Comments Locked

25 Comments

Back to Article

  • frede86 - Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - link

    hey folks

    nice guide u made there m8.

    but ive tryed to use that setup u recomment.

    but doenst work. how come? is it because i use a dou core E8500?

    Cheers
  • frede86 - Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - link

    Core 2 dou*
  • cEvin Ki - Saturday, February 23, 2008 - link

    after reading the information on the AI transaction booster, and the Memset program, i decided to brave up, and give it a go. Memset indicated that my performance level was a 7. as my ddr2 CAS was 4, i assumed that the bios was relaxing my system a little. i simply disabled the booster option in bios with a relax of zero. rebooted, and re-ran Memset. nothing had changed. still a 7. any settings other than disabled and zero, in bios, will not POST. Memset allowed me to change the performance level to 6, apply, and save the change. nothing has changed in bios as a result of that change.

    my question is, what am i doing wrong, as i would expect to have seen something different in Memset with changing the bios to disabled and in effect lessening the relax?

    i apologize if i have somehow missed the whole point, and do not understand this memory tweaking concept.

    thanks
  • jwigi - Thursday, February 14, 2008 - link

    Hi I have a P5k Premium and the contact between the heatsinks and the board aren't very good, i was wondering what size of screw you used and also if you needed to put any springs on them, i'm thinking of doing the same 'mod' you've done in your article on my board...

    thanks
  • plextor10000 - Thursday, January 10, 2008 - link

    I was already one day playing with the settings of the mainboard, first tried to boost the E6850 from default 3Ghz to 3.6 , but could not make it stable in benchmarks

    Switched to the Q6600 - and followed the guide , decrease the voltage for the CPU to 1.375 , for safety .

    After step by step, i increased from 2.4 without any issue to 3.6 , running stable with my patriot 1333 on 1600

    Thank you for this guide. Can i use the same settings for the E6850 also , or do i modyfie some settings to blaze the clocks of it ??
  • Ryujin - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I recently got this board, and after reading this article, I really want to follow the advice therein and remove the thermal pads underneath the heatpipes/heatsinks and replace them with thermal paste, and replace all the plastic push-pins with screws/nuts.

    I've yet to start fiddling with the board, as I am still waiting for the CPU to arrive. A few pieces of advice I was looking for to ease my mind though:

    - Would I be mad using Arctic Silver thermal compound, considering conductivity issues? (I could get ceramique, which is non-conductive, but it'll take quite a while, through the channels I wish to use).

    - What diameter / length screws do you recommend? I figure 10mm M3 screws with lock nuts should do the trick... If they're too long, I should be able to screw them in with the heads facing the MB-tray.

    - I'm going with a liquid cooling solution for my CPU. The P5E3 Deluxe included two fans that can be placed atop the heatsinks surrounding the CPU-socket for just such an occasion. However, I suspect they're rather noisy (are they?). Also, the case I'm using is the Coolermaster Cosmos, which does have ample chassi fans, so I'm wondering it is really necessary (time will tell, but I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on the subject).

    cheers
  • kmmatney - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    OK, looking at the graphs, it just seems like all I'm seeing is the benchmarks getting better with higher overall cpu speed. The overclocking guide was good, but the benchmarks are hard to figure out, since memory speed and cpu speed are getting higher at the same time.
  • kmmatney - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    OK, figured it out - we just need to compare the Asus P5E3 scores versus the Asus Maximums scores at (8 X 465) to see how much DDR3 improves things over DDR2. Seems to be 1%-5%. Yawn...
  • TA152H - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    When I read the article for the x48, I mentioned that it made no sense for the three chipsets unless the x48 was DDR3 only. Well, I have found out from another site that it will be DDR3 only.

    That makes the x38 really only useful as a DDR2 chipset, after the x48 is available. This assumes Intel did the right thing of course, and all the ugly overhead for DDR2 is removed from the x48. But if it is, you'd have to be a fool to buy the x38 with DDR3, since it is second best, and has overhead from a function that will not be present on the motherboard. It will give you more heat, and more power use for something that is completely useless. I didn't like Intel including both, but I guess it was to transition to DDR3, so it was a necessary evil until the x48 comes out.
  • retrospooty - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link

    actually, that isnt true. X48 is just an X38 selected out of speed bin to be the fastest. They were going to market it as only DDR3 (that was a marketing decision not a functionality decision) but have since changed their minds.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_conte...">http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio...amp;task...

