RAM: 1333Mhz vs. 1066Mhz in M17x

I've been reading about every aspect of this laptop for the past few weeks, but there's still one topic that remains..unsettled (at least for me):

RAM speed config.

One thing to remember when considering this, the FSB speed is 1066. This comparison is not in regards to any budget, do not take price into hand when comparing the two, just performance.

1333Mhz
I've read from NBR users arguing this very point, is that 1333 Mhz would be better, as the base is higher; and you would be able to overclock the FSB to make use of the base speed. Then again, there are claims that the latency might be higher, so the performance trade-off is questionable(?).

1066Mhz
1066Mhz is the exact same speed as the FSB, I've read that the rule of thumb is to have the RAM speed & FSB match, for stability; not to mention the latency should be less[insert controversy here].
How easily would it overclock with the FSB? I'm unsure, though I'm sure overclocking RAM would take its toll (more so than CPU).



There's more to it than just CPU, as I'm pretty sure the integrated 9400 graphics makes use of the RAM as well. The question is though, keep the 1066 at the same level as the FSB(stability), and OC them together if wanted? or select the 1333 and OC the CPU at different rates(if you choose to OC the 1333 RAM).

 

the funny thing about this whole 1066mhz vs 1333mhz debate is that in practical use, you won't notice a difference.

 

Oh I know, this is just for the enthusiast inside all of us

 

you would need some one with both ram to test this thoery out.

or someone with the m17x or the m17 with simlar specs to run test to see what's good. but as whizzo said there is no performance increase in real world apps. only benchmarks and file compression will benefit from it.

my threoy though is if you have a qx9300 or a x9100 overclocked it should help your cpu alot more then the 1066

 

i still think $50 price increase is a little much through dell...

 

Yeah, even if the 1333 comes out slightly faster in a benchmark you will def not notice a difference real-world.....

 

The thing with over clocking on this board is that you can unlink the ram from the FSB when over clocking, so technically you can lock the ram at 1066mhz while increasing the FSB, also Nvidia boards seem to prefer, or run more stable with the ram "unlinked" from the FSB while over clocking from what I've read.

So if what I've been reading is correct, the 1333mhz ram on this particular model is meaningless and people should actually have better performance in over clocking with the 1066 ram, due the tighter timings.

 

It would probably make 4-6 seconds difference when compiling on Adobe, a little more savings extracting RAR archives, etc.. No it's not much to be concerned over, but its still a difference

Either go for the 1333Mhz (+267), or for the 1066 for the (supposed) less latency & keeping things even with the FSB. Quite a...confusing decision.

 

So unlinked from the board, the 1066 Ram would outperform the 1333? that..is difficult add up in my mind xD

 

That's the impression I was given yes, not out perform by a significant margin, but from what I heard things would be almost identical except for latentcy.

 

Compiling would be more CPU dependent and the lower timings from the 1066 would make up the difference in frequency.

 

hi your 1333mhz ram has quicker timings than 1066mhz

because the 1333mhz ram is running only at 1066 speeds

do a test use cpuid cpu-z

i have 4 gig ocz 1333mhz running @

dram freq=532.0mhz
fsb :dram 1:2
cas 8.0 clocks
ras to cas delay 8
ras precharge 8
cycle time 20
just noticed as well that some 1066 ram has 7 timings in stead of 8 but my original 2 gig from a/w was at 8... so all in all theirs nothing in it.

 

Hopefully BIGX333 can chime in on this as he seems to be the expert on this over clocking on the M17x/1333 vs 1066 debate.

 

BIGX333 is one of the inspirations for this thread xD

 

I have 1333 memory and I set my fsb and ram in the bios at 1133. My 3.06 proc has been running without issue at 3.30Ghz.

 

when you have the chance not now but can you use a lower multiplier and downclock your cpu, then use the fsb and try to up it close to 1333 and see if there is a difference.

 

I assume your talking to me. Will do. Running a couple more benchmarks then I will do your test.

 

I tried different settings including 10.5x1333. System locks during DMC4 test but it doesn't BSOD.

 

ok i guess it's to high then. what your clock speed at that setting now and what if you drop it to 1300

 

Actually I meant 10x1333 which gives me 3.33Ghz. I've been running with no issues at 11.5x1133 which equals 3.30. I'm trying 11.5x1166 @3.33Ghz and so far no problems. I'll post DMC4 results in the benchmark thread.

 

That is very useful information. Are you completely stable in all apps at 11.5x1133? You have to unlink the multiplier and FSB settings do achieve that right?

Thanks for the info.

 

Keeping the multiplier at default seems to be the trick to keep it stable. 11.5 is default for my x9100.

