a while back where he was debunking improvements for gaming when it comes to overclocking ram/buying expensive ram and the 1600 was compared to the fastest one on the market, can't remember the number.
> 
> The difference in Battlefield 3 was 2-3 frames (if I remember correctly)....LOL!
> 
> So he pretty much benchmarked and made a verdict not to waste money on unnecessary things.
> 
> The quality of the ram is more important from my understanding, of course timing and ram headroom (the higher the better 8 GB stick x 2, 16 gb x 2, etc)
> 
> Maybe for extensive workstation applications that render thousands of tasks, but for games (which is my approach) is not needed.
> 
> Of course I only know as much as the next man that is telling me this and based on his/her credentials. But I think some gamers deceive themselves according to Linus


Yes, if you ask me, RAM speed is overrated for the price it has these days. If you wants benchmarks, here they are:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-ddr3-overclocking,3209.html

If you want "real life" experience:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/310280-30-1333-1600-notice-difference

If you have a decent 1333 kit, that can do CAS9, you won't notice difference from a cheap 1600 kit CAS9 (which is let's say the "average 1600 kit one should buy). If you don't mind the money, by all means, you can probably tighten the timings, A good 1600 CAS9 kit that was made with big overclock headroom, will probably be able to run 1600 CAS8 even 1T or maybe even CAS7. But, for the money they charge, you 're better off keeping the money and putting them on your GPU upgrade budget for a future GPU purchase. Now that will benefit you in games a lot.

As i said, for daily use, i saw no difference between 1600 9-9-9-24 T2 and 1333 CAS8T1 or even 1333CAS9T1. And if you ask me, even the conclusion of the tom's hardware article, is influence by the fact, that sites are connected with companies and if people don't upgrade, it's bad for everyone's job. If i were the writer i 'd say "You want to spend 85 euros for higher freq RAM? Don't! Save your money and buy a more expensive GPU!".


----------



## XLifted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> Yes, if you ask me, RAM speed is overrated for the price it has these days. If you wants benchmarks, here they are:
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-ddr3-overclocking,3209.html
> 
> If you want "real life" experience:
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/310280-30-1333-1600-notice-difference
> 
> If you have a decent 1333 kit, that can do CAS9, you won't notice difference from a cheap 1600 kit CAS9 (which is let's say the "average 1600 kit one should buy). If you don't mind the money, by all means, you can probably tighten the timings, A good 1600 CAS9 kit that was made with big overclock headroom, will probably be able to run 1600 CAS8 even 1T or maybe even CAS7. But, for the money they charge, you 're better off keeping the money and putting them on your GPU upgrade budget for a future GPU purchase. Now that will benefit you in games a lot.
> 
> As i said, for daily use, i saw no difference between 1600 9-9-9-24 T2 and 1333 CAS8T1 or even 1333CAS9T1. And if you ask me, even the conclusion of the tom's hardware article, is influence by the fact, that sites are connected with companies and if people don't upgrade, it's bad for everyone's job. If i were the writer i 'd say "You want to spend 85 euros for higher freq RAM? Don't! Save your money and buy a more expensive GPU!".


I agree.

That's how the money is made!









Think of this: you could have saved that 83 Euros, or close to $100 US and bought a brand new 280x/290x if you had 7950 card like me, instead of ram. Which would give you 20-40 more frames than now if not more

NOW THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL improvement!

Thank you for clearing that up, I won't mess with it. Not worth it.

When time comes I will upgrade but probably for two 8GBs sticks.


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XLifted*
> 
> I agree.
> 
> That's how the money is made!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of this: you could have saved that 83 Euros, or close to $100 US and bought a brand new 280x/290x if you had 7950 card like me, instead of ram. Which would give you 20-40 more frames than now if not more
> 
> NOW THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL improvement!
> 
> Thank you for clearing that up, I won't mess with it. Not worth it.
> 
> When time comes I will upgrade but probably for two 8GBs sticks.


Exactly. Why fight over 2 fps (that you will never notice), when you can get 30?

Only one warning. Intel is moving to DDR4 next year. RAM prices will likely spike even more, as more factories will cease production of DDR3 to pass to DDR4. So, if you want to make a purchase, you 'd better do it within say November. After that, it's probable that DDR3 will cost even more. Already some factories have shifted production to DDR4. You know how it is. Demand and SUPPLY.


