Envy 17 user here- Why is my Ram timed at 800 and not 1333? This was the same on my Envy 15.

Title says it all- Seems that my memory is running at 800, not 1333 (as advertised).

This is the third laptop like this (had two envy 15's and now noticing this on my envy 17)

 

I suggest you read this about DDR3 timings:
DDR3 SDRAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run CPU-Z (if you haven't already). CPU-Z will show the output rating based on a single channel. Therefore, if CPU-Z says its 800mhz, DDR3 is dual channel, so you need to multiply by 2.

 

2x 800 != 1333. The processor that I have doesn't come with a 1600 controller- it can only go up to 1333.

 

If you're checking it while just sitting idle in Windows, the RAM is downclocked because it's not in use.

 

Wrong. The Envy (3rd gen) can support up to 1600mhz RAM with both the i5 and the i7. You said this is your third Envy, which I can only assume is the latest generation Envy that has an i5 or an i7. My Envy 15 was "accidentally" upgraded to 1600mhz RAM (I bought 1333mhz on an i5 and got 1600). When I exchanged it for a new one due to some issues, my Case Manager upgraded me to the 1600mhz RAM on an i7.

Therefore, CPU-Z reflects 800mhz. And again, I'll say it, 800mhz x 2 = 1600mhz. Did you even run CPU-Z? If CPU-Z reflects 667mhz, then you have 1333mhz RAM.

Why not read up about RAM timings that I provided you instead of being so pessimistic? Or perhaps provide more information, such as your specifications, instead of having us guess?

Or, its what Kevin said.

 

Wrong.
I think.

Alright, take it easy. First off, CPUZ is what's showing it at 800. I'm probably going to run mt420 when I get a shot, but for now CPUZ is my lazy alternative. I'm a computer sci major (B.S.) so I'm pretty familiar with this- no need to slander. I realize that the speed should be doubled, but it's really really weird considering that my processor
Intel® Coreâ„¢ i7-2670QM Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.10 GHz)
only has a memory controller that goes up to 1333. Some say intel hasn't updated their site, but that makes little sense, too.

Its possible that it downclocks, but that's annoying as hell.

 

B.S and M.S. in IT, so I know a little too. But, lets not get into a "pissing match" over that.

Yes, the SB processor you own supports up to 1600mhz memory. People have posted this question across several forums. Here, I pasted one result from Google for you.
[ubuntu] Does an i7 2670QM support 1600MHz ram? - Ubuntu Forums
...and another
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2145193

Also, product specifications from HP (and other manufactures such as Alienware) state that the memory controller can support up to 1600mhz on the memory controller up to 8GB (and yes, its with the same CPU you have). Past 8GB, they claim it gets down clocked to 1333. Go customize one for yourself and see.

Honestly dude, Google is your friend. The answer is out there. HP probably mistakingly gave you better RAM when you bought your system. They did for me. What does the Memory SPD read in CPU-Z? Its it PC3-12800? This is 1600mhz. This is what I have (unfortunately, Hyundai branded). PC3-10600 is 1333mhz.

Anyways ...........

 

chocbo481 is correct. 800 x2 = 1600 using cpu-z its easy to see.

 

WOAH,,,Dudes,,,stop with the pissin match,,,, .

@Von32, If you look up the service manual it tells you:

@Von32, so even if they put 16Gb @ 1600 in, that would be nice of them, but you only use 1333.

 

Guys, let's take a deep breath and calm down. None of us were born with the knowledge we currently pride ourselves with.

 

Aw, I thought I was trying to be pretty friendly. Anyhoo. Sorry if I wasn't!

 

I saw the links that were posted by you guys, but that's why I got so confused- they say one thing without really including a source, yet intel lists the chipset as 1333. Of course I'd lean towards trusting intel (keeping in mind that CPU-Z has (had?) a few bugs in terms of showing memory speed from my experience)

but soon after posting I actually ran memtest+ and it DID have a transfer speed of a 1600mhz pair.

Weird as hell that intel lists one thing, but does another. Not like I'm complaining about getting faster memory

Thanks for the replies, though. I guess I was wrong =]