Jump to content

CardsFan88

Members
  • Content count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CardsFan88

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Scottsdale, AZ

OCC

  • Computer Specs
    In Win Maelstrom
    i7 920 D0
    MSI X58 Platinum SLI
    16gb Gskill 1600mhz cl8
    Nvidia MSI 670 GTX
    Prolimatech Megashadow
    2xSythe Ultra Kaze
    Arctic Mx-3
    850 watt modular Seventeam
    12x LG Blu-ray Burner
    128gb Crucial M4 SSD
    40" Dynex 1080p 60hz
    22" NEC CRT (2048x1536 max) [collecting dust]
    Win 7 (64 bit)
  1. CardsFan88

    MSI 670 GTX

    ROFL, I'm a D-Bags fan for baseball.
  2. Read the same thing with mine. My guess is that they haven't updated it to include the 6xx series. I also use gpu-z which showed the normal setting right before and after. I do not see it as any sort of down clocking, just some sort of error in it's ability to know what your specs are.
  3. CardsFan88

    MSI 670 GTX

    Just an update, I did get a couple of crashes in BF3 maxed out online at the +90 on top of the factory overclock and nvidia overclocking (1136 core / 1702 memory). Though this might be my error as I was messing around with the auto fan, so it's possible I had the auto fan shut off and this might have caused it. The memory seems fine at the great overclocks (410 seems to be the max, so I'm keeping it at +400), so it's definitely the chip if it wasn't human error. Once they get these chips ironed out it wouldn't surprise me that the next round in this generation will have better oc'ing *unless of course they bump up the specs* natively. These are also the early chips and the next batch might be a bit more stable. That said to get such an early card with such new tech and it still gets that high to be playable for awhile before crash isn't bad, and again could have been human error. I got the small pcb and reference fan and still got to these levels. I'm going to try again to keep it at +90 while making sure the fan auto is on, doh, and see if I get any more errors. If more crashes occur, I'll probably try for +50-60 (which would be 1096-1106mhz core clock) and see how that goes, then go from there and work my way up. But the memory is staying at +400 as it seems to be fine at this level. I did receive errors with a much older version of OCCT, but I just ran it again with the much newer 4.2.2 version at +90 (1136mhz total) for 9 minutes, 6 total testing plus the 1 minute before and 2 after, and got no errors. The auto fan seems to target 85c's and raises the fan to keep it there. Seems like at these levels 1136/1702 it only needs the to spin the fan up to the 60's percent level to maintain an 85c level. For the OCCT test 65 percent was the max, and this is the smaller pcb, reference cooler mind you. For idle it seems like 35% fan level keeps the chip around 55c's for ambient around 25-28c at 1136 mhz / 1702 mhz. It's also important to remember that just at stock speeds and an i7 920 @ 4ghz and pcie 2.0, you can run BF3 and the like at max settings @1080p, and the gameplay be nice and smooth. So the oc's just give you a little bit of a cushion for the games coming out in the next year or so. But right around 1136/1702 seems to be either stable or almost stable. I'll figure it out going forward. If I have to cut it back, 1100 mhz can probably still be kept which would still be a +185 core spec raise and a 20.2% raise, or 24.1% raise at 1136mhz from the core specs percentage wise with small pcb and reference fan.
  4. It's still early in the process. I'm tending to think the 670 and 680 are the cards where they are stamping out the kinks. Remember it's both a new process and new architecture. There was a reason that for the past few years all the major chip manufactures have been going by a tick-tock model. Nvidia decided to ditch that this round and go with both the tick and the tock (my best guess is due to the APU being implemented in Maxwell next generation). As such, not having a huge supply of cards should be expected. We've all seen paper launches before, this is sort of close, but they indeed have had some in stock. I got my 670 from a local mega retailer (Fry's electronics). They had them at multiple locations initially. They had at least 7 on the day I got mine, but I think I grabbed the last one. Also don't forget that this isn't the pc buying season. That's at the end of the summer. So it's ok for them to have supply issues NOW. If they are still having issues in August, then it will be much more concerning. Now the following is just a guess but I see the 670 as a short term mid range card that the 680 will become when the big keplers come out, supposedly around sept-october. So they get the kinks out, and flog these to the back to schooler's, THEN release big kepler varieties in single and dual gpu. The card's thermals are fine, so it definitely is something going on and they are probably respinning the big kepler to get those kinks out. This 670 trounces my 5850 which could be considered good enough for another year or so, but with the 670 everything is on max and is smooth and silky. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I've seen far worse launches where it was almost impossible to get a card for months after launch. Given the added complexity with this roll out, I think we are seeing what should be expected at this point. I don't favor either company, in fact it seems just about every time I buy I seem to switch from one to the other because at the time one has the best set of cards. Newegg probably gets some of the first allotment, but there are many places that have orders to be filled, and it wouldn't surprise me that newegg get's theirs just about first, but then needs to wait until most others get their first shipment before it comes back around to them. The 670 was available for purchase for quite a few days on newegg, through quite a few vid card companies. The ATI cards are still good. You can get some great gaming expericence out of them, but the 6XX series has them beat this round, though ATI no doubt is picking up a few more customers due to availability issues. Happens to each of them it seems one generation or another.
  5. CardsFan88