Edit: 11.5x1200=3.46Ghz, works so far.

 

1066 comes in C7, C5 and 1333 in C9, C8, C7, C6.

Here I am!

R u running 1:1 ? .

BTW... Can u show me a screenshot of cpu-z memory tab? i want to check latency of this 1333 which dell is using.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

About performance... Some programs perform better with lower latency and others with higher clock but memory performance benefits tends to decrease when overclocking (specially in i7/a64/phenom).

 

Great news for the SSD...

 

It's a waste of money.

 

yep i agree... unless you overclocking within the bios which m17 users carnt do so its no good for me.

 

Yes 1:1.

Here you go.

 

To be honest I do a lot of photoshop and the SSD delivered with M17X is the best thing I've bought besides the PC.

The speed to open multiple pics in photoshop is faster with my SSD on my M17X then with my velociraptor 10,000 rpm on my desktop.

 

the only real difference here is what the ram is capable of. 1066 ram has been tested to run and perform at the rated specs at 1066. can it be overclocked yes; to a degree. but in doing so you almost always have to loosen the timings to get more out of it sometimes negating the benefit of overclocking it in the first place. it depends what you want the faster fsb or the tighter timings.

with the 1333 ram it has been tested to function and run at 1333; again at its rated timings, can it run at 1066 yes, it can also run at 1066 - 1333 without having to worry about where it will top out at. so if the 1066 ram will not clock higher than say 1133 the 1333 will benefit you by being able to run up to 1333 without issues.

now depending on what the timings are for that 1333 ram in a lot of cases you can actually make the higher speed ram run faster yes.. faster than the 1066 as far as timings go.

the timings it is rated to run is at 1333 remember. if you turn that ram down to 1066 or 1133 etc it can almost always run tighter timings than what is rated for something the 1066 usually cant do at its rated speed.

so if the 1066 ram is rated at say 7-7-7-20 and the 1333 ram is rated at 9-9-9-24 the 1333 ill bet at 1066 could prob run at between 5 and 6 and prob say 18 or so at 1066 instead. i know this is what i do on my desktops i run. i almost always can get a faster overall fsb with tighter timings this way instead of having to buy the slower ram and overclocking it causing me to have to loosen the timings usually more than what the 1333 would have been in the first place.

will you see ANY REAL difference between 7-7-7-20 and 9-9-9-24 in real world use almost always no. it may make a VERY slight difference in benchmarks but not much else. i build overclocked systems for a living out of my shop all the time. i can explain more if needed lmk

if you are not buying a extreme cpu and will not be overclocking it the 1333 is a total waste of your money. period. if you will be overclocking ill always recc you to get the 1333 ram to give you the extra headroom if you need it

now of course remember there is low latency ram also out there (kingston hyper x and others) which at 1066 i have seen at 5-5-5-15 and the 1333 version not far behind so there are exceptions to the rule depending on what ram is used

 

Actually isn't that hard to 1066 ram run at 1333 if in the same latency as a ram which spd is 1333 and just because it's a 1333 ram doesn't means that is other chip/pcb (and generally isn't).

M17x bios don't have vdimm settings, don't have timings settings, max FSB is 1333 (and nobody get to even boot at 1333) and you have divisors if you need... Even if ppl start using SetFSB 1066 ram have a decent room to overclock (and if u need more... Memset ).

1333 ram is a waste here... Remember that dell don't use high quality ram and even more waste if consider that 4GB modules prices will drop overtime .

 

i didnt say you could not run the 1066 at 1333 but NOT ALL 1066 will overclock that far that is A FACT PERIOD even two kits from the same company of the same model one might do it and one may not. even more so that you are saying dell doesnt use great ram this is even more a reason it may not reach 1333 speeds.

no offense but let people do what they want.

i still stand by if you are overclocking i personally will use the 1333. i use memset a lot i know how it works. i also SELL ram. i can tell you i know for a fact there is a lot of 1066 stuff that CAN NOT run up to 1333 speeds. period. just like a lot of ddr2 800 stuff couldnt get past 900.. same deal here.

i agree with you for most people its probably a waste as i said it will not show any real gains. but for those who want the ability to run it faster they should get the 1333. with almost all 1066 and 1333 even on newegg being the same price now why not get the 1333.. i see both for the same price right now

i also agree though if buying from dell i would not spend the extra on the 1333. it can be bought for way less than what they charge for it

 

Overclock is always a gamble. Well... dell ram isn't that bad too .

1333 option still in dell website... I can't forbid anyone to buy .

You can't compare DDR2 with DDR3... DDR2,3 aren't the best overclockers out there (good times of DDR1 ) but DDR3 overclock better because the lower vddim n stuff. Yeah lot of 1066 can't do 1333 but a lot can when in the right latency .

