RAM BIOS Settings

The final area that will need attention with overclocking is the RAM. The type of RAM used will dictate the approach to overclocking that RAM.


Click to enlarge.

Winbond BH5/CH5 can usually be set to 2-2-2-7 1T timings and then you can simply adjust the voltage levels to try and make it stable. (Technically, the RAM should be able to run 2-2-2-5 1T, but Wesley's tests have shown 7 for tRAS to be the optimal setting, so that's what we used.) You can also increase the timings above 2-2-2-7 1T, though most Winbond users are more interested in keeping "tight" timings. Samsung TCCx will usually run at 2-2-2-7 1T at DDR400 speeds, but increasing the memory speed will definitely require looser timings and possibly more voltage as well. The above screenshot shows the settings that we used for 9x300. You can refer to our memory articles for more detail on how individual brands of RAM perform. If you want to know a bit more about what the timings actually mean, we covered that in the past as well. The simple fact of life is that memory is variable in quality, so while most RAM can run at the specified timings and speed, how far above that you can go is not going to be the same from DIMM to DIMM. It will require time and effort to determine how fast your RAM can run and what timings and voltages will be required - and the motherboard will affect this as much as anything.

Click to enlarge.

Even if you select the slowest possible timings, some DIMMs won't be able to run much above DDR400 speeds. Value RAM in particular is often what is left after all the high speed blanks are binned out, which is why it can be as cheap as half the cost of quality RAM. The above BIOS screens show our settings for 9x300 with the value and performance RAM - you can see that we had to drop to DDR266 vs. DDR333, since not even the OCZ ran optimally at DDR600. (At least, that's what we needed on this particular board with this particular set of DIMMs. 3-4-4-8 with 2T command rate worked, but was slower than DDR333 2.5-3-3-8 with 1T.) If you're going for top performance, value RAM is a poor choice. If, on the other hand, you want to save money, $85 RAM is a lot more attractive than $150+ RAM. The trick to using value RAM is that you basically have to keep it at or below DDR400 speeds, and this is accomplished by the use of memory ratios. There's a stigma against using higher memory ratios, because it "negates the performance gain." That can be true on some platforms, but it doesn't seem to affect Athlon 64 quite as much due to the integrated memory controller. Let's talk about why.

Above is a rough diagram of a typical Pentium 4 motherboard. The CPU talks over the FSB (Front Side Bus) to the NB (North Bridge of the chipset), and the NB then talks over the memory bus to the RAM. The memory controller is part of the NB, and it runs at the system bus speed. With an 800FSB, the base clock speed is actually only 200MHz, but data is sent four times per clock cycle. With modern CPUs running at four or more times the FSB speed (i.e. 3.2 GHz and above), making the CPU wait for data from memory can severely impact performance. It may help to think of the quad-pumping of the FSB as a four-car train leaving every cycle, with the caveat that the train must be either completely full or completely empty. If the CPU is waiting for data from RAM and only three parts are ready, it has to wait an extra FSB cycle. At 200MHz, an FSB cycle could be as many as 19 CPU cycles (for the 580/680)! Here's where memory ratios come into play.

On the P4 chipsets, the NB talks to the CPU at one speed, and it can talk to RAM at a slower or faster speed. If it talks to RAM faster than it talks to the CPU (i.e. DDR2-533 or DDR2-667 with FSB800), there will be fewer "empty trains" going to the CPU. If it talks slower to the RAM than the FSB, however, there will be more empty slots on the FSB. When we look at Pentium overclocking in the future, we'll cover this more, but the basic idea is that you want the RAM to run at FSB speed or faster if at all possible. Dropping even to DDR333 (which is actually DDR320 for most Intel chipsets) can cause a 5 to 10% performance loss, and DDR266 would be even worse. So, why is Athlon 64 different?