    MSI 670 GTX

    You should get some good frames! Probably even a bigger boost! The 5870 was only like 10 percent better like 3-7 frames. With the same card, yet an ivy bridge, you should get more than that differential as compared to what increase I got (assuming you overclock). Once again it's also a Dx 11.1 card too On a side note just for giggles I decided to run 3dmark 01, 03, 05 just to see what this overclocked 670 could do with them. For one, it's crazy seeing 4 digit frame numbers. I saw 3-4K (yes thousand) FPS for a second or two in these now worthless, but amusing to run tests. I think the 5850 had troubles running some of these before, but the nvidia card did. Anyways, here are the scores for these outdated benchmarks 3dmark01 = 54803 3dmark03 = 104391 (yeah over 100k lol) 3dmark05 = 34027 Pretty crazy numbers.
  6. CardsFan88

    MSI 670 GTX

    Okay so I overclocked this beast a good bit. I got it to run 3dmark11 at 100 mhz over the factory oc, but it seemed to be iffy. At 90 mhz over, it worked flawlessly. So at these settings at least for 3dmark11 it works just fine. As for the memory, I kept pushing it up and up, I was a bit conservative, but eventually went up 25 mhz at a time and still haven't hit a wall. It's now at +300 mhz on the memory. Pretty crazy. Temps seem fine. At 90 mhz over for the core clock goes something like this. Stock 670 = 915 mhz MSI's Factory OC stock = 967 mhz Thus my MSI +90mhz = 1057 mhz Then add in Nvidia boost = up to 1136 mhz So 1136-915 = 221 mhz increase that on the surface seems stable, on reference cooler, and I think small pcb. This new overclocking scheme with MSI's afterburner is a bit weird. Instead of an actual volt number, it only gives you a number over. It's set at 25 over, it seems to like to be set at 12-13 intervals. Thus it's two notches over, or maybe two half notches over. This still needs to be played around with up and down as I don't know how necessary it is for how I'm pushing it. Also there is a max power which is limited to 122 percent of power. I think this is holding me back, and enabling the unofficial overclock mode at least in this version of Afterburner with this card gives absolutely nothing new (as opposed to ATI when you enabled it). Thus I think the Afterburner is holding me back. It's also weird that when I push up the memory gpu-z doesn't seem to catch it all, which makes me wonder if some of it immediately adds on and the rest (like half and half) gets added maybe to the nvidia boost? It's pretty weird have 3 levels of oc. 1 factory. 2 me. 3 Nvidia's boost on top. Anyone know if evga's can be used on an msi or other card? Or any other good overclocking utilities for Nvidia cards? Overall though it's 2:55 am here so I'm done for the evening. What I got was a stellar almost 800 point increase in 3dmark11. From ~8400 to ~9200. Not bad for an i7 920 and a single gpu, not top of the line, vid card....at least for starters. With Arkham City, vsync off and all options maxed again including 32x CSAA, the average in the benchmark was 54. Only a 1 fps increase, but that's with Vsync enabled and not alot of room to go up to hit 60 and make up the difference. WITHOUT Vsync, it gives me a 76 fps average. So 7 fps extra at max settings on top of the factory overclock? Not bad. Again this card may have a little bit more too. As for Uningine 3.0 Heaven Benchmark v3.0 Basic FPS: 48.3 Scores: 1216 Min FPS: 25.5 Max FPS: 122.7 That's 4.9 FPS more for the 'extra' manual overclock (12.8 fps max higher) above and beyond the stock MSI overclock and nvidia boost. When you compare that to a slightly overclocked 5850 with these numbers FPS: 17.3 Scores: 435 Min FPS: 4.2 Max FPS: 44.4 You see that it IS a huge difference in today's games with dx11, tessellation, etc. 17.3 Average or 48.3? That's a huge difference, and it's only 3.6 fps away from being 300 percent faster than a slightly overclocked 5850. 300 percent! I'm still amazed that even at 'out of the box' settings the 3dmark11 and Uningine benchmarks run smoothly. Also I forgot to mention that my SSD drive is mostly for OS. So while 3dmark11 is on it, Arkham City is on a regular sata II mechanical hard drive. This card rocks. Oh yeah one sort of big thing at least to me, I heard rumors that the 500-600 series of Nvidia would be DX 11.1 compatible. Well GPU-Z indeed does state my directx version is 11.1!
  7. CardsFan88