    Either way your arguments are pretty one sided. Even with DDR3 highly overclocked to 2ghz its really only a slight bit faster then DDR2. In fact DDR2 at 1000mhz 4-4-4 beats DDR3 at 2000mhz @ 9-9-9 in most real world tests and apps. Intel is currently going with tri-channel DDR3 on the next gen CPU (nehalem) with internal memory controller. Then and ONLY then is DDR3 going to be worthwhile, and even then its only worthwhile because Nehalem chipsets wont support DDR2. DDR3 is a minor speed bump not worthy of spending money on until Nehalem comes out.
  • retrospooty - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link

    I should have added that beyond the current Intel roadmap, they are looking at Rambus XDR for future CPU's. DDR and its minor generational bumps arent going to cut it for long. DDR4 and DDR5 arent much better, higher speeds and higher latencies all the way = very minor performance increases.

    I really wouldnt advise anyone, even the enthusiests to get DDR3 now, in 1 more year Nehalem will be out with 3 channel DDR and it will likely be faster, or lower latency and cheaper than current DDR3 is, and anyone who fancies themselves and "enthusiest" will be upgrading again at that point, because 3 channel DDR3 on top of Nehalems internal memory controller WILL give a notable performance increase.
  • jkostans - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    Spending an extra $50-100 on a GPU is still way more effective than spending the $200-300 more for DDR3. The only games that struggle with framerate on a modern mid-high end system are mostly GPU and somewhat CPU dependent. You get about the least bang for your buck with memory, but at the bleeding edge of performance I guess money is not a barrier.
  • TA152H - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    Another way to look at it is, would you rather have 1 GB of DDR3 or 2 GB of DDR2? They cost roughly the same.

    I'd rather have the 1 GB, since I can add more memory later. If you end up with DDR2, your system is forever degraded by inferior memory. You can't add it later unless you get a new motherboard. Besides, faster memory makes everything run faster, more memory only makes things run faster if you have to page (pretty much, I know Microsoft steals memory for caching, but that's a mixed bag anyway). Also, more memory wants more power.

    I can already hear the argument from people saying that you can get 1 GB of DDR2 as well, and still realize a cost saving. It's a valid point, but at 1 GB the cost difference isn't that great, and I think the performance, and future upgradeability still make DDR3 attractive for some people.
  • LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Another way to look at it is, would you rather have 1 GB of DDR3 or 2 GB of DDR2? They cost roughly the same.


    Another way to look at it is, would you rather have 4GB of high-performance DDR2 for $150 (or cheaper, my 4GB of Crucial Ballistix cost me $140 this summer and is cheaper yet now), or 2GB of DDR3 for $200?

    The industry must really love folks like you, who buy into the marketing hype. DDR2 is far from inferior, or Intel wouldn't have been using it all this time, and saying your system will be "forever degraded" is ridiculous tripe.

    DDR3 has more bandwidth, but isn't necessarily "faster" as it is higher latency. That $150 DDR2 I mentioned has a CAS latency of 4; the $200 2GB DDR3 has a CAS latency of 7. DDR3 will only be attractive once it gains market share, lowering its price. What with enough P35 boards and some X38 boards still supporting DDR2, there is no reason to switch.
  • TA152H - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    DDR3 is faster, if you can't accept that much, you aren't worth arguing with. DDR2 is inferior, but it's cheaper.

    DDR2 was not inferior until DDR3 came out. Inferior is a relative term, there has to be something better. Is English not your first language?
  • natebsi - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    Sheesh. Personal attack much?
  • TA152H - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    Actually, you don't think his rant was a personal attack? If you don't agree with some people, you are just listening to marketing hype, or don't understand this or that. Instead of realizing there are reasons for both DDR2 (cost and compatibility) and DDR3 (everything else), you get people who accuse you of not understanding anything, and just being part of some company's marketing machine. It's so uneducated and insulting, it warrants something of the same kind back.