The key is in the integrated memory controller. All modern processors run at much faster clock speeds than memory, which is why we have such things as L1 and L2 cache on the CPUs. Even with cache, though, getting data from RAM faster will improve performance substantially. By eliminating the NB from the CPU to RAM path, latencies can be reduced significantly, and this is the key change that AMD made from the K7 to K8 cores (besides the 64-bit extensions that still go unused by the majority of PC users, of course). Clock for clock, the integrated memory controller of K8 makes the Athlon 64 roughly 25% faster than Athlon XP, which is a significant performance increase given the relatively small amount of die space that was required. The integrated memory controller also affects performance when running at other RAM ratios, though. Since there is no NB to CPU delay when going from RAM to CPU, and since the memory controller runs at CPU core speed, once the data arrives from RAM to the memory controller, it is available. On a P4, the use of lower asynchronous memory speeds only serves to increase the delays in accessing RAM.

An interesting corollary to the above discussion is in the Northbridge link of AMD vs. Intel. On AMD, the Northbridge is connected via the HyperTransport link. Running at 1000 MHz base (double-pumped makes it equivalent to 2000 MHz), the HT bus is 16-bits wide (2 bytes) with dedicated upstream and downstream links. All told, that gives:
2000 MHz * 2 bytes = 4000 MB/s
The total HT bandwidth is thus 8000 MB/s - 4000 MB/s in each direction. Here's the catch, though: this bandwidth is separate from the memory bandwidth. If you've ever tried overclocking the HT bus speed and found the results to be of little help, performance-wise, that should hopefully clear things up. There is rarely (if ever) 4 GB/s of data in either direction between the CPU and Northbridge. It's like putting an eight-lane highway through a rural farming community; since there's very little traffic to begin with, the extra lanes (bandwidth) won't help much. That's not to say this is a poor design decision - better to have too much available bandwidth than not enough! The P4 design doesn't suffer from a lack of bandwidth either; the problem is that the time in which it takes to get data from the RAM to the CPU is quite a bit longer - in other words, higher latencies.

The net result is that while a lower RAM clock speed can still impact performance on Athlon 64 systems, it will not do so as much as on a P4 style configuration. That's the theory, anyway, and we hope to support it with results from several planned overclocking articles.

To illustrate the above points, we've created a brief list of cycle rates and timings of RAM. We'll start with some common RAM speeds, but the actual speed of your RAM will depend on the CPU multiplier and CPU bus speed, among other things. With the clock speeds and timings, we can also calculate the latency and estimate the total memory latency. Remember that the RAM timings are relative to the base bus speed, not the doubled speed, so DDR400 has a 200MHz base clock speed. There is also latency involved internally in the CPU (typically at least a single RAM cycle each way is spent in the memory controller), as well as in sending the address request across the memory bus and receiving the data back across the bus to the CPU (we guessed at two RAM cycles each way). Command rate adds another cycle, and maybe we're wrong or missed some other potential delays.

Everything takes time, and the memory timings generally only reflect the delays caused internally by the RAM. Different clock speeds and timings should produce a different total latency, and we estimate the total memory subsystem latency below. We'll check the actual latency in our benchmarks later. In practice, going from DDR200 to DDR400 RAM will not cut the RAM latency in half, even at the same timings. For reference, our estimated latency is calculated as:
7 * (Cycle Latency) + CL + 0.1 * tRCD + 0.05 * tRP
It would be different for other platforms, and it's probably off by as much as 20%, we'd guess. The "7" represents the command rate, CPU to memory controller delays, and memory controller to RAM delays. We did use some tests to try to come up with a good estimate, but take the estimated latency in the following table with a serious dose of skepticism. For a P4 platform, the major change is that the inclusion of the NB will change the "7" factor to something much larger - perhaps 14 to 20. (We'll look at that in a future article.)

