|
Actually, they generally do come off, the specific hows are usually different, but they went on, they come off. The only question is the specifics. And generally, it's not an in-depth procedure.
Actually, with further looking, those may be more nightmarish to take off.
http://www.crucial.com/pdf/productFlyer/Ballistix_Elite_ProductFlyer_Letter-EN.pdf
I've never even heard of something this ludicrous before, it's got to be purely for marketing.
Ballistix Elite modules utilize integrated heat spreaders to showcase one of the best
DRAM features available – the Ballistix M.O.D. utility for real time temperature
monitoring.
It would certainly be the first one I've heard of where it won't come off easily.
Even so, I really doubt this is something that's actually not removable, because if it was some bleeding edge thing that's integrated into the design of the actual DIMM, I'd expect it not to be the cheapest shit on the planet.
|
They probably just mean that they have some junky software that you can run to look at RAM temperatures. Just like you see RAM temperatures in other utilities. It's not like the RAM has some proprietary Crucial-only USB / wireless connection to send sensor data.
Elite, yo.
|
http://www.techreaction.net/2011/04/26/review-crucial-ballistix-ddr3-with-thermal-monitoring/3/
Here you go. Removeable.
On January 02 2013 04:48 Myrmidon wrote:
They probably just mean that they have some junky software that you can run to look at RAM temperatures. Just like you see RAM temperatures in other utilities. It's not like the RAM has some proprietary Crucial-only USB / wireless connection to send sensor data.
Elite, yo.
Yeah was kinda what was running through my mind, but until I'm sure, I like to caveat shit.
|
On January 02 2013 04:35 JingleHell wrote:Actually, they generally do come off, the specific hows are usually different, but they went on, they come off. The only question is the specifics. And generally, it's not an in-depth procedure.Actually, with further looking, those may be more nightmarish to take off. http://www.crucial.com/pdf/productFlyer/Ballistix_Elite_ProductFlyer_Letter-EN.pdfI've never even heard of something this ludicrous before, it's got to be purely for marketing. Show nested quote +Ballistix Elite modules utilize integrated heat spreaders to showcase one of the best
DRAM features available – the Ballistix M.O.D. utility for real time temperature
monitoring. It would certainly be the first one I've heard of where it won't come off easily. Even so, I really doubt this is something that's actually not removable, because if it was some bleeding edge thing that's integrated into the design of the actual DIMM, I'd expect it not to be the cheapest shit on the planet.
dude i really dont care how removable they are. I'm sure when there's a will there's a way but this has nothing to do with what I'm even asking.
They probably just mean that they have some junky software that you can run to look at RAM temperatures. Just like you see RAM temperatures in other utilities. It's not like the RAM has some proprietary Crucial-only USB / wireless connection to send sensor data.
Elite, yo.
I don't trust temperature sensors, so for me, any sort of included temperature monitoring or diodes are worthless. I have my own discrete temperature diodes and a temperature sensor. That, and RAM really doesn't get hot at all unless your ramping 1.8+ volts on it (granted, I'm okay with doing that, but most ICs just don't appreciate that much voltage). It's also very simple to stick a thermal diode into RAM.
I just want to know - isn't RAM spec'd 1866mhz CL9 vs 1600mhz CL8 exactly the same thing? Since Speed + Timings is a give and take thing, that's why the JEDEC specs always say like higher/lower speeds with looser/tighter timings at a given bandwidth, and in overclocking you could ramp speed all the way up but it'd require loosened timings and vice versa.
Am i just not understanding RAM correctly, or do you guys just totally not get what I'm saying? Clearly no one knows the answer but like am I the only one confused here?
|
On January 02 2013 09:27 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 04:35 JingleHell wrote:Actually, they generally do come off, the specific hows are usually different, but they went on, they come off. The only question is the specifics. And generally, it's not an in-depth procedure.Actually, with further looking, those may be more nightmarish to take off. http://www.crucial.com/pdf/productFlyer/Ballistix_Elite_ProductFlyer_Letter-EN.pdfI've never even heard of something this ludicrous before, it's got to be purely for marketing. Ballistix Elite modules utilize integrated heat spreaders to showcase one of the best
DRAM features available – the Ballistix M.O.D. utility for real time temperature
monitoring. It would certainly be the first one I've heard of where it won't come off easily. Even so, I really doubt this is something that's actually not removable, because if it was some bleeding edge thing that's integrated into the design of the actual DIMM, I'd expect it not to be the cheapest shit on the planet. dude i really dont care how removable they are. I'm sure when there's a will there's a way but this has nothing to do with what I'm even asking.