    MSI 670 GTX

    Got the new MSI GTX 670, reference cooler, smaller pcb version. (pretty sure it's the smaller pcb version). Still seems like a decent sized card though and seems roughly similar in sized to my previous card the ATI HIS 5850. This one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127675 While the 5850 is wholly capable of playing Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Arkham City, Crysis 2 and the rest pretty well, I have to say this card rocks it hard. While my 3dmark score was ~p3800 for the 5850 with my i7 920 @ 4 ghz, the stockish (msi's slight overclock to 967 mhz along with the new auto boost, 1502 mhz memory) gets p8454 on the same system. I must say I was shocked by how much difference this card has made in gameplay. Before I'd need to turn down shaders, AA/AF most of the time, and for Battlefield 3/Crysis 2 dx11 ultra mod, it was basically medium settings. With the 670 GTX I've basically been bumping up everything to max (@1920x1080) and the gameplay is smooth as silk, though something with Crysis 2 isn't allowing me to play online (not vid card related) so I can't judge that. But every game I've thrown at it has resulted in highest settings AND smoother gameplay. I think this adaptive Vsync is a winning feature, which I guess has been introduced in earlier models of nvidia, and I must say I've been impressed with the overall smoothness. No tearing or stuttering. Silky smooth gameplay at the highest settings of today's generation of games (at 1080p). Obviously you'll need more if you have a higher resolution display, but this card rocks for the 1080p display crew. While it won't be an Unreal 4 engine killer, I think we'll need the big version of the generation beyond Maxwell or ATI's equivalent to get that. But until then, and until a good portion of games utilize such tech, this card I suspect will be a good option for anyone with an i7 920 or better CPU. Oh yeah, and I'm still rolling with a pcie 2.0 motherboard, just in case anyone is wondering if this level of performance is only with pcie 3.0. Nope your pcie 2.0 is still good enough. Again probably not until Unreal 4 engine type tech is out will a pcie 3.0 really be needed. Just a guess on that. This thing rocks the Uningine at max settings. Heaven Benchmark v3.0 Basic FPS: 43.4 Scores: 1094 Min FPS: 20.0 Max FPS: 109.9 Arkham City has gone from modest settings at 43 fps average with ATI 5850 to 55 at the highest settings except for AA being set at 8x (to match other reviewers settings). When AA is set to Nvidia's CSAA at 32x it only drops to an average of 53! Wow. These are with Vsync enabled. Without vsync, and still with 32x CSAA enabled the average was a powerful 69 dude! Battlefield 3 at highest settings is silky smooth online. Way better than the medium settings and still choppy with the 5850. Skyrim with the official and other higher res textures looks amazing and smooth on this card. Red Faction: Guerrilla while an older game, has some intense physics. The 5850 struggled with this game at decent settings. The 670 GTX rocks it at highest settings. Metro 2033 is about the toughest thing and even on the highest settings including the dx 11 and physics options it seems to run from the 20's-40's indoors at least (just a quick test, non-shooting). Turn off the DOF and lower the AA and AF and it gets back to silky smooth. But that's Metro 2033 and lets hope the sequel is optimized better. Got lots more games to try out like Deus Ex, Rage, Dirt 2, X3 series, Stalker series, Saints Row 3, Homefront, AvP, Bioshock 2, AC:B, Civ V, Anno 2070, Just Cause 2, Mass Effect 2 and others, but so far this card absolutely rocks. With the reference cooler, furmark gets it up to about 85c's at max, which isn't bad considering ambient temps are around 80 F. I'm sure I can probably squeeze something out of it above the factory oc. Haven't overclocked the card yet. Just trying various things out now at stock, with some time for enjoying it as well. Plenty of time to do that When all is said and done, when it comes to 1080p gaming with the strong dx11 and other games on the market, the 5850 while capable of playing them, the 670 GTX can actually play them WELL. This is a great dx11 card. While it may not be future proofed, the stuff ahead is so much more demanding, I don't think there is much future proofing capable. This card can run today's games at 1080p amazingly well. 2GB RAM isn't a ton by today's standard, but by the time a 1080p display needs more, it'll be time for an upgrade anyways. If you don't have a dx11 card, and don't want to spend a ton, I believe right now this is your card. 399 is alot, but not 500-1100 which seems to be where alot of these other cards are. I don't think the difference between the 670 and 680 is worth a 100 bucks. Hell if I had the 5870 instead of the 5850, I'd still have wanted this card. Same thing will be true a couple of years down the line between the 670 and 680 imo. All this said I have a strong feeling that with big Kepler on the way, the 670 is just a stop gap card allowing them to get the process up and running that won't be offered for very long. In my estimation when big kepler arrives, it will be the 500-600 dollar card, and the 680 will be dropped to a 379-449 price range and replace the 670. It's just a guess, but if all you lose to get this awesome card now is the difference between the 670 to 680, imo it's not worth it to wait until sept-nov to get the 680 at this price range when this card is available right now for cheap. I do wish I could of gotten the better cooler version (like the gigabyte), but what can I say, newegg was out of it, and with the ones they had in stock the MSI seemed to be the best one, and the local Fry's electronics had it in stock, so I picked it up (after going to the other one when the people on the phone told me they had it in stock at the other one). It was worth the extra tax and total 50 or so miles driving. Even this one is worth it. Great performance at good price especially considering the competition from ATI or even Nvidia itself. This is the value card for now, even if it's a bit hard to say value and $399 in the same sentence. Love this card. I am much impressed and this card will give me the best performance I've had at this point in the game generational cycle. I buy from both companies, but ATI is going to have some tough times ahead imo when big kepler comes out, small kepler is already outperforming them this generation.
  8. CardsFan88

