Cpu + ram

February 12, 2011 at 00:16:54
Specs: Windows 7 Home, 2GB
MoBo: Gigabyte P35-DS3L
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz

Currently I have 1066 installed underclocked to 800. I bought the 1066 becuase it was marked way down and my board said it was supported. That was before I learned the board supported 1066 but it had to be underclocked to 800 and that I should be shooting for 1:1 anyway . Currently the CPU is boosted by the OC settings to hit 1:1.

I need to upgrade from 2GB in hopes of getting rid of this lag issue that has been going on and want to have the optimal RAM in there. I have read that hitting the 1:1 with the matching RAM+FSB is best but it seems I have also read that getting a slightly higher speed RAM and matching up the RAM+FSB by tweaking the settings to hit the 1:1 is best too. You think you know something until you start reading and then everything just seems to get confusing and then you feel like you know nothing.

Which of the following would give me better stability and performance?

Just install straight 667 and do not touch the OC settings.

Install 800 and continue using the OC settings to hit 1:1.

Or, get more 1066 and continue using the OC settings to hit 1:1.

Looking to buy soon if I can get a quick response it would be very much appreciated, thank you.

(On a side note, would anyone know why the OC settings in the Bios keep resseting back to default? I set them and then down the road I run CPUZ and it says I am not at 1:1 and I have to go back in and reset the settings, very anoying.)

See More: Cpu + ram

Report •

February 12, 2011 at 07:13:19
While I'm sure your system will benefit from more RAM, you should not be having any significant lag even if the RAM isn't running at the optimal setting. Have you scanned for viruses, spyware, cleaned out the temp folders & internet garbage, stopped unnecessary programs from loading at startup, etc?

How long have you been running these OC settings without any issues? I suspect your OC settings are changing back to the defaults because your CMOS battery is failing or possibly the OC settings aren't stable. I haven't worked with a Gigabyte board in a while, but could it be the "Virtual Dual BIOS" kicking in?

Report •

February 12, 2011 at 11:44:02
My system is kept completely clean of everything there is to clean it of but yes I have recently scanned for everything and found nothing. My temp trash is cleaned religiously, all drivers are kept up to date and I have gone through and stopped any programs that do not need to be running or even boot at start up for that matter. I have used the OC settings for a while now maybe 1 year+ and it has always run very excellent in all cases except for the when executing any action. For example, when I click start, tab between programs, open a progrm and so forth. There is this hesitation that I know isnt right for the hardware I have. My laptop has similar hardware maybe a step or two down from this desktop and does things so much faster. It just seemed to me that it may be the fact that the notebook has 4GB of RAM installed VS the desktop's 2GB.

Report •

February 12, 2011 at 12:44:47
Did you originally have XP then upgrade to Win7? There's a huge difference in memory requirements between the 2. Although M$ states the minimum for XP is 128MB, it really doesn't run well with less than 512MB. When you get up to 2GB, it should run great.

The minimum memory requirement for Win7 32-bit is 1GB, for 64-bit, it's 2GB. Regardless of which one you have, more RAM is sure to make the system more responsive. If you have the 64-bit version, I suggest adding 4GB (2 x 2GB) of either DDR2-1066 or DDR2-800. If you have the 32-bit version, just add 2GB (2 x 1GB). Make sure all the RAM runs at the same voltage & it wouldn't hurt to match the timings as well.

Are you in the US? Newegg has a lot of 2GB kits DDR2-800 for about $35, the DDR2-1066 kits are about $45. The 4GB kits DDR2-800 are about $60, DDR2-1066 kits are about $80.

Report •

Related Solutions

February 12, 2011 at 14:41:29
Well I went from XP to Win 7 clean installed not necessarily upgrade but yea I am aware that Windows generaly needs more RAM then base to get it to get off the couch and move faster : ) especialy Vista/Seven. This is one more reason I figured that more RAM would prob be of help and then go from there.

So last two questions:
So you are saying it would be better to go with 800/1066 and use the OC setting over using the 667?

and is there a performance increace in using the 1066 dialed down to 800 or would it be better just to run with 800?

Report •

February 12, 2011 at 15:06:17
"are saying it would be better to go with 800/1066 and use the OC setting over using the 667?"


"is there a performance increace in using the 1066 dialed down to 800 or would it be better just to run with 800?"

If the timings are the same at 800MHz, it makes no difference which one you use, except to your wallet.

Report •

February 12, 2011 at 16:10:19
Awesome thanks for all the help!

Report •

Ask Question