PDA

View Full Version : OCZ 8500 (1066 Mhz) vs 7200 (900 Mhz)


darkbluesky
10-07-07, 09:40 AM
Hello,

I'm upgrading and my planned rig is :

EVGA 680i SLI A1 mobo
Q6600 or E6750 (still to decide)
2 x 7900 GTX

I have the opportunity to buy the OCZ PC2-8500 (1066 MHz) SLI-Ready RAM or the PC2-7200 (900 MHz). The prices, AFAIK, are about 185 euros (1066 MHz) and 120 euros (900 MHz).

I am considering getting the PC8500 instead of the 7200, but I have seen that the timings are slower 5-5-5-15 for the PC8500 instead of 4-4-3-15 of the 7200. My doubt is which one will OC better? It is worth the 1066 Mhz and worse timings?

The nominal voltage of the 8500s are 2.3 and the EPV 2.35, meanwhile for the 7200s it is 2.2v and EPV upto 2.3v. ALthough I have seen reviews where they stated that nominal voltages where lower, about 2.1v and other reviews (and OCZ web page) where states 2.3/2.2v. Were two versions, maybe?

Thank you if you could help me to clarify/decide.

CaptNKILL
10-07-07, 10:25 AM
You shouldn't have to worry about overclocking memory too much.

The 900Mhz memory would get your CPU to 3.6Ghz without any overclocking at the standard 1:2 memory ratio and the 1066 would be able to (theoretically) get you to over 4.2Ghz.

My memory is sort of going to waste at the moment because I decided to leave my CPU at 3.6Ghz rather than push it farther.

I'd say, get the 1066 if it isn't much more expensive, but don't be surprised if you don't end up needing it.

If you get an extremely overclockable CPU though, you'll want the extra head room provided by the higher clocked memory.

Also, it sounds like you're talking about the same memory I have too. It runs at 2.1v (or +0.3v in my bios) but for some reason requires 2.3v (+0.5v) to post when initially applying overclocking settings. I had crashes when running it at 2.3v constant... most likely from overheating the memory. OCZ tech support even said it runs at 2.1v, despite the conflicting info on their website.

EDIT: Heh, I didn't see you were considering getting a Q6600. In your case, I'd get the Quad, and that would make the 1066 memory totally unnecessary since the Q6600 has a higher multiplier and lower overall overclocking potential. You could probably save yourself a crap load of money by getting some 800Mhz memory and you'd still be hard pressed to max it out (3.6Ghz on a Q6600 is a heck of an overclock).

darkbluesky
10-07-07, 11:20 AM
I'll see. Then, do you would buy a Q6600 instead a E6750 or E6850?

On the other hand, as the evga mobo allows me to set independently the memory from the cpu, maybe I could set the mem faster, although the cpu remains not so-overclocked. But, it is worth? or the extra speed in ram is not useful?

CaptNKILL
10-07-07, 12:59 PM
I'll see. Then, do you would buy a Q6600 instead a E6750 or E6850?

On the other hand, as the evga mobo allows me to set independently the memory from the cpu, maybe I could set the mem faster, although the cpu remains not so-overclocked. But, it is worth? or the extra speed in ram is not useful?
I'm not sure if the Core 2s are any better but with my previous Athlon 64 systems I've noticed more instability when messing with memory dividers other than the standard (it was 1:1 on any DDR systems I've used, and it seems to be 1:2 on this Core 2).

As for speed, I'm sure theres a slight difference in general speed with faster memory, but overall I doubt its noticeable.

If I were buying a CPU right now, personally, I would be getting a P35 chipset motherboard and an E6750, just like I did a few months ago. This way, I can get the most performance in current games by getting higher clocks than most quads, and when the next line of 45nm quad cores come out in January I can just sell my dual core and upgrade to a quad. This should get me lower temperatures, better performance per clock and more overclockability (hopefully) than current quads, for around $300. The E6750 will probably still be worth $150-$175 then too, so if quad cores really are worth the upgrade by January, I'll only be looking at $150-$125 for an upgrade.