Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:48 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Quick question.
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:55 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:55 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Memphis, TN
How come some people I see say they have PC3500 or PC3700 DDR RAM when they're using an MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum. I thought PC3200 was the highest you could have on an MSI K*N Neo2 Platinum. Could spmeone explain this?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:02 pm 
Celeron
Celeron
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 7362
Location: New York City
PC3500/3700/4000/4200/4400 ram means that this is what the company rates the sticks as. It's their exapected highs. However, when you boot up a computer, the RAM is throttled down to whatever your FSB on the CPU is set at.

For example, if your FSB is set at 200mhz, then the ram is set at 200mhz (on a 1:1 ratio).

This does not mean that PC3500/3700/4000/4200/4400 ram is incompatible with the certain board.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:12 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:55 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Memphis, TN
So to get the full power of pc3500, I would have to overclock my fsb?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:38 pm 
Celeron
Celeron
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 7362
Location: New York City
basically, yeah

edit: im kind of wrong. There are dividers that run your RAM faster than the FSB. (like a 5:6 ratio instead of a 1:1 or 6:5)


Last edited by OCNoob on Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:12 am 
Max [Ph]otographer
Max [Ph]otographer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 5200
I guess this does beg the question, why do mobo manufacturers rate their mobos as having a 400mhz FSB (DDR) when in actuality they can go much higher?

Are they assuming that if people see higher numbers they will get confused?

Or is it because these higher FSB's can only be had through overclocking?

My old Abit NF7-S is rated at a 400mhz FSB (DDR) when in actuality I can take it much higher if I had better RAM. Right now, for example, I have it at 410mhz.

Wouldn't the mobo manufacturer want to show off thier highest FSB?

Dan O.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:38 pm 
Contributing Writer
Contributing Writer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:09 pm
Posts: 9602
Location: Land of the Lounge Lizards
Belboz99 wrote:
I guess this does beg the question, why do mobo manufacturers rate their mobos as having a 400mhz FSB (DDR) when in actuality they can go much higher?
Dan O.


Think of all the complaints and RMA requests they'd get due to failed overclocking attempts. It would not be feasible to claim a fsb over spec as that's highly dependent on many factors. They would be put in the position of honoring the RMAs (and putting themselves out of business), or taking on the role of massive tech support in teaching noobs to overclock, since on the box it clearly states a fsb of 'such-and-such'.

The enthusiasts already know which boards to get their hands on.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:13 pm 
Max [Ph]otographer
Max [Ph]otographer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 5200
I guess what I meant was them advertizing the FSB for non overlocking purposes.

For example, for a while mobos only listed having a 266mhz FSB (DDR) My Abit NV7-133R is an example. Now I've gone into the BIOS, after buying a 2400+ for it, and found that indeed it does go well above 300mhz FSB (320 IIRC).

Perhaps I would have known there were more choices available had I known about how high the actual FSB was. For example, I could have bought a 2400+ Mobile instead, one based off the Barton core, using a 333mhz FSB. Theoreically, it would have worked fine, all I would have had to do was clock the FSB at 320 and put the multiplier at around 13 or 14 for a good overclock.

Of course I would have had to swap out the PC2100 RAM :roll:

Dan O.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:16 pm 
Celeron
Celeron
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 7362
Location: New York City
I dont think they had higher standards at the time. Right now, they highest approved speed for DDR, by JEDEC, is DDR400. Could have been just DDR266 at the time.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:31 pm 
Contributing Writer
Contributing Writer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:09 pm
Posts: 9602
Location: Land of the Lounge Lizards
Belboz, they list what is supported at the time of release. Such was the case with early revisions of the nForce2 mobos that listed 333fsb support but not 400. Many of them just needed a BIOS update, but at the time, 333 was the official standard and what was available in processors. Listing a higher spec would mean they would have to honor the RMA requests of overclockers and/or troubleshoot, as already mentioned.

Using your example, you're talking about a mobo released in 2002 (NV7-133R). There was no such thing as a Mobile 2400+ back then, so listing anything above 266 would have meant officially supporting overclockering at the time.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:40 pm 
Max [Ph]otographer
Max [Ph]otographer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 5200
One4yu2c wrote:
Belboz, they list what is supported at the time of release. Such was the case with early revisions of the nForce2 mobos that listed 333fsb support but not 400. Many of them just needed a BIOS update, but at the time, 333 was the official standard and what was available in processors. Listing a higher spec would mean they would have to honor the RMA requests of overclockers and/or troubleshoot, as already mentioned.

Using your example, you're talking about a mobo released in 2002 (NV7-133R). There was no such thing as a Mobile 2400+ back then, so listing anything above 266 would have meant officially supporting overclockering at the time.


I guess your right. It's just funny when you buy a board that says it has a 266mhz DDR FSB max, then you open up the BIOS and find that it goes up to 320mhz. :roll:

It seems that FSBs are one of the few exexptions to the marketing rule, which is state the highest possible speed, and cheat/lie if necessary.

Take that last post on hard drives for example. They say it's an 80gb hard drive, but once you go into windows you find that there is only 74.5gb.

Would be kind of stupid if it were the other way around, and you bought an 80gb hard drive and found there was actually 85.5gb.

I guess I'm just so used to seeing all the marketing tricks that make people think they're getting more than they actually are, that it bothers me when they say your getting less than you actually are.


Dan O.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group