1:1 ratio -- what do they mean?

[idiotec]

well it kind of does On my XP-M system I could choose from 1:1, 2:2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5, and 6:6 with various ratios inbetween each

I had it on 6:6 for the hell of it, but don't ask me why they included all ratios which are basically 1:1

LOL, still doesn't make any sense to me WTH could be the difference between 1:1 and 6:6?

 

[Nubius]

no clue, hell I think I might have asked about it before but never really got an answer...as far as I'm concerned they are all the same, but really they should just had 1:1 and then listed every ratio up to 6:6 without having to actually put 2:2 on up

 

[DJ-CHRIS]

LOL, still doesn't make any sense to me WTH could be the difference between 1:1 and 6:6?

Their is no difference...

 

[Flanker]

Lucky fools, you get to actually choose the ratios, I just get to choose what I want the Mem to run at (DDR200-DDR500 and various setting in between). It doesn't give a hoot about my HTT, lol.

 

[idiotec]

Lucky fools, you get to actually choose the ratios, I just get to choose what I want the Mem to run at (DDR200-DDR500 and various setting in between). It doesn't give a hoot about my HTT, lol.

Those are actually your ratios. Some BIOS' just who them different. For example, the DDR200 option would be 1:2 RAM:FSB....

 

[LoTeX]

i wonder what's the difference between 1:1 and 6:6. I remember reading from somewhere that 6:6 is better for high fsb overclocking?

woah! took me awhile to find that article (an7 [socket a] review). here's how it goes:

"Note that the 3/3, 4/4, 5/5, and 6/6 ratios are all the same, but the 6/6 ratio historically is the most stable when operating with a CPU FSB over 200 MHz."

here's the whole thing: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTU3LDE=


now id like to know the history behind the "historically"...

 

[idiotec]

Nice find LoTeX...

 

[4W4K3]

woah! took me awhile to find that article (an7 [socket a] review). here's how it goes:

"Note that the 3/3, 4/4, 5/5, and 6/6 ratios are all the same, but the 6/6 ratio historically is the most stable when operating with a CPU FSB over 200 MHz."

here's the whole thing: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTU3LDE=


now id like to know the history behind the "historically"...

interesting. maybe it's alot like timings. the looser the timings the more stable it should be (well, generally)

So pushing your board (FSB) is just like pushing your memory. You get to a point where running "tight timings" like 3:3 is too much and you have to back it off to 4:4 or 6:6. Makes sense i think.