----------



## mdocod

XLifted,

I was under the impression that all Ballistix Sport kits had those black heat spreaders. ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148420 )

If not, its no big deal, Undervolter is absolutely right there is not a lot of benefit to RAM speed. That said, your Crucial kit is probably not as bad as you think. Crucial makes great quality memory in-house (micron) and is one of the few manufactures of desktop memory still configuring almost everything as dual rank dimms. In my testing, a dual rank kit performs as well or better on PD as a single rank kit running quite a bit faster. I'd rather have a dual rank [email protected] kit than a single rank [email protected] kit any day.

If I recall correctly, In my testing on the AM3+ rig, I was getting about the same bandwidth at 1600-7-8-8 on a dual rank crucial ballistix sport kit, as on a single rank ripjaw X kit running at 2133-9-11-11.

After observing that discrepancy I no longer use the sport kit on the AM3+ rig (which is what it was originally purchase for), it's now in the APU rig where it belongs and is overclocked to [email protected] running fine. Works better than the more expensive ripjaw kit there (even though the ripjaw kit could do 2400-9-11-11 on the richland memory controller).

I now have the "garbage" G.Skill ram in my AM3+ rig where it doesn't matter much.

I get the feeling that a lot of these brands may be covering up their RAM with heat-spreaders just to hide stuff from the consumer. Though I do like the *look* of nice heat-spreaders (aesthetics are fun), I wonder about a hidden agenda there.


----------



## mdocod

double post


----------



## XLifted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> Exactly. Why fight over 2 fps (that you will never notice), when you can get 30?
> 
> Only one warning. Intel is moving to DDR4 next year. RAM prices will likely spike even more, as more factories will cease production of DDR3 to pass to DDR4. So, if you want to make a purchase, you 'd better do it within say November. After that, it's probable that DDR3 will cost even more. Already some factories have shifted production to DDR4. You know how it is. Demand and SUPPLY.


Hey! Thanks a LOT for the HEADS UP!









I will be aware of this from this point and have it in mind. Another thing I can think of now, my motherboard will slowly become obsolete. It won't be compatible for DD4 chips for sure. Awww....corporate approach.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mdocod*
> 
> XLifted,
> 
> I was under the impression that all Ballistix Sport kits had those black heat spreaders. ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148420 )
> 
> If not, its no big deal, Undervolter is absolutely right there is not a lot of benefit to RAM speed. That said, your Crucial kit is probably not as bad as you think. Crucial makes great quality memory in-house (micron) and is one of the few manufactures of desktop memory still configuring almost everything as dual rank dimms. In my testing, a dual rank kit performs as well or better on PD as a single rank kit running quite a bit faster. I'd rather have a dual rank [email protected] kit than a single rank [email protected] kit any day.
> 
> If I recall correctly, In my testing on the AM3+ rig, I was getting about the same bandwidth at 1600-7-8-8 on a dual rank crucial ballistix sport kit, as on a single rank ripjaw X kit running at 2133-9-11-11.
> 
> After observing that discrepancy I no longer use the sport kit on the AM3+ rig (which is what it was originally purchase for), it's now in the APU rig where it belongs and is overclocked to [email protected] running fine. Works better than the more expensive ripjaw kit there (even though the ripjaw kit could do 2400-9-11-11 on the richland memory controller).
> 
> I now have the "garbage" G.Skill ram in my AM3+ rig where it doesn't matter much.
> 
> I get the feeling that a lot of these brands may be covering up their RAM with heat-spreaders just to hide stuff from the consumer. Though I do like the *look* of nice heat-spreaders (aesthetics are fun), I wonder about a hidden agenda there.


Thank you for the response









Interesting stuff. What is the dual rank DIMM in this case, what does that mean?

You got it right with the link, it is the same RAM chips. So I guess it does have heat spreaders, but I thought it was some fancy "shmancy" decoration LOL...









I decided not to go with overclock, just wondering what that dual rank DIMM is.


----------



## mdocod

Memory can be configured on a DIMM with different numbers of memory chips of different densities and widths to achieve a particular capacity and rank configuration..

