DDR2 800 at 2.2 v OK ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trimble
  • Start date Start date
T

Trimble

I run ;
Gigabyte DS3 M.Board . Core2Duo E6600 @ 3.2 Ghz , 3 Gig DDR2 800 Dual Chan.
Mem @ 910 Mhz ,
Geforce 8800GTX, WIN XP
This overclock seems stable but long term life / reliability is important.

The RAM is standard Generic stuff needs to be set to 2v1 to do 900 Mhz.
I've set it to 2v2 timings 5-5-5-15 .
The mem. runs (with system busy) pretty warm but not hot to touch
in well ventilated case.
I haven't really tested out the max overclock & best settings yet.
But one issue here is it OK long term to have that DDR2 at 2v2 ??
Should I try to have it at 2v1 ...perhaps reducing the FSB /Mem ratio .
Its Dual chan. so perhaps the Mhz speed is less important ??
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
 
I run ;
Gigabyte DS3 M.Board . Core2Duo E6600 @ 3.2 Ghz , 3 Gig DDR2 800 Dual Chan.
Mem @ 910 Mhz ,
Geforce 8800GTX, WIN XP
This overclock seems stable but long term life / reliability is important.
Click to expand...

Then be sure you have a margin, don't o'c to the highest
level possible, rather backing off by a few percent at
least. Check temps of all components, including capacitors
(you'll need a temp sensor for this or your finger and the
ability to guess good, compare to other parts at known
temps).

The RAM is standard Generic stuff needs to be set to 2v1 to do 900 Mhz.
I've set it to 2v2 timings 5-5-5-15 .
The mem. runs (with system busy) pretty warm but not hot to touch
in well ventilated case.
I haven't really tested out the max overclock & best settings yet.
But one issue here is it OK long term to have that DDR2 at 2v2 ??
Should I try to have it at 2v1 ...perhaps reducing the FSB /Mem ratio .
Its Dual chan. so perhaps the Mhz speed is less important ??
Click to expand...


Seek benchmarks to see what your most demanding task
responds to the most. I would not reduce the ratio unless
it's right on the border already, instead relaxing timings a
notch particularly with 3GB, but really if reliability is
most important over the long term you should probably lower
the FSB some and then the memory ratio is causing it to run
at lower clock too, until you can hit a lower voltage, but
no, the memory alone won't necessarily be a problem at 2.2
if it isn't getting overly hot but it's not like one voltage
is a problem and the next down is ok, it's shades of grey
with each jump.

In the end, you are trading long life for o'c. We just
don't know how long is "long" to you, and without a crystal
ball or retrospect there's no way to peg a date of failure.
 
I run ;
Gigabyte DS3 M.Board . Core2Duo E6600 @ 3.2 Ghz , 3 Gig DDR2 800 Dual Chan.
Mem @ 910 Mhz ,
Geforce 8800GTX, WIN XP
This overclock seems stable but long term life / reliability is important.

The RAM is standard Generic stuff needs to be set to 2v1 to do 900 Mhz.
I've set it to 2v2 timings 5-5-5-15 .
The mem. runs (with system busy) pretty warm but not hot to touch
in well ventilated case.
I haven't really tested out the max overclock & best settings yet.
But one issue here is it OK long term to have that DDR2 at 2v2 ??
Should I try to have it at 2v1 ...perhaps reducing the FSB /Mem ratio .
Its Dual chan. so perhaps the Mhz speed is less important ??
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Click to expand...

If long term life is important to you, you should not overclock,
period. As mentioned, you're trading performance for stability and
life.

A good computer should physically last about 10 years, with only 1 or
2 minor repairs. And yes, many computers live LOTS longer than that.
Plenty of 286s, Apple IIs, and even Commodore 64s are alive and well.

Emachines last about 2-3 years and then self-immolate. Motherboard and
power supply, and sometimes a few other components to be extra sure of
total destruction.

Asus boards last around 6, and then give you frequent 'the system has
hung from an improper cpu setting' hangs. Which are almost always non-
solvable. Also their website is SLOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW.

A couple MSI boards have bad caps, As do Soyo, and ECS. Gigabyte
seems more or less OK, but you've got to love the grammatically-
fractured instructions.

Intel Processors die less frequently than AMD, for some reason. I'm
not entirely sure why, it's just a pattern I've seen. Perhaps more
people overclock AMD stuff.
 
Thanks paulmd.
You refer a lot to usage years without defining hours per day usage.
The problem my Home setups have come to in the last year or so
is that I now use the machine so much more...games...shopping..watching
Video..radio .
perhaps 8 hours every day.
So I'm seeing frequent Hardware problems / Failures that I never saw in
the years when it was on perhaps a few hours 2 / 3 days a week.
My last machine but one ..& PII 500mhz lasted 5 years .I changed the CPU
once the mem was
added to & extra Hard Discs..but the original parts lasted in use as did the
Monitor.
& still works ..I replaced it out of choice .
I must now plan for things wareing & needed maintenance before I WANT to
replace.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Mouse
 
Thanks paulmd.
You refer a lot to usage years without defining hours per day usage.
Click to expand...

I don't have good data on that, except in the case of the apple IIs,
as the primary source of those is school districts. I know that
schools continued to use these things daily, even long after they were
obsolete.

But basicly computers are generally obsolete before they die. I work
at a computer recycler and refurbisher. Almost all of the computers we
get are rebuildable. We would like to repair more than we do, but we
concentrate on the higher end. P3s and up usually. Of that range, we
get about a 10% mortality rate... those machines that can't
economically be fixed, or refuse to be stable. The old ones generally
all work, it's just a question of time and return on investment.


CDs are the most fragile of the components, and hard drives next.
After that, it's a close race between power supplies, motherboards
and ram, and video cards (early nvidia in particular).
 
Back
Top