    Which ram for upgrade?

    "Originally Posted by GSKILL TECH View Post Yes, it can work, but it is not designed to work that way. In addition, the memory profile is not designed for the X58 platform. The one I suggested costs more because it is a high performance kit. Feel free to go with one of the quad channel kits, they can all work, so there is no real problem. Thank you GSKILL TECH" So I got the 1.35v version. They are the newest, even the picture at newegg had an aug '11 on the sticker, compared with january '11 or sometime in 2010 for the other gskill's (that I was looking at...and actually were the newest of any that I saw including the higher rated mhz versions...not that it means something, but could). I've had this processor up to 4.6 on air, posted the pics a couple of years ago here on OCC. But I run it @ 4ghz, so I'm fine with it there, not that I won't try for a little extra maybe with this ram. This is a brand new 'lower voltage' ram, as in different chip (confirmed by G.Skill, but on another thread by another user), and as posted earlier, someone had them up to 1866 at stock volts (1.35v) and timings 9-9-9-24. It was on a p67 system, but I still feel it bodes well. But thanks for the info on the max clocks and more than 3 dimm's, I'll keep that in mind for the future While having 4 dimm's might start clogging up the lanes, I'm guessing that 4 won't as bad as 6, and that it'll be a slight tradeoff that I might not miss. I do have an 8800GTS for physx, but other than that, and a mb tester, nothing else populates my pci-e lanes. So I'll go for it. The ram only cost $109.99 for 16gb. Even if I have to run it stock spec everything, it's 16gb. From what I understand the 16gb limit is enitrely OS driven, and not 64 bit driven, and I haven't heard of anything that would do that. 12gb costs 75 for a decent set, although I have seen one kit with a rebate, but I hate rebates (and they always try to jack you...so eff rebates). I'm anti-rebate lol. I already utlilize most of my 6gb, and while 12gb I'm sure is enough now, 2-4 years from now I'll probably need it. I also might try to use a ram disk, and might use the extra 4gb for that. Thus leaving 12gb normal, and 4gb for a ram disk....at least to try. I plan on having the computer at least 2 years and up to 4...or more like ~2.2-4.2 years. If I can easily get my browser sucking up 2.5gb, and have had it over 3, I'm sure in 2-4 years, it'll suck up even more. I'm probably not going to crossfire anything. The 5850 is not something I want to crossfire at this time. I'll probably go with 7x or 8x ATi or comparable series Nvidia. Probably the series that is due to come out 2013 (so probably 2014). It's possible I get something before that, but so far the 5850 is great for everything. I'm not a huge fan of AA...it's cool, but isn't a make or break thing for me. The biggest issue is the 1gb of memory, but that's ok for now. This would be the only reason to buy another, but there just isn't enough separation for a 300-600 dollar card imo to justify a new one. I'd rather wait for newer tech to come out. Like dx 11.1 or 12 or ATI with something like physx...or something. Basically new tech that isn't here yet. I'm not necessarily going to have them at 1.65v. I have a feeling they'll be in the 1.5-1.55 range personally when all is said and done. But that's just guessing. G.SKill has a lifetime warranty, and seems to encourage overclocking. I'll still have the 3 x 2gb kit as backup to use in case the other ones screw up. While they may be designed for 1.35v, that might just be because the chips are using a more advanced process. The thermal limits might be the same as the 1.5 or 1.65 version, just better. But again seeing how someone had them at 1866 at stock timings and voltage, I have a feeling that 1900 with tighter timings can be had in the 1.5-1.55, perhaps 1.6 range. Again the reason the chips are going down is to be compatible with the motherboards of the newer tech, and thus it really is being forced upon the ram makers, and the ram makers...if they want to have oc'able ram for these motherboards have to get the voltage down. So I really suspect it's not that they are lower volts to make the ram stabler, but being forced upon them when it really isn't needed. I don't see how they would change the process much to not allow them to volt that high. The heatspreaders look the same. Hell it might cost them MORE to change those things to make them 'cheaper'. So I'm taking the shot that these are better chips, but they don't want to let the cat out of the bag because of all the other lines they are selling. Maybe they need those around to bin for the 2133 and above. Who knows. But they are getting ready to push for some really high ddr3 chips well above what is normally purchased. So perhaps these are the precursor to THOSE, and while will NEVER run at THOSE specs...like ddr3 2800, they may run perfectly find at 1866-2000 speeds at good volts and timings. Worth a shot. Yeah, my mind runs very complex, and thus my writing does too (for good and bad lol). I'd blow past the maximum page requirements in college in 1/3rd the time as most write a normal sized paper lol. I'll let people know how they do when they come. It's also possible that I can use '12' until '16' becomes necessary, but I don't forsee doing that, but never know until the kit is tried out. But I'll post results as well as a comparison to my current set of ram. Including 3dmark. I'll be going for upgrade mhz and tighter timings. If I can't hit 1900mhz and tighter timings, then I'll go for as tight timings as possible at ~1600mhz...perhaps 1520 like I run this set at. Thanks for the info guys, and I'll keep everyone advised. Either way, with the guy above posting and this set I just got, we're going to get some more info on what 1.35v ram can do! (I also bought it before the recent rash of posts came in.)
  9. CardsFan88

    Which ram for upgrade?