You mean the one that was already answered? Or are you too busy looking for a fight to read posts? The peripheral information about the fact that they can be removed was done as a courtesy, since you're usually obsessed with absolute minimum prices, I told you that you can get the cheapest one and get the heat spreaders out of the way.
You were asking what the differences were. That was answered. You commented about the heat spreaders being a potential issue, which I had anticipated and commented on, that was answered. Your response at that point is to demonstrate an utter incapacity for human interaction.
I don't trust temperature sensors, so for me, any sort of included temperature monitoring or diodes are worthless. I have my own discrete temperature diodes and a temperature sensor. That, and RAM really doesn't get hot at all unless your ramping 1.8+ volts on it (granted, I'm okay with doing that, but most ICs just don't appreciate that much voltage). It's also very simple to stick a thermal diode into RAM.
I just want to know - isn't RAM spec'd 1866mhz CL9 vs 1600mhz CL8 exactly the same thing? Since Speed + Timings is a give and take thing, that's why the JEDEC specs always say like higher/lower speeds with looser/tighter timings at a given bandwidth, and in overclocking you could ramp speed all the way up but it'd require loosened timings and vice versa.
Am i just not understanding RAM correctly, or do you guys just totally not get what I'm saying? Clearly no one knows the answer but like am I the only one confused here?
You've been answered already, with the most specific answer you can receive. This goes back to you refusing to accept information, or read answers fully before looking for trouble. The 1600 C8 and 1866 C9 aren't 100% interchangeable settings, but they frequently will be. That's the ONLY answer that can be responsibly given.
|
5930 Posts
RAM overclocking was and has always been the worst thing ever because you basically never know what the problem is. Is it the CPU? The timings? The frequency? The voltage? I know what you want to do but you get absolutely nothing out of it unless you're running an AMD APU and using the integrated graphics.
For Sandy Bridge, you want faster frequencies than timings. In most games and applications, 9-9-9-24 will perform exactly the same as 7-7-7-20 while 1600mhz will give you a more noticeable (as in not at all) improvement over 1333mhz.
For your question regarding interchangeable settings, no one really knows. Depends on the RAM you get I guess, the only real answer is that making the timings looser will probably give you more frequency headroom. There isn't really a 100% correlation between timings and frequencies...something already answered.
|
For RAM ratings, speed vs. timing, it should depend on how the ICs and the transistors inside them respond at a low level, at given voltage, operating frequency, temperature (which is sample dependent). We're operating (non-ECC) RAM with enough margins that probability of bit errors, getting a 0 flipped to 1 or vice versa, are extremely low. Overclocking just reduces those margins, for those that want more speed at the expense of stability and higher power / temperatures / etc. Ask for the data too quickly (i.e. what happens if you overclock it too much or turn the timings too tight), and once in a while, maybe not enough electrons hopped on over to the right place in time, and you get an error.
I think the rating is just some advertised spec or some kind of guarantee. Chips may or may not be capable of more. In some unscrupulous cases, they can't do as advertised.
Looking at just the required timing, there's really not a huge difference between 8 clocks (also check other timings than CAS latency) at 1600 MHz and 9 clocks at 1866 MHz. That's 5ns vs. 4.82ns, with the lower latency obviously being better. Also note that peak transfer rate of RAM at 1866 MHz would be higher, so it should be better overall. Thus the 1866 MHz CL9 RAM is rated more stringently, as that's harder to do than 1600 MHz CL8.
In practice, many ICs capable of one setting are also capable of another. The same RAM brand might be using chips from the same source, same rating, maybe even same batch (?) for their packaged 1866 MHz CL9 kits as their 1600 MHz CL8 kits. Who knows.
|
Have any of you tried Lucid Virtu MVP? It sounds interesting.
|
On January 02 2013 10:45 Blisse wrote:
Have any of you tried Lucid Virtu MVP? It sounds interesting.
where did you see it was interesting? Everywhere i've searched said it was useless, buggy, and terrible.
i think a few might have had some luck with using the igpu dedicated as 2nd monitor, but i could be wrong on that. general concensus ive seen is that it's worthless.
id love to be wrong though, i havent used it.
|
You mean the one that was already answered? Or are you too busy looking for a fight to read posts? The peripheral information about the fact that they can be removed was done as a courtesy, since you're usually obsessed with absolute minimum prices, I told you that you can get the cheapest one and get the heat spreaders out of the way.
