Cookie settings
Privacy policy.
Login / Register
Ok, i'll be blunt and to the point on this one!
I was wondering about these processors cause my pc is old ( 6 years old ), overclocked to death and kicking arse still but it will burn eventually, the way i push my hardware makes it last this long but not much longer, so I'm looking for a new set for me but, I got a question:
Why are these CPUs only ready to read DDR3 1066?!
It's crazy when you have DDR3 that can push to 1600 like the ones I ordered ( yep, I messed up lol, bought overpowered DDRs for the CPU ), how come Intel did that?
I7 I5 & I3 Question
Board Index »
Chit-chat »
I7 I5 & I3 Question
ktide
Skillguey (7)
Skillguey (7)
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 12 years ago.
hey m8, 1066 was the official memory when they were made, however most/all motherboards offer the option to do ratios. I have an 2600k running with DDR1600 at 1600Mhz, and its fine. The only issue is that it screws up the turbo-boost a little because these ratios change the base speed slightly. Turbo boost can o/c an 2600k to 3.5-3.8 (depending how how many cores are loaded, 1 X core 3.8 or 4 x cores 3.5). However all I see with turbo boost is 3.5 on all cores - which still fast to be honest. Actually a 2600k is supposed to run at 3.4, so seeing 3.5 is good anyway. I think 1600Mhz is fine for an I5/7.. well its been for me anyway.
are you getting a new pc m8? my upgrading was posted on the forum if ure interested.
are you getting a new pc m8? my upgrading was posted on the forum if ure interested.
ktide
Skillguey (7)
Skillguey (7)
Posted 12 years ago.
I'll be soon, but I think Intel could have done a bit better m8, no harm inted on my statment thou.
I have the Q6600 running at 3.6 atm and it runs like crazy with DDR2s aswell, not the best of machines around but the benchmark numbers are very impressive, all I had to do was invest in h2o cooling and it runs great with little temp.
I'm having the same issues I have prior to burning like before, the machine doesn't start at 1st, blocks running windows at startup and that usualy means new parts needed so I was looking for something good to have, I think I'll go I5 aswell
But Rog, as you know even if the board does handle more then the CPU does ( DDR power wise ) the board will not superseed the CPU, meaning you can tell the board to runn flat out full in the BIOS but the processor will just ignore that. Not guessing here mate, even overclocking and benchmarking to the fullest I rememnber I tried to run 400mhz ( Jesus... Good old days or SDRam )on a CPU that could only do 355 ( i think it was ) and I remember my board issued a number by thread, like a 7 for max speed of ram, that speed being the handled by the CPU ( let's say 355 ) and if you were to add that to 9, let's say, it would be the 400 that the ram would pull but, even thou the board would say it would go that far, the CPU would allways say no and superseed that speed, reperssing it to 7 again, ence my question to why make 1600 if the new I CPUs only allow 1066, wasn't aware they changed that
I'll look for that post Rog, gonna see what you did there hehe.
I have the Q6600 running at 3.6 atm and it runs like crazy with DDR2s aswell, not the best of machines around but the benchmark numbers are very impressive, all I had to do was invest in h2o cooling and it runs great with little temp.
I'm having the same issues I have prior to burning like before, the machine doesn't start at 1st, blocks running windows at startup and that usualy means new parts needed so I was looking for something good to have, I think I'll go I5 aswell
But Rog, as you know even if the board does handle more then the CPU does ( DDR power wise ) the board will not superseed the CPU, meaning you can tell the board to runn flat out full in the BIOS but the processor will just ignore that. Not guessing here mate, even overclocking and benchmarking to the fullest I rememnber I tried to run 400mhz ( Jesus... Good old days or SDRam
)on a CPU that could only do 355 ( i think it was ) and I remember my board issued a number by thread, like a 7 for max speed of ram, that speed being the handled by the CPU ( let's say 355 ) and if you were to add that to 9, let's say, it would be the 400 that the ram would pull but, even thou the board would say it would go that far, the CPU would allways say no and superseed that speed, reperssing it to 7 again, ence my question to why make 1600 if the new I CPUs only allow 1066, wasn't aware they changed that
I'll look for that post Rog, gonna see what you did there hehe.