    This will be my last memory upgrade for the next 2-4 years (when I'll ditch the i7 for something new). That's why I favor 16gb over 12gb. Overall I'm buying for the memory in total, and while I'm at it, going for some that with correspond to what my system has been at for ~2 years...4ghz. (thus 1900 mhz). Trying to find that sweet spot. I've been running my ram underclocked @ 1520mhz because processor is more important (but the ram doesn't like tighter timings even at that speed), it's just when I upgrade, I decided that I wanted to have memory that can be at the 1900 mhz that corresponds with having my processor at 4ghz (of course looking around I've noticed that it's possible with decent timings with many ram chips..unofficially). I think the motherboard holds back from it being faster, as I can have it at 4.6, but it's not stable. Stable enough for a pi run though. Stability seems to top out around 4 ghz for passing the stress tests. Perhaps 4.2 if I got the settings just right. So the 4 ghz isn't the question, it's just will I be running 4 ghz with 1520mhz ram or 4 ghz with 1900 mhz ram, the timings are basically the same anyways. These chips seem to not need much loosening if any to reach 1866 (at least) by many accounts. Or at least the 1.5v version. Hell even now, with 1 of my ultra kaze's out on my heatsink, and 2 case fan's out, I can run it at 4ghz and while 20c's hotter, still keeps it from going past the high 60's lower 70's C. (I'm also getting replacement fans, when I make the ram purchase). 3 fans out in under 2 years, that sucks lol. I think the windows upgrade costs about 100 bucks, which I would rather not spend. I'm pretty sure the increase in max memory is about all I'd possibly benefit from if I made that purchase. I'd rather use that $100 for a ssd . I don't think I'll need more than 16gb by upgrade time 2014-2016, but 12gb seems like it might be just a little low around then, or just at the limit where 6gb (or 8gb if I had it) seems now. I don't want to have to buy more ram then, so close to an upgrade cycle. So to me, in my situation, the windows 7 upgrade would be a bit of a waste. (and win 8 will be and perhaps even 9 be out by 2014-2016, so I'll *probably* be upgrading on that then negating the use of the upgraded memory capacity from the win 7 version upgrade in the next build...of course if the upgrade in os is worth it, which it appears it will be, but I'll wait and see first ofc). I'm definitely trying for tighter timings, which is why I'm inquiring about the differences between the ram. If both get up to 1866 without raising voltage, then when I do, I would suspect that IF the lower voltage module can handle 1.65volts, then it'll give (perhaps) me more room to raise voltage in order to tighten timings. I'm just trying to find that sweet spot of low timings, higher mhz, corresponding to 4ghz (perhaps 4.2, but most olikely 4ghz), while having enough gb's to last for a few years, without upgrading my windows version. Especially since I have to replace one of the kaze's with a 25mm fan which won't work as well. But I had room to spare, so if I can't get 4.6 suicide run anymore, fine, as long as 4ghz is good and stable (and it will be..since it is with only 1 working kaze now lol). But thanks for the warning, a lot of people just think higher mhz is better. I understand it isn't always the case. But one of these ram kits seems to hit the mark (or close) without overvolting or loosening of timings. If all things are equal, the 1.35v version may allow me to get where I need, but with more voltage leeway to get tighter timings. Maybe not. I also asked some questions on the gskill forum, so hopefully they'll help clear some things up. I'll definitely post here what they say, if it's anything beyond gibberish corporate speak. I'll take 5-10 fps increase . Might not matter quite that much now, but 2-4 years from now it might make the difference between enjoyable