Can I squeeze more out of my CPU (& RAM)

I was wondering, seeing on several sites where users bump up their RAM timing & overclock their CPU's a little for performance, if it would benefit me.

My RAM (PC2-6400) settings, timings, or whatever they're called are as follows:

4.0GB Dual Channel DDR2 @ 300MHz (6-6-6-18-24) as reported by Speccy.

However, SIW reports it different, three different settings:

4-4-4-12-16 @266.7MHz @1.8 volts
5-5-5-15-20 @333.3MHz @1.8 volts
6-6-6-18-24 @400.0MHz @1.8 volts

I see now, these are supported frequencies. But SIW doesn't show the 300MHz at all.

This is confusing when 2 separate programs throws out different sets of numbers at me. From a common since view, it looks like if the last spec were locked in, it would be faster. But I've never played with this setting.

Would a fixed speed set of RAM be of help?

Cat

SIW is telling you what the RAM should be set at with the different frequencies listed.

Speccy is telling you what your RAM currently is. Try downloading CPU-Z and see what it tells you. It will give you both your current RAM timings and the ones your RAM is capable of. CPU-Z is a very accurate program for the timings and voltages of the CPU Front Side Bus and RAM DIMM timings and voltage.

I have never seen a DIMM frequency of 300MHz. You may have your BIOS settings set up wrong. Try using the F Key for "Optimized Settings" but then you have an HP system and they neuter the BIOS quite a bit, so you may not have that option.

I don't have any options whatsoever in regard to my RAM settings. It shows in the BIOS, but it's locked down. Mabye it's the sticks that Crucial matched up for me. What I can do is put my OEM ones back in, and see what MHz comes up.

Don't know what a difference it would make (if any), but I thought the higher the MHz, the better.

Cat

What motherboard? 300MHz ("DDR2-600") is not a valid DDR speed, so either it has been overclocked, or something is reporting wrongly.

The RAM as shown on HP's site for your setup is a SODIMM DDR2 800MHz PC2-6400. The SODIMM small outline dual in-line memory module means it's notebook style ram.

This means that the last set of figures the 6-6-6-18-24 @ 400MHz should be the correct one. DDR2 means that @ 400MHz Double Data Rate would be actually 800MHz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2_SDRAM

I checked the manuals for your setup, HP sure doesn't want anybody screwing around with the BIOS that's for sure. They are definitely using the K.I.S.S. principle on this one.

Most upscale RAM has usually 3 settings depending on the DIMM bus speed setting, so that is why there is 3 shown.

Have you messed with the CPU front side bus speed settings? That will affect the DIMM bus settings too.

What does CPU-Z tell you?

See example:


ftp://ftp.cpuid.com/cpu-z/cpu-z_1.57-64bits-en.zip

Here what it reports, hope that I can do this right. No, I haven't messed with any settings, the only thing that I set in the BIOS was hardware assisted virtualization.

I tried to submit the file, I can't get it to go through. I've never done this before. But 300MHz is right, as reported by CPU-Z.
CHARLES-PC.zip

I've done my best.


Cat

According to everything that I've read, unless I misunderstand things, it must be the selected RAM sticks that creating the low MHz. I understand what it'll support, evidently other RAM was used by Crucial.

But I can't totally fault them, for I was looking for desktop memory, the tech called me, and explained that I had notebook RAM, he matched it up the best he could, as my computer wasn't even in the database. The PSU is of that type, too.

I had actually found a new CPU that the MOBO would support, it would have really boosted the power on here, but even those dumb ass "tech's" at HP couldn't even find a higher rated PSU to sell me. And they make many dual & quad CPU's with these type of PSU's, so I'm sure that they had one somewhere that would work.

Another customer lost forever, I wouldn't even buy a printer with their name on it. As far as the RAM goes, I'm not spending another cent on it that I don't have to. The sticks from Crucial has a lifetime warranty, if needed, I still have the 2 that came with it, should I have to wait.

Mabye this one will do me a favor and join it's old partner in the scrap pile.

Cat

cat when you get the notebook up and going, maybe you could try selling the All-In-One before it crashes.

I would like to, but can't get enough money out of it. There's similar overstocks for as little as $400, new. The brands vary, but the specs are the same (the AMD 3250e). The CPU on here has got to be the weakest dual core that AMD ever produced, for a desktop.

It's OK for a second computer, when I bought it, I expected it to last through two releases of Windows (7 & 8), about 6 years. That's long enough for me to save towards another, while getting my money's worth out of this one. Not that it's a total waste, I've learned a huge lesson about picking out computers, and that's paying attention to the numbers, and self researching, not just the reviews in computer mags. I wonder, how much did HP pay PC World to rank this to be the "best sub $750" PC on the market?

When I chose that notebook that I bought today, it took me 2 weeks to begin to narrow down what I wanted (within a budget that I could afford), until the decision was made on the final one. My heart was set on a Toshiba, but for the dollar, MSI was the best choice. MSI had 3 more that were below $1,000, but the numbers (especially the video) didn't equal the one that I bought. While price is usually an indicator of what you're getting, I've found through a lot of unbiased reviews, and the numbers (the final specs), that when it comes to computers, be it PC's or notebooks, this rule doesn't always apply.

Many that cost between $1,000 - $1,500 didn't even have a dedicated graphics card. The performance of the (mainly AMD) quad cores didn't match the Intel i5, by far. I checked these things out on the PassMark site, there was another site that is dedicated to notebook specs that helped, too.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/

They go into detail about the various cards, whether they're entry level, mid range, or top notch, a lot of useful info is on this site. Lots of good reading there.

As far as this desktop goes, I don't consider it a loss, I consider it a lesson learned. It runs OK for what it is & what I paid for it. I've seen others do worse. However, I've learned what to look for, and what to avoid. Look for positive numbers & reviews (from actual consumers), and avoid gimmicks from the OEM's.

My next desktop, it'll be a killer. I promise that.

Cat