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 12 years ago.
hey m8, well I dont know if you know but I have an I7 2600k Sandy bridge, that quotes a memory controller at 1333Mhz, but its been running 1600Mhz memory for awhile. Here's how it looks:
However I think ill will look into it more, as I think it may be over-clocking the memory controller to 1600Mhz. I need to find out if 1600Mhz is really any faster for I7. However all the I3/5/7's use the word over-clocking quite a lot (turbo boost), and things arent so sensitive as they were with the old chips. I think ill try 1333 with my 1600 to see if it likes it more - dont think there's a lot of differences in memory speed, but 1333 will allow my turbo boost to go higher. Im gonna check with runnin 3dmark01se (as this is a cpu/memory sensitive benchmark).
However I think ill will look into it more, as I think it may be over-clocking the memory controller to 1600Mhz. I need to find out if 1600Mhz is really any faster for I7. However all the I3/5/7's use the word over-clocking quite a lot (turbo boost), and things arent so sensitive as they were with the old chips. I think ill try 1333 with my 1600 to see if it likes it more - dont think there's a lot of differences in memory speed, but 1333 will allow my turbo boost to go higher. Im gonna check with runnin 3dmark01se (as this is a cpu/memory sensitive benchmark).
ktide
Skillguey (7)
Skillguey (7)
Posted 12 years ago.
Yeah, you're on the spot there m8, Turbo Boost does show alot on the new cpus for some reason.
My theory about that is that Intel is trying to make the parts more resistent to users like us ( clockers lol ), so that the material can stay a bit more cold and only goes faster if it really must, when needed, and not all the time. If so, good point on that one really.
I remember my old AMD was a rocket compared to any Pentium 4 ( before i got the Q6600 ) but they were so sensitive that I blew a brand new one just pushing it a bit harder, got hot so fast I had no time to speed up the fan to cool it down, and I allways use a better cooling system then the stock one... Pointless to say the stock one sucks lol.
How much performance improvement have you seen with the new parts anyway mate? Is it really worth the price?
My theory about that is that Intel is trying to make the parts more resistent to users like us ( clockers lol ), so that the material can stay a bit more cold and only goes faster if it really must, when needed, and not all the time. If so, good point on that one really.
I remember my old AMD was a rocket compared to any Pentium 4 ( before i got the Q6600 ) but they were so sensitive that I blew a brand new one just pushing it a bit harder, got hot so fast I had no time to speed up the fan to cool it down, and I allways use a better cooling system then the stock one... Pointless to say the stock one sucks lol.
How much performance improvement have you seen with the new parts anyway mate? Is it really worth the price?
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 12 years ago.
Well this morning ive looked into a bit more, by testing my system under a few different programs to see what is better 1333Mhz or 16000Mhz memory.
Introduction
If your like me, you probably find the I3/5/7 a little confusing, as sitting in windows my 2600k runs at 1600Mhz. I thought I had some setting seriously wrong, however the chip can under-clock itself when not being used. This is called speed-step - if you didnt know. Its good feature after you understand it, as when a cpu is sitting doing nothing why waste energy? I will be talking about using the chip at stock speeds, as I dont need to o/c 2600k as its already fast enough for everything.
Turbo boost
Now the next thing which is rather confusing is turbo boost. What this does is that it over-clocks the cpu under certain conditions. ie. if the chip is cold enough, and depending how many cores are being loaded. The turbo boost on the 2600k can reach 3.8Ghz on a single core, whilst the others run at normal speed. Although if you use 2 core, then the maximum will be less and even lower for 3 and 4 cores (3.5Ghz).
However for long time I had the memory set at 1600Mhz, however this seem to screw up the turbo boost as it would all over-clock cores to 3.5Ghz regardless of how much loading each core had (3.4 to 3.5 isnt really a boost). I really should of looked into this more to start with.
Super PI
Ram set 1333Mhz (Turbo boost works up-to 3.8Ghz single core):
Ram set 1600Mhz (Turbo boost o/c all cores to 3.5Ghz):
So 9.921s (1333) or 10.655 (1600). So around a 7% faster letting turbo boost handle everything itself. The extra memory speed hasnt countered the extra Mhz boost.