You were asking what the differences were. That was answered. You commented about the heat spreaders being a potential issue, which I had anticipated and commented on, that was answered. Your response at that point is to demonstrate an utter incapacity for human interaction.
Only thing i said about heatspreaders was that they don't really do anything. I don't care about heatspreaders. It also turns out that fancy heatspreader+ ram turns out to be cheaper than any sort of valuram, as usually is because they tend to go on special sales. Heatspreaders had nothing to do with my questions, I did not say heat spreaders were a potential issue I said if both the ram were exactly the same I'd probably go with the one with the less obnoxious heatspreaders but it was such a nonissue.
I have never seen a cooler that was ram incompatible, anyways. The most offensive and obtrustive cooler you can simply mount the fan slightly raised up, anyways.
this is such a derailment dude, please, forget i said anything about heatspreaders. I dont see where you saw I said any question about them or that it was a pressing issue, over the stuff about 1600cl8 vs 1866cl9. just please stop trolling me everytime i make a post, damn.
RAM overclocking was and has always been the worst thing ever because you basically never know what the problem is. Is it the CPU? The timings? The frequency? The voltage? I know what you want to do but you get absolutely nothing out of it unless you're running an AMD APU and using the integrated graphics.
i know, right. I had a hell of a time trying to figure out why my phenom with missing and bent pins wasn't working no matter the clock or voltage and consistently failing at 8 hours (and yet not even failing if i set p95 to the specific fft it kept failing at, most people dont even test more than 3 hours too) to find out that 2 of the ram slots were 'bad', yet these 2 ram slots worked just fine for 2 years and on multiple 24+ hour tests of prime95 when I had an athlon ii cpu in there.
just makes no logical sense. did 10+ hours of memtest86+ testing on each dimm, with differing ram sticks and configurations...
I have heard that intel gets a noticeable improvement with faster ram, a more appeciable increase than amd does with tighter timings, and while it isn't much I enjoy overclocking and such so I'd like to push my ram as far as I can. And I'd like to push a high, 1.8+ voltage on them too this time around (ram is so cheap...), given that 1.7-1.8 is usually the max safe limit for most ICs (granted I'd have to check which ICs the ram i end up getting has, and it's limits, and if it even appreciates such high voltage as most ram doesnt care).
on an interesting note, H264 codec actually really appreciates higher speeds, even on AMD systems, it's the one thing that speed>timing on AMD, so I imagine on intel increasing your bandwidth actually might do something for streaming setups.
For your question regarding interchangeable settings, no one really knows. Depends on the RAM you get I guess, the only real answer is that making the timings looser will probably give you more frequency headroom. There isn't really a 100% correlation between timings and frequencies...something already answered.
Thanks. No one really answered this, actually, I only got a few responses saying either ram overclocking doesnt mean much (i already know that) and that 1600cl8 vs 1866cl9 isnt going to feel any different or be any noticeable difference. It didn't answer whether it was exactly the same thing, or not, which is what I was asking - isn't 1600mhzCL8 1.5v exactly the same as 1866mhzCL9 1.5v, like it's just the same stick of ram being sold at a different specification, because the 'load' is basically the same (whereas 1600mhzCL8 1.5 to 1866mhzCL7 1.5v would obviously be a better stick).
Silicon lottery, overclocking, and luck aside, of course. And I'm aware it's really all about the IC's, and potentially a 1333mhzCL9 1.5 rated ram could be much better overclocker and ram in general than some 1600mhz ram. Which I'll look into, of course.
Just a bit confusing when you got ram that's 1866mhzCL9 1.5v, and 1600mhz CL8 1.5v, for the exact same price. I mean really, which one would YOU end up buying? I would think the 1866mhzCL9 would run better on intel, but the 1600mhz could probably reach there if you loosened the timing (or is the timing not so much load? maybe its more like 1700mhzCL8=1866CL9, right?).
I think the rating is just some advertised spec or some kind of guarantee. Chips may or may not be capable of more. In some unscrupulous cases, they can't do as advertised.
yea i know. some 1333mhz kit just might overclock way better, i know. it was just a sort of general question. unless you got something to say about crucial ballistix ICs, i havent looked into it much (what ram is the cheapest changes every day at newegg).