gameplay, surfing, or other applications and a bit annoying gameplay, etc. 20 to 30 or 50 to 60 means alot more to me than say 100 to 110 fps. It's more for the backend I'm thinking about. I'll be getting a new vid card with this computer, but not until the 7x or 8x ATI series (or corresponding Nvidia ones). But I'm also not rich by any means, so money is a factor. Many of the lower latency chips are still 60-90 percent more expensive. That's just something I'm going to have to pass on, and hope I can recoup some or all of that through fiddling around and buying right. It really seems like these rip..x series @1.5v are similar to how the i7's worked out. All can get up to high speeds, above 1600mhz, without much fiddling but some cost more because they are guaranteed, and perhaps slightly binned. But these new 1.35v version might be something special (or not). Just seems with an x58, I might be sitting pretty with a motherboard capable of more leeway, as the lower voltage is being forced by motherboard makers, not the ram makers. So having a motherboard NOT have that limitation, but using the ram made for oc'ing on the lower standard, only because it's the standard the motherboards are setting, might open up some possibilities for x58 boards as an unintended consequence (or in this case benefit). Plus knowing the world economy like I do, (Glass-Steagall or the entire world economy is screwed bigger than 1929...as in 2004-2005 I was one of the FEW in the world talking with those around me about the coming housing crisis [among other things...derivatives] and knew the 2008 situation was coming...and we ain't fixed one thing.....so yeah), I do see stagflation and bouts with hyperinflation in my ROSY scenario. So I really don't see ram prices going down much longer, and the ram situation is already annoying. So I have to buy now. Maybe prices go down for a few more months, but they will be going up and it can start happen in a blink of an eye. It may even put off my future vid card purchase, but that tech isn't in production yet, but this is, so bird in the hand is better than one that might be in the bush a year or two from now lol. The gskill 1.5v seem like fine chips that should overclock to my needs, but the 1.35 which are newer, might have an undiscovered (or little known) advantage at this point since it's so new. I'd hate to buy one, and then find out the other can do the same at tighter timings because of more leeway with voltage on x58 motherboards. Maybe I'm all wrong about it, but it just seems like if they didn't cheapen (or whatever) the ram between the 1.35 and 1.5v chips, then it's something x58'ers who are enthusiasts might start flocking towards. Take advantage of the newer standard's weakness, and turn their ram into better potential on x58's, because that weakness isn't there. It's a shot in the dark, but one worth finding out before buying (or attempting to find out). Seems like it might be plausible. Worth investigating in my book I'm pretty sure I can get to 1900 with stock timings. But maybe with the lower voltage ram I can get to 1900 with tighter timings at 1.65v (or 1.6). It's just an unknown. I think I've seen the 1.5v version over 1900 with cl8 somewhere on newegg feedback pages (who knows if true obviously), so I'm definitely going to be trying for cl8. Also my motherboard doesn't like some settings, so even with dividers, it's a bit limited overall with how many configurations I can come up with. Most people state the board can't do more than 211 regardless of multiplier. Whether it's 1.35 or 1.5v, it should suit my needs. But that 1.35v (new chip) ram might have some possibilty to really impress. We'll find out on at least one of the two chips, as whatever one I buy I'll post the results of what it can do. Hopefully gskill people can give me more info I can pass on here and give me some answers to help make a selection. Thanks for the pictures and info
  10. CardsFan88