I never said that u don't know how memset work, and u sell ram? i used to receive free kits just to overclock and make some marketing and this doesn't make my opinion better or worst .

Dell charges $50 for 4gb 1333 (of course it's not full price) and in newegg it's 59-63$ for cas 9 modules so... In dell is cheaper.

I prefer to buy some cas 5 modules from newegg for $99 than paying $50 for a 1333 ram which isn't going to give any benefit in performance, overclock or anything. You have to remember that all 1333 rams for notebooks r cas 9 and sorry but i prefer 1066 cas 5

 

In that case, why bother with quad core as well? There are so few applications that can benefit from the additional core that you're not likely to see any advantage for some time to come.

In my opinion, the idea is to future proof your purchase. At an average $3,000 a pop, you wouldn't want your precious machine to be considered yesterdays news after just a short while.

 

Can't you just unlink and lock the ram at 1066 while increasing the FSB on Nvidia boards?

 

LOL "FEW" ? please verify your sources. AND the bigger advantage of quad core in home use is MULTI TASK .

You can't compare up to 400% performance increase with 1% jesus christ.

And no 1333 isn't going to make your M17x "future proof" (and man... this phrase don't even make sense... NOTHING is future proof).

BTW... This topic isn't about quad core

Yes you can.

 

For the record, I paraphrased a comment I got directly for the the pages of a computer publication. It was an interview from leaders of software development.

I know it isn't. I was using a technique I learned in advanced composition. You compare two dissimilar things to make a point.

 

Don't believe in everything you read.

TBH it was for myself

 

Good, hopefully I'll get a good P8600 and be able to over clock it to 2.8 or 2.9 stable with the ram unlinked and locked at stock speed without any problems.

 

ok n00b question.....

unlinked? to what is this in reference? this is the first i have heard of this term in OC'ing....

 

Linked = 1:1
Unliked = using divisors.

 

essentially linked means the ram will automatically run along with the fsb so if you increase the fsb it will also increase the ram, unlinked means you can set it at a speed of your choice using dividers. so say the cpu could run at 1066 and ram could still run at the rated 800 (just an example), some motherboards also refer to this as sync or async, meaning everything is synced including the pci bus etc, and async you can adjust each. i use a asrock board for my budget builds and they are very nice they allow this. so i can say use a e5200 set it for async and set the ram as i want and set the pci bus for say 106 or 108 accordingly instead of the normal 100 etc

again just a example here

 

I feel like a complete fool now for letting dell trick me. I bought the 8gb 1333. After reading a lot I guess it was a total waste of money then? that sucks.

 

I don't think so...

8gb 1333 is the best you can get... All 4gb modules in newegg, tigerdirect etc r 1066 cas 7...

Your experience will be the same as if you got 1066 but isn't a bad choice at all .

 

Can't you do the same with 1333 RAM? would it be better/worse?

 

Basically the same.

Better in some applications, worst in others.

If anyone really want a better ram and want 4gb ( lol )... Do a favor for himself and buy some hyperx cas 5 from newegg or buy 8gb otherwise just stay with 1066 from dell.

 

would an unlink & lock be the smart move?

I'm not very experienced with fiddling with ram xD

 

Thanks BIG!

 

Running 1:1 tends to be more stable (depends on motherboard) and this is the unique difference ATM (performance is basically the same).

 

Wait a second... I was reading the posts again and i think that i forget to explain a thing...

C2D/Q/E in notebooks use 1066 FSB (quad pumped... the real FSB is 266).

DDR means DUAL DATA RATE (dual pumped).

So let's say anyone want to run it 1:1 at stock speed...

1066 DDR is 553mhz real clock so you need to run your FSB at 533 (REAL)...

533 x 4 = 2132FSB (if anyone get a way to use that FSB please tell me ).

So if u want to run 1:1 at stock FSB u need to run your memory at 266(real) x 2 = DDR3 533...

So what this mean?...

Your max FSB with 1066 ram 1:1 is 533 x 4 (remember it's quad pumped) = 2132 FSB...

So let's say u have a Q9000 (7.5 multiplier)...

533 x 7.5 = 4000mhz (if anyone got this PLEASE CALL ME )

Let's say you have P8600 (9.0 multiplier)...

533 x 9.0 = 4800mhz (if anyone got this PLEASE CALL ME )

So if zfactor or any other guy with a conspiracy theory want to try to explain why you need 1333 ram in a core 2 system i will be REALLY happy to listen.

 

No no, not need. We're talking pure performance; which would perform better (regardless of how smal a margin)