3D Mark 01 se
This is fairly old benchmark but uses the cpu and memory on a single core. This really sees if using faster memory timings is faster than using turbo boost:
1333Mhz:
1600Mhz:
This time there is a 2.7% increase between faster memory or higher turbo boost. 54,840 (1333) or 53,310 (1600Mhz). I guess im starting to think that I should leave at 1333Mhz unless I want to seriously over-clock this chip, although I might do at an later date.
3D Mark 05
3D mark 05 is not the most up-to date benchmark around but this tests multiple cores and graphic card power. If all cores are being taxed, then all cores will be running at 3.5Ghz. So the 1600Mhz should be faster:
1333Mhz ram:
1600Mhz ram:
hmmm.. still looking faster with 1333Mhz ram - I guess its cos turbo boost can over-clock different cores at different times?
I might as well leave my ram at 1333Mhz now. Basically the CPU is better managing its clock speed at stock levels than me playing with any settings. Overall scores: 23,772 (1333) or 23,594 (1600)... CPU scores: 32,361 (1333) or 33,426 (1600). I know my overal 3D mark 05 score might be a little low, as I havnt upgraded my graphic card yet - its still an 9800GT.
I guess these numbers change when manually over-clocking the chip but for now I dont want to get into that. It looks like I should just let the chip do its own thing for now. The differences between 1333 and 1600 is minimum on this system.
It would be interesting to see your scores. Hope that helps.
Introduction
If your like me, you probably find the I3/5/7 a little confusing, as sitting in windows my 2600k runs at 1600Mhz. I thought I had some setting seriously wrong, however the chip can under-clock itself when not being used. This is called speed-step - if you didnt know. Its good feature after you understand it, as when a cpu is sitting doing nothing why waste energy? I will be talking about using the chip at stock speeds, as I dont need to o/c 2600k as its already fast enough for everything.
Turbo boost
Now the next thing which is rather confusing is turbo boost. What this does is that it over-clocks the cpu under certain conditions. ie. if the chip is cold enough, and depending how many cores are being loaded. The turbo boost on the 2600k can reach 3.8Ghz on a single core, whilst the others run at normal speed. Although if you use 2 core, then the maximum will be less and even lower for 3 and 4 cores (3.5Ghz).
However for long time I had the memory set at 1600Mhz, however this seem to screw up the turbo boost as it would all over-clock cores to 3.5Ghz regardless of how much loading each core had (3.4 to 3.5 isnt really a boost). I really should of looked into this more to start with.
Super PI
Ram set 1333Mhz (Turbo boost works up-to 3.8Ghz single core):
Ram set 1600Mhz (Turbo boost o/c all cores to 3.5Ghz):
So 9.921s (1333) or 10.655 (1600). So around a 7% faster letting turbo boost handle everything itself. The extra memory speed hasnt countered the extra Mhz boost.
3D Mark 01 se
This is fairly old benchmark but uses the cpu and memory on a single core. This really sees if using faster memory timings is faster than using turbo boost:
1333Mhz:
1600Mhz:
This time there is a 2.7% increase between faster memory or higher turbo boost. 54,840 (1333) or 53,310 (1600Mhz). I guess im starting to think that I should leave at 1333Mhz unless I want to seriously over-clock this chip, although I might do at an later date.
3D Mark 05
3D mark 05 is not the most up-to date benchmark around but this tests multiple cores and graphic card power. If all cores are being taxed, then all cores will be running at 3.5Ghz. So the 1600Mhz should be faster:
1333Mhz ram:
1600Mhz ram:
hmmm.. still looking faster with 1333Mhz ram - I guess its cos turbo boost can over-clock different cores at different times?
I might as well leave my ram at 1333Mhz now. Basically the CPU is better managing its clock speed at stock levels than me playing with any settings. Overall scores: 23,772 (1333) or 23,594 (1600)... CPU scores: 32,361 (1333) or 33,426 (1600). I know my overal 3D mark 05 score might be a little low, as I havnt upgraded my graphic card yet - its still an 9800GT.
I guess these numbers change when manually over-clocking the chip but for now I dont want to get into that. It looks like I should just let the chip do its own thing for now. The differences between 1333 and 1600 is minimum on this system.
It would be interesting to see your scores. Hope that helps.
ktide
Skillguey (7)
Skillguey (7)
Posted 12 years ago.