RAM Speeds; Timings and Theoretical Latencies
RAM Rating Base Speed ns per cycle CAS tRCD tRP tRAS CL ns tRCD ns tRP ns tRAS ns Estimated Latency
DDR266 133.33 7.5 2 2 2 5 15 15 15 37.5 69.75
DDR266 133.33 7.5 2.5 3 3 7 18.75 22.5 22.5 52.5 74.63
DDR266 133.33 7.5 3 4 4 8 22.5 30 30 60 79.5
DDR333 166.67 6 2 2 2 5 12 12 12 30 55.8
DDR333 166.67 6 2.5 3 3 7 15 18 18 42 59.7
DDR333 166.67 6 3 4 4 8 18 24 24 48 63.6
DDR400 200 5 2 2 2 5 10 10 10 25 46.5
DDR400 200 5 2.5 3 3 7 12.5 15 15 35 49.75
DDR400 200 5 3 4 4 8 15 20 20 40 53
DDR450 225 4.44 2 2 2 5 8.89 8.89 8.89 22.22 41.33
DDR450 225 4.44 2.5 3 3 7 11.11 13.33 13.33 31.11 44.22
DDR450 225 4.44 3 4 4 8 13.33 17.78 17.78 35.56 47.11
DDR500 250 4 2 2 2 5 8 8 8 20 37.2
DDR500 250 4 2.5 3 3 7 10 12 12 28 39.8
DDR500 250 4 3 4 4 8 12 16 16 32 42.4

Even with all this information, we haven't even come close to touching on every BIOS option or memory timing that's available. That is, simply put, beyond the scope of this article. There are over a dozen memory timings listed in the DFI BIOS, and we left the majority of them set to Auto. The only items that we changed are CAS, tRCD, tRP, tRAS, and CMD. We may try to look at the other options in the future, but most of the extra settings are not available on the majority of the motherboards, and we want the information contained in this OC Guide to be applicable to more than just the "elite" motherboards.

BIOS Settings Test Configuration and Settings
Comments Locked

101 Comments

View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Sorry if I missed this in the article. The reason a 3200+ may be better is the 10X multiplier vs. 9X. Sure, the DFI board used worked pretty well at either setting, but there are many boards that won't handle much above 250 MHz CPU bus stably. Needless to say, there's a reason 2800 MHz was only included at one setting. While it still wasn't stable, it would actually run most benchmarks at 10x280. 9x311 wouldn't even load Windows half the time. The extra $50 for added flexibility is also nice: you can try 9x300, 10x270, PC3200, PC2700, etc. to find the most stable, highest performing option.
  • Bakwetu - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Thanks for a great article. I haven't been following the development so carefully since I upgraded last time (with one of the last unlocked Barton 2500+), so this article was a most welcome refresher for me, as I will probably get a x2 3800 rig in the near future.

    Last time I checked using the naked fingertip to smear out the paste was a big no-no. I have always used either a washed razorblade or fingertip in a clean plastic bag. The Arctic silver once sold without silver was a faked, copied product as far as I know. The real stuff in its many forms over the years has definitely shown that it is a good product.
  • javalino - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Frist , great article, Jarred.
    Second, i m an anand fan since i remember (1999-2000).
    Third, Since yours conclusion focus on a dilema about overclock, why spend to much in an overclock symtem(or on a powerfull system) if you target is at games ? (wich is a GPU limited). An 125 bucks , like you said, will be more usefull in a video card.
    My idea is an article, about "Benefits, Costs, and Lessons Learned" about build a system for games. How much will be a performance gain from systems running high end cards ,at high resoltion and configurations ( like 1600 x 1200, and with an extra 4xAA 16XAF), with differents system . A FX VS 64(overclock) VS P4 (over) VS P-M VS AMD XP (over of course), for example. The conclusion will be, how much is "needed" to pay for a decent game machine wich is possible to play all current games(and maybe future) with great image quality and performance.