A unbufferd (64 bit) 4GB DDR3 DIMM could be constructed in any of the following ways:

4 X 1024MB (16bit) chips = 4GB single rank
8 X 512MB (8bit) chips = 4GB single rank
8 X 512MB (16bit) chips = 4GB dual rank
16 X 256MB (4bit) chips = 4GB single rank
16 X 256MB (8bit) chips = 4GB dual rank
16 X 256MB (16bit) chips = 4GB quad rank
32 X 128MB (4 bit) chips = 4GB dual rank
32 X 128MB (8bit) chips = 4GB quad rank

Quad rank (or any 32 chip configuration) is pretty well unheard of in desktop/consumer systems. Most DIMMs made for non-server systems are either single or dual rank with 4-16 chips.

To be honest its something that I hadn't payed much attention to until recently, when I was running a bunch of benchmarks and tests to compare the effects of CPU-NB and RAM overclocking on the AM3+ platform. I switched memory from our APU rig into my AM3+ machine because it was *supposedly* nicer memory in order to run the tests. I noticed an immediate drop in memory benchmarking results across the board on the ripjawX kit vs the cheap Crucial Sport kit. Upon investigation:

Code:



Code:


Handle 0x0030, DMI type 17, 34 bytes
Memory Device
        Array Handle: 0x002C
        Error Information Handle: Not Provided
        Total Width: 64 bits
        Data Width: 64 bits
        Size: 4096 MB
        Form Factor: DIMM
        Set: None
        Locator: Node0_Dimm1
        Bank Locator: Node0_Bank0
        Type: DDR3
        Type Detail: Synchronous Unbuffered (Unregistered)
        Speed: 800 MHz
        Manufacturer: Undefined         
        Serial Number: 00000000    
        Asset Tag: Dimm1_AssetTag
        Part Number: F3-2133C9-4GX
        Rank: 1
        Configured Clock Speed: 800 MHz

The only difference that made any sense is that the ripjaw kit is single rank, while the crucial sport kit is dual rank. Sure enough, the dual rank kit performs better on the APU and tests better on the AM3+ platform. Further investigation suggests that this is not abnormal, many 3rd parties recommend ensuring at least 2 ranks are installed per memory channel, especially in server environments where rank interleaving can improve real-world performance by up to ~10%.

I guess my problem with the whole issue is that these flashy brands are selling "high speed" single rank kits as "performance memory" when really, it's just the cheapest way to make memory that is error free at a high cycle speed. There will always be a crowd chasing irrelevant numbers: _ghz_ and _mhz_ are a never ending story of betrayal in computing. I feel a bit betrayed because I purposely picked out a "performance" kit for an A10-6800K in order to get the best possible performance from the iGPU, only to find out after the fact that my efforts were a waste.


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XLifted*
> 
> Hey! Thanks a LOT for the HEADS UP!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be aware of this from this point and have it in mind. Another thing I can think of now, my motherboard will slowly become obsolete. It won't be compatible for DD4 chips for sure. Awww....corporate approach.
> Thank you for the response


You 're welcome. Nobody can be a prophet of prices, but past history has shown that in similar circumstances, the prices go up. For example, now DDR2 costs more than DDR3, because DDR2 is out of production, so they sell you like gold the old RAM they have in stock...

Yes, there is no AMD motherboard compatible with DDR4 yet (because there is no CPU either). But don't worry. Think the bright side of it. DDR3 is as mature as it gets. When DDR4 will initially come out, it will be slow (high timings) and expensive (low factory yields). If you rush to buy the first DDR4 kits, they will be expensive and after a year, they will be considered too slow. Just make your purchases before they 're extinct. Same goes for motherboards. I have 7 of them and 5 RAM kits of 8GB, because i intend to stay a good while on AM3+. No matter what happens, i will have a spare part. I prefer many cheap motherboards, than 1 expensive, because i can use different builds for different purposes and be able to swap components between them. I may upgrade again 1 rig in a few years, but the rest will stay AM3+. Consider how happy the people in the "Socket 939 appreciation club" are, cheering still today "s939 rules" and you can find many uses for a quite powerful computer for many years to come.







We will make the "AM3+ Appreciation Club" and have tons of fun with our collectionists' pieces!


