Thread: Intel D945GCLF2 Dual-Core Atom

Welp, here's the answer straight from intel.

The 667 MHz memory option was in the bios because it is the same bios core used in 945GC platforms which includes other motherboards that support regular 775 socket processors which could support 667. The Atom processor only has a 533 FSB so 667 MHz memory won't really get you anything extra. That 667 option in the bios was not meant for this specific 945GCLF board model and will be removed in the next bios release for the board.

Okay, but can we set some ridiculously fast times? I mean, buy a fast ddr2 800/1333 ram like 5-5-5-9 and set it to 533MHz @ 2-2-2-4? I feel that low ras cas timings are more important than Mhz most of the times...

That would be interesting.

I've got loads of ram here to play with, I'll check it out.

Just wanted to give people a heads up on updating the GCLF2.....

I was tearing my hair out because it kept coming up with a CMOS checksum error no matter what I tried to use for the update, exe files, iso, even the recovery method did nothing....and let me tell you that's a great way to really keep the heart pounding, hitting the reset key while the machine is still blanked out doing a recovery attempt...

Know what the problem was? Oh, you know, just the fact that the machine had a 2gig stick of memory in it!

I dropped it back to a spare 1gig stick I had lying around, and the update went through without a problem!

AAAAAUGHHH!!

So, if you are trying to update this board, and finding CMOS checksum errors whenever you try to do it, check the memory and see whether a different stick clears it up.

Originally Posted by RipplingHurst

Okay, but can we set some ridiculously fast times? I mean, buy a fast ddr2 800/1333 ram like 5-5-5-9 and set it to 533MHz @ 2-2-2-4? I feel that low ras cas timings are more important than Mhz most of the times...

That would be interesting.

This was the best I could get with what I had on hand. All testing was done at 533mhz. Each test was performed 5 times and the best taken from those 5. I also tested with 4-4-4-12 timings, but it's not worth posting. Just know that every test here did better than the same ram at 4-4-4-12 timing, which is to be expected.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I also ran MemTest+86 after setting each timing to make sure the system was stable. Usually with incorrect timings the system wouldn't even POST, however with 3-2-3-8 using the Kingston, it POSTed, but memtest showed mountains of errors.

Kingston HyperX 1gb - KHX6400D2LL/1GB - Normally 4-4-4-12 @ 800mhz
Stable at 3-3-3-9

Performance was comparable but thrown off a bit because of only being 1gb.



Corsair ValueSelect 2gb - VS2GB667D2 - Normally 5-5-5-15 @ 667mhz
Stable at 3-3-3-9
Performance was about the same as Kingston HyperX memory.



Crucial Ballistix 2gb - BL25664AA80A.16FE5 - Normally 4-4-4-12 @ 800mhz
Stable at 3-2-3-8
Performed the best out of the 3.

Ballistix at 3-3-3-9 timing


Ballistix at 3-2-3-8 timing


All in all, not much performance to gain with more aggressive timing. Kind of a bummer of a revelation.

Thanks for your work! Very much appreciated! Not sure I understand how you got to your conclusion. What was the baseline? You only posted the performance of each with lower timings, right? But what about each with the standard timings, or maybe the fastest timings vs the slowest standard?

I will post those up tomorrow. I did test them with standard timings first, then compared, and the improvements were slight, so imo not worth the post. I will gather all that up in a few hours and throw them on here for you. I figured it would be better to see how some of the more popular ram compare to each other when used in conjunction with this mobo and timed as aggressively as they could be.

Thanks, just post one (normal x aggressive), if you have the time.

Cheers,

RH

Sorry man, forgot about the holidays... I'll be home tomorrow and get it done.