Question is: With or without benefit. It is mandatory to increase the BCLK to 125 to get the system stable at DDR4 3.000Mhz?
Can't get my DDR4 to run at 3.000Mhz
- Thread starter Catalonia
- Start date
Question is: With or without benefit. It is mandatory to increase the BCLK to 125 to get the system stable at DDR4 3.000Mhz?
B NEGATIVE
New member
Probably.
You will have to do some research on the subject,the impact memory speed has on actual performance is minimal. Memory speed only really matters for iGPU users.
Kaapstad
Active member
shambles1980
New member
not sure i would want it at 3000 with the amount of work that would be needed. and the potential BSOD's in random games it could cause. id just go for 2133 and get the timings as tight as possible. Would be less work and more likely to be stable.
thats just what id do though.
thats just what id do though.
Tight times make SFA difference with newer stuff its all about the bandwidth
shambles1980
New member
you keep saying that to me lol.
But im old school so i want my timings tight.
p.s
i still believe that 1300 5-5-5-18 T1 ram is faster than 1600 9-9-9-21 t2 ram..
(you wouldn't notice it out side a bench test) but the delay is a Lot less on the 1300 than the 1600 so to me it is faster.
Obviously 2133 9-9-9-21 is easily faster than both..
But at 2133 vs 3000 And having to possibly sacrifice stability and at the Very least spend a long time to get it stable. the 2133 with tighter timings is the way i would go. its less work to get right. would need less voltage and if done right would be almost as fast as 3000 with very loose timings "possibly just as fast depending on how tight and how loose the timings were".. but i don't think it would be faster than 3000mhz with loose timings no matter how tight you made them after all 800mhz is a lot really,
then again if at 3000 you could tighten up the timings as well "again your talking a lot of trial and error" then 3000 would definatley be faster..
(obviously woulnt need to be tightened up as much as the 2133. but again you wouldnt notice it out side a bench test..)
so i stick with my statement of "what i would do is:" because it is what i would do and i dont think you would be that much better off at 3000 with looser timings because its going to end up being about the same maximum data transfer in a given period of time, after you factor in the delays. Then with extra voltage needed to get it stable it just "to me at least" isnt worth the extra effort.
Or at least that is how my brain says it works.
But im old school so i want my timings tight.
p.s
i still believe that 1300 5-5-5-18 T1 ram is faster than 1600 9-9-9-21 t2 ram..
(you wouldn't notice it out side a bench test) but the delay is a Lot less on the 1300 than the 1600 so to me it is faster.
Obviously 2133 9-9-9-21 is easily faster than both..
But at 2133 vs 3000 And having to possibly sacrifice stability and at the Very least spend a long time to get it stable. the 2133 with tighter timings is the way i would go. its less work to get right. would need less voltage and if done right would be almost as fast as 3000 with very loose timings "possibly just as fast depending on how tight and how loose the timings were".. but i don't think it would be faster than 3000mhz with loose timings no matter how tight you made them after all 800mhz is a lot really,
then again if at 3000 you could tighten up the timings as well "again your talking a lot of trial and error" then 3000 would definatley be faster..
(obviously woulnt need to be tightened up as much as the 2133. but again you wouldnt notice it out side a bench test..)
so i stick with my statement of "what i would do is:" because it is what i would do and i dont think you would be that much better off at 3000 with looser timings because its going to end up being about the same maximum data transfer in a given period of time, after you factor in the delays. Then with extra voltage needed to get it stable it just "to me at least" isnt worth the extra effort.
Or at least that is how my brain says it works.
Last edited:
Hi there.
I did follow your suggestions, and yes. Now I can boot my system using XMP. (I had two options, XMP 2400 and XMP 3000)
I choose XMP 3000 and then I went down and started with 2.666Mhz System looks very stable and I did gain something in 3DMark
3DMark "default" settings : 15.091 Points
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/8838699
3DMark "XMP 3.000 and Freq at 2666: 15.896 Points
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/8838122
CPU is up to 3.750 and still, very cold. At 40ºc
Here two pictures of my actual configuration:
Didn't change any voltage and looks great. Now I will move up to 2.800.