----------



## XLifted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> You 're welcome. Nobody can be a prophet of prices, but past history has shown that in similar circumstances, the prices go up. For example, now DDR2 costs more than DDR3, because DDR2 is out of production, so they sell you like gold the old RAM they have in stock...
> 
> Yes, there is no AMD motherboard compatible with DDR4 yet (because there is no CPU either). But don't worry. Think the bright side of it. DDR3 is as mature as it gets. When DDR4 will initially come out, it will be slow (high timings) and expensive (low factory yields). If you rush to buy the first DDR4 kits, they will be expensive and after a year, they will be considered too slow. Just make your purchases before they 're extinct. Same goes for motherboards. I have 7 of them and 5 RAM kits of 8GB, because i intend to stay a good while on AM3+. No matter what happens, i will have a spare part. I prefer many cheap motherboards, than 1 expensive, because i can use different builds for different purposes and be able to swap components between them. I may upgrade again 1 rig in a few years, but the rest will stay AM3+. Consider how happy the people in the "Socket 939 appreciation club" are, cheering still today "s939 rules" and you can find many uses for a quite powerful computer for many years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will make the "AM3+ Appreciation Club" and have tons of fun with our collectionists' pieces!


Well that makes me feel better









LOL

That's a good advice as well, I will just wait. Won't be buying any ram soon. At least until it's clear I need it. The only reason I buy ram to begin with is for gaming. Rather have more than needed of course.

Would be nice to buy two 16 GB sticks if the price is the right in the future, that will just save so much time, or at least four of 8gbs at good rating of course








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mdocod*
> 
> Memory can be configured on a DIMM with different numbers of memory chips of different densities and widths to achieve a particular capacity and rank configuration..
> 
> A unbufferd (64 bit) 4GB DDR3 DIMM could be constructed in any of the following ways:
> 
> 4 X 1024MB (16bit) chips = 4GB single rank
> 8 X 512MB (8bit) chips = 4GB single rank
> 8 X 512MB (16bit) chips = 4GB dual rank
> 16 X 256MB (4bit) chips = 4GB single rank
> 16 X 256MB (8bit) chips = 4GB dual rank
> 16 X 256MB (16bit) chips = 4GB quad rank
> 32 X 128MB (4 bit) chips = 4GB dual rank
> 32 X 128MB (8bit) chips = 4GB quad rank
> 
> Quad rank (or any 32 chip configuration) is pretty well unheard of in desktop/consumer systems. Most DIMMs made for non-server systems are either single or dual rank with 4-16 chips.
> 
> To be honest its something that I hadn't payed much attention to until recently, when I was running a bunch of benchmarks and tests to compare the effects of CPU-NB and RAM overclocking on the AM3+ platform. I switched memory from our APU rig into my AM3+ machine because it was *supposedly* nicer memory in order to run the tests. I noticed an immediate drop in memory benchmarking results across the board on the ripjawX kit vs the cheap Crucial Sport kit. Upon investigation:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Handle 0x0030, DMI type 17, 34 bytes
> Memory Device
> Array Handle: 0x002C
> Error Information Handle: Not Provided
> Total Width: 64 bits
> Data Width: 64 bits
> Size: 4096 MB
> Form Factor: DIMM
> Set: None
> Locator: Node0_Dimm1
> Bank Locator: Node0_Bank0
> Type: DDR3
> Type Detail: Synchronous Unbuffered (Unregistered)
> Speed: 800 MHz
> Manufacturer: Undefined
> Serial Number: 00000000
> Asset Tag: Dimm1_AssetTag
> Part Number: F3-2133C9-4GX
> Rank: 1
> Configured Clock Speed: 800 MHz
> 
> The only difference that made any sense is that the ripjaw kit is single rank, while the crucial sport kit is dual rank. Sure enough, the dual rank kit performs better on the APU and tests better on the AM3+ platform. Further investigation suggests that this is not abnormal, many 3rd parties recommend ensuring at least 2 ranks are installed per memory channel, especially in server environments where rank interleaving can improve real-world performance by up to ~10%.
> 
> I guess my problem with the whole issue is that these flashy brands are selling "high speed" single rank kits as "performance memory" when really, it's just the cheapest way to make memory that is error free at a high cycle speed. There will always be a crowd chasing irrelevant numbers: _ghz_ and _mhz_ are a never ending story of betrayal in computing. I feel a bit betrayed because I purposely picked out a "performance" kit for an A10-6800K in order to get the best possible performance from the iGPU, only to find out after the fact that my efforts were a waste.


Interesting.

I will need to read up on this dual rank stuff.