Looking at just the required timing, there's really not a huge difference between 8 clocks (also check other timings than CAS latency) at 1600 MHz and 9 clocks at 1866 MHz. That's 5ns vs. 4.82ns, with the lower latency obviously being better. Also note that peak transfer rate of RAM at 1866 MHz would be higher, so it should be better overall. Thus the 1866 MHz CL9 RAM is rated more stringently, as that's harder to do than 1600 MHz CL8.
In practice, many ICs capable of one setting are also capable of another. The same RAM brand might be using chips from the same source, same rating, maybe even same batch (?) for their packaged 1866 MHz CL9 kits as their 1600 MHz CL8 kits. Who knows.
thanks, very direct response. I'll just look more into the specific models of the ram rather than look at their specs. specs end up being useless half the time anyways. imagine if you could find 3570ks rated at 5.2ghz or just 4.5ghz.
|
5930 Posts
1.8V for what? Sandy Bridge (you are upgrading to Sandy Bridge right)? You've got to be stupid to do so, its not remotely safe at all. The one voltage that Intel specifically notes would be RAM voltage:
What are the Intel® Core™ i7 desktop processor DDR3 memory voltage limitations?
Intel® recommends using memory that adheres to the Jedec memory specification for DDR3 memory which is 1.5 volts, plus or minus 5%. Anything more than this voltage can damage the processor or significantly reduce the processor life span.
I don't care what enthusiasts on Overclock.net say, they've never been sensible. Even Intel community liaisons say the same thing on enthusiast forums.
As for the RAM I would buy, the only thing I care about is size, pricing, and voltage in some cases. 1600mhz is about the biggest gain, if you can call it that, Sandy Bridge gets from overclocked memory. It won't be anything you can notice unlike overclocking a processor or getting a $100 more expensive video card.
|
2 simple questions in regards to quickening boot times:
1. Is it possible to skip the "Starting Windows (7)" screen?:
![[image loading]](http://0.tqn.com/d/pcsupport/1/0/W/4/-/-/safe-mode-windows-7-1.jpg)
the one with the 4 colored balls animation rotating around into the windows logo
2. Is it possible to skip the AHCI initiatlization screen:
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/16j2bnd.jpg)
The 3 dots load up, 1, 2 3, and then its over.
These 2 screens take up the longest loading times. I'm not sure about the AHCI one, but the windows one doesnt seem to get any slower or faster regardless of my processor or processor/nb/ram speed or ssd vs hdd.
I only recently started getting the AHCI one when I changed from onchip sata channel native ide to AHCI (or might be when i changed the registry to boot in ahci).
phenom x4 oc'd
kingston hyperx blue 1333mhz cl9 1.5v ram 2x2gb
intel x25-m g2 80gb ssd
biostar a770e3
antec earthwatts 430d
w7 ultimate
|
On January 02 2013 15:31 Womwomwom wrote:1.8V for what? Sandy Bridge (you are upgrading to Sandy Bridge right)? You've got to be stupid to do so, its not remotely safe at all. The one voltage that Intel specifically notes would be RAM voltage: Show nested quote +What are the Intel® Core™ i7 desktop processor DDR3 memory voltage limitations?
Intel® recommends using memory that adheres to the Jedec memory specification for DDR3 memory which is 1.5 volts, plus or minus 5%. Anything more than this voltage can damage the processor or significantly reduce the processor life span. I don't care what enthusiasts on Overclock.net say, they've never been sensible. Even Intel community liaisons say the same thing on enthusiast forums. As for the RAM I would buy, the only thing I care about is size, pricing, and voltage in some cases. 1600mhz is about the biggest gain, if you can call it that, Sandy Bridge gets from overclocked memory. It won't be anything you can notice unlike overclocking a processor or getting a $100 more expensive video card.
no, for amd. From what I understand, ram voltages directly affect the cpu, as in it's being fed into it or something, so I'm aware it would be unsafe to do so. I just know that ram itself is safe to run at 1.7-1.8v, but from my limited understanding, it would be dangerous to run vdimm like that on an intel system. Dont worry, im aware there's issues there and im still a long ways away before i'd be actually messing with vdimms on an intel system.