    Which ram for upgrade?

    That's what I'm trying to get out of. The 6gb runs at 1520...if I had some ram that can hit 1900, it would increase my memory bandwidth ~20+ percent, and have more memory. I keep it at 4.0, but it can reach 4.6 on air. Today's ram also seems like it has lower latency, and a potential for slightly less timings. So overall 20+ percent, and it might be even as high as 40 percent given the scores I see above...mine's currently getting 15gb/s where that guy above got 20-25 range. My latency is in the lower 50's, while those scores were at higher clocks and latency down to the lower 40's. So I'm going from 6 to 16, but also going for the upgrade in speed while I'm at it. (plus my win 7 version won't recognize over 16gb). It's mostly between the 1.5v or the 1.35v G.Skill's. I multitask alot, and my browser alone constantly eats up 2gb of my 6gb, hell even 2.4 or so at times. When I start windows it sucks up ~35 percent of my memory. I'm constantly in the 60-90 percent utilization, so any boost will be welcome. Thanks for the input. Also from the gskill forums this low volt module is a new ram chip, not an undervolted version of the same kind. It's for the newer 1.5v sandy bridge 1156 motherboards. From what I gather it's like having a 1.5v for a 1.65 motherboard. This would be a 1.35v for 1.5v board. But if you run these in a 1.65 capable board, and the chip might be able to handle it...it might give one a little extra room to fiddle around. Perhaps it doesn't add much to the top mhz possible. But maybe it either allows more people to reach that top (or around) mhz threshold more easily, but more importantly, it may allow for tighter timings at a specific speed. Say 1866-1920 at cl8 from the 1.35, vs 1866-1920 at cl9 from the 1.5v.
  11. CardsFan88

    Which ram for upgrade?

    Someone who bought the 1.35v G.Skill posted this on newegg...it states that he can get to 1866 on 1.35v and with 1.5v and cl8 timings he can hit 4.5ghz (but LGA 1155 not 1366) with the associated ram overclock. But no mention of his max oc in it. It just makes me wonder what it could do in the 1.5-1.65v max range. 1866 on 1.35v seems pretty sick. I wonder what timings one could get @ 1866 with 1.5v or higher? Anyways here is what he wrote. "Stock AIDA64 benchmarks result in Read 18751 MB/s Write 19258 MB/s Copy 20705 MB/s Latency 45.7 ns As for overclock, I was able to push the timings to 8-8-8-24 CR1 at 1.50v on my 4.5GHz overclock. At 1.35v I can maintain timings but push to 1866. I feel the stock timings volts are more than adequate, but if you are interested the same timings at 1866 results in: Read 22556 MB/s Write 23850 MB/s Copy 24911 MB/s Latency 41.2 ns"
  12. CardsFan88

    Which ram for upgrade?