Another thing that I recently found out here on Overclock is that I have set my memory in memory slots #1 and #2, instead of advised #1 and #3 or #2 and #4 memory slots.

So today will be switching that as well


----------



## Undervolter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XLifted*
> 
> Another thing that I recently found out here on Overclock is that I have set my memory in memory slots #1 and #2, instead of advised #1 and #3 or #2 and #4 memory slots.
> 
> So today will be switching that as well


You must see the booklet of your motherboard as to how the DIMM slots are numbered. In AM3+ boards, in deed, usually you must use 1st, 3rd or 2nd, 4th. So that the RAM runs dual channel. If you have it on the wrong slots, it will run single channel, with i think about 10% performance penalty, although i am not 100% on that.

In CPU-Z, you want to see this:


----------



## XLifted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Undervolter*
> 
> You must see the booklet of your motherboard as to how the DIMM slots are numbered. In AM3+ boards, in deed, usually you must use 1st, 3rd or 2nd, 4th. So that the RAM runs dual channel. If you have it on the wrong slots, it will run single channel, with i think about 10% performance penalty, although i am not 100% on that.
> 
> In CPU-Z, you want to see this:


I did switch them to slots #1 and #3 already, but did not know CPU-Z shows that.

I have that installed on my system, will definitely check when I get home. Thank you









So far I was able to overclock to 4.82 Ghz at 1.4935 volts on Sabertooth Asus 990FX (because for some reason it doesn't give me small increments above suggested 1..4875 volts on other forum. Then again the weird part is that mine overclocks 200 mhz above 4.8 Ghz, so I need more volts. Cannot set it evenly on this chip for some reason.

I did install the chips on #1 and #3, and I'm not sure how it was feeling before, because now I get a stable FPS in Battlefield 4 at average of 68 frames per second, due to good voltage current and good motherboard.

Hard to say how much better it is, because it's SO MUCH better now.

I don't get red screens of death now (reason I bought a new board) even with my GPU overclock of 1200 Mhz core, and 1615 Mhz memory clock.

I can push the CPU further to 5.0, but I don't know if that is needed.

Temperatures are good with Corsair 105 now too. At around 38 C idle on medium fan setting, so I figure why push it to 5.0 Ghz, unless I need it in the future. Load playing games (BF4) was around 48-50 Celcius. Prime 95 was at 58 Celcius on blend full fan setting.


----------



## DMatthewStewart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mdocod*
> 
> It's important to note that the default HT link speeds on the 760G and 970 chipsets support more bandwidth than all the PCIE lanes and SATA connections combined, so there's really no point in overclocking the HT link on these platforms. In some (very few) cases there may be minor benefits on the 990FX chipset derived from pushing slightly beyond the default 2600mhz HT link speed when working with multiple GPUs. Otherwise don't bother.


Hmm, this may be whats causing me some problems with my crossfire. I noticed that when OC'ing my CPU, and using the prefered guide on here, my HT Link speed automatically goes down to 2200 or 2400. But the default is supposed to be 2600.

But if HT Link Speed is directly related to PCIE performance then maybe this is why my second card either 1) stays around 300-400mhz on the core clock or 2) when it actually uses the full 1080 clock both gpu's only run at about 50%

The only two prgrams that I can get to utilize both gpu's to their fullest right now is the render test in gpu-z and 3D Mark. Cant get it to work properly with any game nor Valley.

Thoughts? Should I go in there and manually force it to 2600? Or should I reset my mobo back to all default settings and see what happens?


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DMatthewStewart*
> 
> Hmm, this may be whats causing me some problems with my crossfire. I noticed that when OC'ing my CPU, and using the prefered guide on here, my HT Link speed automatically goes down to 2200 or 2400. But the default is supposed to be 2600.
> 
> But if HT Link Speed is directly related to PCIE performance then maybe this is why my second card either 1) stays around 300-400mhz on the core clock or 2) when it actually uses the full 1080 clock both gpu's only run at about 50%
> 
> The only two prgrams that I can get to utilize both gpu's to their fullest right now is the render test in gpu-z and 3D Mark. Cant get it to work properly with any game nor Valley.
> 
> Thoughts? Should I go in there and manually force it to 2600? Or should I reset my mobo back to all default settings and see what happens?


Id manually set it to 2600. I never leave any settings on auto when overclocking,


----------