    Anyone that thinks DDR3 is completely useless, even now, is an idiot. This type of person is not worth arguing with. They are both useful, right now, and the arguments should really be about the gray areas where they begin to overlap. I might think DDR3's area is a little bigger than most, but at least I recognize that there are many people that are better off with DDR2. By the same token, I expect people to have at least basic intelligence and recognize there are areas where DDR3 makes more sense, even now. Pure performance always has a place, especially when it costs only $500, or less, more.
  • aeternitas - Sunday, December 9, 2007 - link

    Grats on being the article clown.
  • yyrkoon - Thursday, November 22, 2007 - link

    I think the point if entirely lost on you.

    First, you can for instance get the same overclocks from DDR2 memory(at least from what I've seen here, because even my Promos 800 sticks can hit 1:1 475Mhz FSB which is 10Mhz faster than what I saw in the benches here).

    Secondly, a system with 4GB of DDR2 vs 1-2GB of DDR3 *will* be more responsive. You can argue about it all you want, until you're blue in the face, and the only thing you will prove is that you have no actual hands on experience. Yes, this is even on a system with a 32BIT OS.

    Thirdly, remember all the discussion a while back about AMD systems not performing any better than the Intel C2D systems despite having faster memory capabilities?

    Lastly, even the writer of this article said the differences between the DDR2, and DDR3 system was barely a whisper . . .

    But, you're right, anyone claiming that DDR3 RIGHT NOW is useless is an idiot, because they obviously can not see the eManhood effect capabilities here in saying that they paid X amount more for DDR3 vs DDR2. Anyone who has bragged about their $3000 usd set of car rims being much better than the stock rims that came with the car can surely see this point.
  • Griswold - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    Oh yea I bet DDR3 makes perfect sense in your basement "lab" where you run your benchmarks all day long. Instead of yapping like a chihuaha with a superiority complex, you could instead just provide some realworld applications that make DDR3 not look like a waste of money right here, right now with todays hardware.

    Future proofing my ass, get a clue.



  • Owls - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    DDR2 is hardly "inferior". When comparing 4GB of DDR3 vs 4GB of DDR2, I can build a whole new computer with what I'd have spent on DDR3. It just doesn't make sense right now no matter how you cut it.. and only having 1GB of ram now?
  • TA152H - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    I run most of my machines with 512 MB, so 1 GB is hardly a problem.

    There are some things you need more memory than 1 GB for.

    When I see stuff like "It doesn't make sense no matter how you cut it", I instantly think you're an idiot. You're probably not, but that statement is absurd. There is always a group that the cost of the most expensive, and fastest parts, makes sense. The cost of memory is trivial compared to the cost of salaries, for example, and spending $500 to help someone work faster pays for itself very quickly.

    I think the main problem is that most people do not understand that more memory does not always make things faster. I deal with this all the time.
  • AnnihilatorX - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    Correct me if I am wrong

    The increase in FPS you see going from 400x9 to 465x9 is nearly 100% due to increase in CPU frequency

    The performance increase of a 465x9 RAM running at 2:1 memory divider would be less than 5% higher than a similar configuration of 465x9 with slower RAM running at lower divider ratios.

    That would mean there is no sense to buy a premium DDR3 for $500 extra for what you can do with less than 5% performance sacrifice with the dirt cheap DDR2 RAM.
  • snarfbot - Sunday, November 25, 2007 - link

    no everything you said is correct.

    the thing that really gets me though, is that pc6400 ddr2 is commonly capable of reaching 485mhz at lower timings. so whats so great about ddr3?

    on a p35 you can easily reach the same speed with cheap memory, at cas 5, sometimes even cas 4 with good overclockable ram.

    so basically the only benefit that ddr3 has going for it is the lower voltage required, and of course lower temps, not worth the premium. period.
  • Aivas47a - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

    This is one of the best, detailed overclocking guides I've ever seen. Excellent job! I'm especially glad to have the mystery of Transaction Booster, Skew, and Clock Twister in the Asus bios explained.

    Now, if you guys could just prepare a guide for memory subtimings, the treatise would be complete. :)

    Thanks very much for this.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now