    I have read some stuff where people claim triple (with 3) is equal to triple (with 4). I have seen stuff where people claim the pathways can clog up with 6 dimms and slightly reduce it as opposed to having 3 dimm (so hopefully 4 doesn't do this). I've also seen where people have had motherboards that can't do 4 in a triple setup and it kicks it down to double channel (unless they just put it in the wrong slots). Plus with anything, you can only oc to the level of the crappiest dimm, so with 4 hopefully I can get lucky. No doubt I will benchmark the 12gb vs 16 gb performance. But going with only double channel setup will most likely give the downgrade we expect. I think it's more of just what do we get 3 vs 4 while in triple channel (supposedly per manufacturer) setup. I am still leaning towards the 104.99 1.5v Gskill's (ripsaw x), but would like to know more about the 1.35v. I've heard the sniper's don't oc as well (whatever version of sniper at the different sniper voltage version levels). So it's also possible some people are getting the poorer oc veresion's of the lower voltage ones.
  13. CardsFan88

    Which ram for upgrade?

    That's my thoughts as well. Or at least both would be compared to a 1.65v one. But hell if I know. ----- On the triple channel that would mean there'd be 4 channels. Since I assume you can't have triple channel 12gb's + 4gb single channel. I thought it was supposed to be 3 single channels, thus triple channel. So it'd be 8gb off one of the three, than 4gb on the 2nd one, 4gb on the 3rd one. My motherboard states that if doing a 4x4 triple setup, that the extra stick be stuck in the A1 slot, so A0+A1, B0, C0. Hell if I know though, but I thought that was how it worked. Each lane has to be looked at separately that make up triple channel. Thanks for getting the thread started guys
  14. Well I've decided to upgrade from 6gb (3x2 triple channel) to 16gb (4x4 triple channel) and there are a lot of low voltage ram kits around. I've got an MSI Platinum SLI X58 board, so it's used to 1.65v kits. I guess I just have some questions like. Would the ripjaws x 1.35v be better than 1.5v in theory for overclocking? Anyone tried or seen any benches or reviews comparing the two? I have my 920 at 4ghz with a megashawdow and ultra kaze, getting the 2nd kaze replaced with a 120x25mm to fit the ram (but temps were excellent so I feel I have some room to give). Have had it up to 4621 for a few hours, although most intensive stuff would crash it, although pi under 9 seconds was cool to see about 20 months ago. So, with it at 4 ghz, I'm looking at getting the ram around 1900 mhz. I've seen the g,skill's 1600 1.5v can get up to 2133 (even their forum support on new egg claims it), but I'm wondering if perhaps the 1.35v version maybe either allow tighter timings at elevated speed and/or more headroom to get to 1900mhz (i.e. higher possibility to get a set that will do this). Specifically the kits I'm looking at are these G. Skill ripjaws x ddr3 1600 mhz 1.35v $109 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231478 G. Skill ripjaws x ddr3 1600 mhz 1.5v $104 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231429 CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CML16GX3M4A1600C91.5v $104 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233197 There's also this one G. Skill sniper ddr3 1600mhz 1.35v $109 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231478 So which one should I get if I want to have the best attempt at 1900mhz and perhaps tighter timings? Right now the 'safest' choice seems to be the G.Skill Ripjaws x 1.5v. But if the 1.35v is better, and work on an x58, for 5 bucks more it might be worth it as it might allow for tighter timings (as a guess). I know they have the 1866 for 129.99 but 104-109 seems the better choice. (seems like I'd just be paying for a i7 930 vs i7 920 and upping it myself...but in terms of ram) Anyone using 1.35v ram in their x58 motherboards? I'm going to check for the undervolting options on my mb, but I believe if memory serves correct it allows for a decent undervolt in the bios. (although I'm most likely going to have it at least over 1.5v.) Thanks
  15. CardsFan88

    MSI X58 Platinum/I7920 OC issue

    I would have to concur with vid card problem and not being related to your cpu overclock. Just bad timing. My 6800 Ultra sucked big balls. Whether it was the mandatory bios update to get it to work, to the it's later problems - including the 'kick out to the desktop' every 10 seconds thing. It just sounds like you got a flaky card. Which if it goes out while you're overclocking the cpu, probably would give one a bad feeling about overclocking. It's sort of similar to politics. Two sides compromise and the result is a half-measure that won't do crap. It doesn't work, and instead of going back and doing it right, it's used as an excuse to why ANY plan wouldn't work. Kinda similar here. You were oc'ing, and something else went bad unrelated to the overclock, and it might now prevent you from wanting to overclock, even though it had nothing to do with the failure.
×