Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

Overclocking Results

by

Overclocking often requires increased voltage, but some modules are less tolerant of voltage increases than others. Likewise, some overclockers are more enthusiastic than others, so we picked three voltage levels to represent the majority of builders: stock (1.50 Volts), which is a reasonably safe over-voltage level (1.80 Volts); and an insane "extreme enthusiast" level (2.10 Volts). Notice that even our "reasonably safe" 1.80 volt testing increases the default voltage by 20%, yet we’re fairly confident that most modules can tolerate this setting through several years of use.

Toe keep things fair, we set all modules to loose 9-9-9-24 timings for overclock tests. How far did we get?

OCZ Platinum DDR3-1333 easily beats competitors at 2.10 volts, trouncing even the same brand’s "ReaperX" extreme-overclocking model. Wintec AMPX comes in second place overall, with the highest 1.80 volt overclock but an inability to gain from a further increase to 2.10 volts.

We were surprised that the OCZ ReaperX modules didn’t overclock better at 2.10 volts than at 1.80 volts, because they’re cooled so well. Yet, OCZ wasn’t the only company to have its high-end parts fall behind its own lower-rated parts, as Kingston’s office-grade PC3-10600 also beat its extreme-performance HyperX PC3-11000.

Now we can compare the performance of each kit’s "rated timings" to that of its highest-speed CAS 9 settings. PC Mark 2005’s memory bench leads the benchmark session.

Did we really need benchmarks to prove the fastest modules had the best performance? Probably not, but they certainly drive the point home. Yet, the OCZ ReaperX’s 928 MHz memory clock somehow beat the 930 MHz memory clock of Wintec’s AMPX, probably by using a different combination of timings other than the four we set manually.

Share:
8
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
Therlian 07/01/2008 16:48
Hide
-0+

One part on page 3 is a bit confusing to me:

"Because cycle time is the inverse of clock speed (1/2 of DDR data rates), the DDR-333 reference clock cycled every six nanoseconds, DDR2-667 every three nanoseconds and DDR3-1333 every 1.5 nanoseconds. Latency is measured in clock cycles, and two 6ns cycles occur in the same time as four 3ns cycles or eight 1.5ns cycles. If you still have your doubts, do the math!"

If I am reading this right, cycle time is the inverse of (1/2)*(DDR Data Rate or 333 for example). So 1/((1/2)*333)=.006006006 which rounds to 6 milli-seconds, not 6 nano-seconds.

Sorry for my confusion, but could someone please clarify for me?

uk_gangsta 07/01/2008 18:33
Hide
-0+

I can not clarify...this is a good article, but im still anoyed at the spelling and punctuation in the articles...Im not one for utmost spelling and punction in informall chatting messaging etc (like this) but i am when its a published article, you wouldnt find a harry potter novel with spelling mistakes in it....

"and DDR3-1600 is called PC2-12800." Its surposed to say, PC3-12800 not...PC2-12800

On the first page mid way down ^^^

danmari 07/01/2008 23:09
Hide
-0+

Therlian you got it wrong. Generally, period (cycle time) it's the inverse of frequency (clock speed). But as DDR stands for Dual Data Rate, its real frequency is 1/2 of the specified clock speed. What you did wrong it's that you didn't take in account that DDR-333 means a data rate of 333 MEGA-hertz. Because a hertz is the inverse of a second you get: 1/((1/2)*333 MHz)=.006 micro- seconds, which is equal to 6 nano-seconds. Hope I made it clear for you.

Therlian 08/01/2008 14:13
Hide
-0+

I see now danmari. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know why I didn't think about the 333 being MHz as opposed to Hz.

Anonymous 02/08/2008 22:02
Hide
-0+

"I can not clarify...this is a good article, but im still anoyed at the spelling and punctuation in the articles...Im not one for utmost spelling and punction in informall chatting messaging etc (like this) but i am when its a published article, you wouldnt find a harry potter novel with spelling mistakes in it...."

Sorry but when you make THAT many mistakes in your own post, you have no right to talk about spelling mistakes. The mistake you mention is a typo (hitting a wrong key) not a spelling error.

You however manage to spell "annoyed", "informal", and "supposed" wrongly. You also managed to spell "punctuation" wrongly (the second time.. not sure how you can spell it right the first time and wrong the second..)

If you don't know how to spell, then don't flame others for it.

Anonymous 14/10/2008 10:53
Hide
-0+

anyone with notes PC2100,PC3200,PC4200,PC5300?

skgiven 12/04/2009 23:00
Hide
-0+

"Intel’s current fastest Front Side Bus (FSB) uses a 1333-MHz data rate"

No, that's not right!
It's 1600MHz (native) for a Socket 775 CPU and socket 771, and if you didn't notice, some people overclock, big time!

skgiven 12/04/2009 23:10
Hide
-0+

Although DDR3 is touted as using 1.50V, several modules use more!
The same is true of DDR2. In this article DDR2 is described as being 1.8V. In my experience most of the modules are 1.9V and some are higher.

Best offers

Newsletters


OK