    Maybe the answer is obvious, go with the best FPS/price option possible, or maybe not.
  • AtaStrumf - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link

    Great article Jarred!!! I really like your choice of value parts and how you criticaly assesed the results based on the bang-for-the-buck. And finally you did away with pages and pages of bar charts, and combined them into line-scaling charts. How long have I been asking for something like that??? Now we can finally see the REAL difference (or lack of it), and analyse results properly, without having to go back and forth between tens of bar charts. Tell Anand to upgrade your graphing engine ASAP.

    I am a little worried about those voltages though. This sure looks like a bad chip to me (OC wise). WAY too high voltages. I would not go over 1,45 - 1,50 V or else you risk screwing up the chip. You see the memory controller on the chip doesn't like too high voltages and though it will still work, the chip will get slower eventually. Hard to explain really but I know my new 2,2 GHz A64 is faster and much cooler than my old 2,4 GHz A64 (same core - Newcastle, same cooer, same RPM, same case, same ...), which I bought from some crazy overclocker (last time BTW). The 2,4 GHz one gave me really shitty results in FAH for weeks. That's the only explanation a have so far anyway. Maybe you can do an investigaion into this -- burn in one A64 Venice at say 1,6V 24/7 for a few weeks and let's see what happens. I just don't have the $$$ and time to take the risk. I'd be very happy to hear from other forum members on this as well.

    Anyway, glad to see at least part of AT is back to the high quality standards we were used to.
  • AtaStrumf - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link

    Or maybe it's the SOI process that is to blame for not taking high voltages too kindly, or maybe both, don't know yet, but I would definitely advice caution goint over 1,5V (default for 0,13 mikron SOI chips). Just think about it, that's already a 15% increase. +10% is usualy max that is still considered safe.

    You just posted that this chip seems to have changed it's behavior (better OC). That may have something to do with the high voltages and it may not be all good. I'd suggest testing it again in a few benchmarks and comparing the results.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Working on it. I think I ended up benching at 1.850V for the 10x280 setting and then not dropping voltages as much as I was supposed to. I'm a little skeptical that a CPU would get slower, though. Usually, they work or they fail. We'll see.

    My thought on the "safe limit" though: what voltage does the FX-57 run at? Whatever it is, at 10 to 15% to that and you're probably still okay. Good cooling will also help; on the stock HSF, I'd be a lot more nervous going over 1.550V.
  • OvErHeAtInG - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link

    Very useful article - thorough yet concise. And I would like to toss in another request: Add to the test a ULi-based motherboard (such as the recently reviewed ASRock 939Dual-SATA2). How do these Venices overclock when you can only feed them +.05v? As I recall the standard AT Clawhammer was used in that review.

    That would be hugely useful to a lot of us wanting to transition to A64. While the thing to do is probably just get a DFI or other top-end oc'er, what to do for those of us who are not yet ready to upgrade GPUs? On second thought: you could simulate the ASRock motherboard by simply setting the Venices to the lower voltage, on the DFI board, and testing for the max overclock on that. I think that would vary quite a bit from chip to chip, but just to get an idea - how much of a disadvantage is being limited in your voltage? Food for thought.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link

    I played around with voltages a bit more last night. It seems like I can hit about 2.40 GHz with only increasing the CPU voltage to 1.40V, though I didn't run all of the benchmarks to fully test that config. I'm not sure if the CPU has changed behavior over the past month, or if I was just too liberal with the voltages initially.

    For the ASRock, that Wes managed to get a 500 MHz OC even with the minimal voltage adjustments is promising. Truth be told, the DFI Infinity seems to undervolt the CPU slightly, so 1.500V actually shows up as closer to 1.455V. If the ASRock is exact with the voltages, or even a bit high, I think a 2.4+ GHz overclock is a reasonably safe bet.
  • OvErHeAtInG - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link

    Thanks for the info, Jarred. I'm sure there's a thread on this somewhere.... :)
  • araczynski - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link

    i haven't seen a better argument for not wasting money on the 'better' memory in ages.

    with those kinds of 'gains' i congratulate the companies for milking everyone with their markups for the 'higher end' components.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now