Although i've heard that it might be okay to run high vdimms, it's not so much high vdimm that's the problem on intel, it's that you gotta keep ram voltage within a certain range of another voltage (the imc or something). Anyways, im not asking for answers on this or anything, when it gets to overvolting RAM I'll be sure to do things right and such. I'm simply saying I know ram, itself, can be overvolted to such levels. On AMD it's perfectly okay to run such high ram volts, as in it won't end up feeding the cpu additional volts too.
I am aware that intel recommends +/- 5% on 1.5v, so max of 1.575v, and that most people say 1.65 is the most to run ram on an intel system. Dont worry, the evil overclockers at OCN aren't saying anything like that. I know they're the enemy.
My question in regards to RAM was more about which would you pick if the choice was 2 identical brands/classes of RAM, 1866CL9 vs 1600CL8. I've got my answer already (or as much as I can get here).
|
On January 02 2013 13:54 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 10:45 Blisse wrote:
Have any of you tried Lucid Virtu MVP? It sounds interesting. where did you see it was interesting? Everywhere i've searched said it was useless, buggy, and terrible. i think a few might have had some luck with using the igpu dedicated as 2nd monitor, but i could be wrong on that. general concensus ive seen is that it's worthless. id love to be wrong though, i havent used it.
Yeah... I said it sounded interesting. How does Virtual Vsync and HyperFormance not sound interesting?
From a couple forum posts, I've read Virtual Vsync is very helpful for frame rates, but HyperFormance whacks out on some games.
I'm asking if it's actually as interesting as it sounds, or is that all there is. ~.~
|
|
|
Thanks. Didn't think to search 'splash screen'.
|
I got another simple question since I think I minorly screwed things up and forgot what i was even doing. I'm still curious if there's a way to reduce the ahci init... screen too.
I have 2x2gb=4gb of ram. I'm supposed to use 2x virtual memory, i believe, right. im supposed to set maxed page file size to 8192, right, and what do i set initialize size too?
I went by that stupid corsair ssd optimization pdf which turned out to be useless and based on the bad original ssds when they were worse than hdd (the stuff like removing system services and page file when that advice isn't true anymore and is just myths).
im sure this is an easy search but not sure what to search, i think i originally changed my virtual memory to 8k+ based on some sc2 related thread, the whole paged pool memory issue.
|
5930 Posts
With SSDs, you should not don't touch anything. Windows will do everything, all other "SSD tweeks" are basically useless in the grand scheme of things. The only two things you want to check is if TRIM is working and if the SSD has defragging turned off.
Page file should be around half your system memory if you really want to reduce it to save space, the default values are kind of nuts if you have a lot of RAM. So if you have 8GB, you set it at 4GB. Just some trivia but Windows 8 already does this automatically now. If you have 8GB of RAM, it'll basically automatically set the page file to be 4GB.
|
On January 03 2013 16:33 Womwomwom wrote:
With SSDs, you should not don't touch anything. Windows will do everything, all other "SSD tweeks" are basically useless in the grand scheme of things. The only two things you want to check is if TRIM is working and if the SSD has defragging turned off.
Page file should be around half your system memory if you really want to reduce it to save space, the default values are kind of nuts if you have a lot of RAM. So if you have 8GB, you set it at 4GB. Just some trivia but Windows 8 already does this automatically now. If you have 8GB of RAM, it'll basically automatically set the page file to be 4GB.
yea, i basically undid all the ssd optimization stuff I read after reading a few 'ssd optimization myth busting guide' threads.
But I did reduce boot timeout to 3 (from 30), removed the w7 splash screen, reduced shutdown time, reduced mouse hover pop-up time (makes it feel more responsive). I think the intel ssd program disabled prefetch/superfetch on it's own, and enabled trim on its own (i checked with the cmd query).
I have 4GB of RAM and I'm not sure where I read this, I'm pretty sure it was like a teamliquid thing, I'm having a very hard time searching what I originally saw, but it said for 4gb of RAM, you should set it to 8gb of virtual memory, or basically 2x your physical ram.
edit: I'm using w7
|
5930 Posts
That would be Microsoft and historically, I believe the value they recommended for XP was 1.5x.
SSD didn't exist during that time, only very slow hard drives (holy shit Matrox drives). I can't remember what Windows 7 does but Windows 8 is generally smart enough to automatically "optimise" your SSD right down to the page file. In most cases, I believe it sees the SSD and gives you a page file that is half the size of the amount of memory you have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