Lol, that's crazy.
The first system that works faster by unclocking the changes, meh, never thought I would see that!
All I thought was that the CPU ( knowing that it will only handle 1333mhz max on the DDRs ) would cut off the extra power if I would buy the 1600, by the looks of it it's gonna make use of it when needed... Nice!
I haven't bought the parts yet, still trying to figure out what GC to buy, wanted to make use of the SLI so I think i'll by a pair ( one now, one once I get a bit more cash in ) but have no idea on wich ones... Not gonna go crazy with the expence thou, quality/price will be a strong option for me.
The first system that works faster by unclocking the changes, meh, never thought I would see that!
All I thought was that the CPU ( knowing that it will only handle 1333mhz max on the DDRs ) would cut off the extra power if I would buy the 1600, by the looks of it it's gonna make use of it when needed... Nice!
I haven't bought the parts yet, still trying to figure out what GC to buy, wanted to make use of the SLI so I think i'll by a pair ( one now, one once I get a bit more cash in ) but have no idea on wich ones... Not gonna go crazy with the expence thou, quality/price will be a strong option for me.
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 12 years ago.
I think why the cpu ran faster with the memory set at 1333Mhz is that it the turbo boost could over-clock different cores to get everything done. In multi-threaded programs usually different threads take a different amount of time, so when theres less threads to finish then the cpu o/c harder (3.8Ghz) and the job done. Often you cant do C, without completing tasks A and B (b might take twice as long for example, so a core at 3.8 will be faster than one at 3.5).
I think basically these I7/5/3 are getting rather clever at doing things, and its something I like to see in CPU's. Rather than require more energy and run at higher Mhz's, the chip does some neat tricks to get things done. The only downside to it all is that the chip wants things to be how it wants, unless you plan to do some serious o/c.
When you start seeing these things I guess that is why Bulldozer lost out. The I7/5/3 technology is very intelligent - and hence the fastest atm.
btw, I used to look at SLI but it never worked out for. I usually get one big card then wait for another, however by the time im looking for the second, there are ones already 3 times faster. The only way SLI would work for me is that I could afford to get 2 cards to start with, although usually one card is easy enough.
I think basically these I7/5/3 are getting rather clever at doing things, and its something I like to see in CPU's. Rather than require more energy and run at higher Mhz's, the chip does some neat tricks to get things done. The only downside to it all is that the chip wants things to be how it wants, unless you plan to do some serious o/c.
When you start seeing these things I guess that is why Bulldozer lost out. The I7/5/3 technology is very intelligent - and hence the fastest atm.
btw, I used to look at SLI but it never worked out for. I usually get one big card then wait for another, however by the time im looking for the second, there are ones already 3 times faster. The only way SLI would work for me is that I could afford to get 2 cards to start with, although usually one card is easy enough.
ktide
Skillguey (7)
Skillguey (7)
Posted 12 years ago.
Grafics wise, i was thinking of this one:
ASUS ENGTX560 DC2 TOP/2DI/1GD5 1Gb GDDR5 PCI-E
Just copy/paste for links and such, doesn't look bad and the price ist't that bad either, here's the Asus site link:
http://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/NVIDIA_Series/ENGTX560_Ti_DCII_TOP2DI1GD5/#specifications
ASUS ENGTX560 DC2 TOP/2DI/1GD5 1Gb GDDR5 PCI-E
Just copy/paste for links and such, doesn't look bad and the price ist't that bad either, here's the Asus site link:
http://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/NVIDIA_Series/ENGTX560_Ti_DCII_TOP2DI1GD5/#specifications
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 12 years ago.
I think thats the exult one ive been looking at too, like Asus and the card looks good. Any chance you could post your 3d mark 01/05 scores, so I can see what your current pc is scoring?
ktide
Skillguey (7)
Skillguey (7)
Posted 12 years ago.
I've set my machine to fab status so it stable out till i can get the new one, been doing the math for the new parts and it's gonna take a wee bit of time till i can get them, looking at 1010 Euros to spend atm 
Once it's up and running I'll post the scores so you can see.
Once it's up and running I'll post the scores so you can see.
Roguey
Trueguey (22)
Trueguey (22)
Posted 12 years ago.
How about your current system? what does it score?
1
You need to log-in to post here.