DDR3 1600 recommendations for Asus/AMD combo?

[txborn]

Motherboard: Asus M4A79XTD EVO
Processor: AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE Callisto 3.1GHz
Windows 7 - 64 bit
8 GB (2X2GB X 4 slots)

Will be building this combo soon and want to be sure to install a compatible memory. The Asus mobo compatibility list shows part # F3-12800CL8T-6GBHK or F3-12800CL9T-6GBNQ.

Some confusion after doing some research: The above part numbers refer to a 3 channel kit 3X2GB. The Asus mobo is dual channel. Can I not use 4X2GB sticks? Then I read where AMD processors don?t like more than 2 slots in use because of memory controller issues. Is that true of the Phenom II? I would like to use all 4 slots unless it will cause issues.

I am not going to be overclocking this set-up.

Thanks in advance.

[Tradesman]

Your CPU should be OKay with more than 1 stick per channel, but think I'd still suggest the 2x2 sets, just because MC in the AMD CPUs is not all that strong and to run 3-4 sticks of high speed RAM you'll often have to OC the CPU for the MC to carry the load to the RAM

[txborn]

Appreciate the quick response Tradesman.

I guess it's a little frustrating knowing that a mobo made for AMD/AM3 can handle 16GB of RAM to take advantage of a 64 bit OS but the processor can handle 2 X 2GB best. I wanted to take advantage of expanded memory capability with a 64 bit OS. Would it be better to go with Intel or could I use 2X2X2GB of 1333? Or wait till you come out with 4GB sticks or would using 2 of those (2 slots only but 8GB total) be just as problematic?

[GSKILL TECH]

Dear Customer

With that motherboard, it will be able to handle 2 sets at 1333. It should be able to handle 1600 as well, but it may depend on your processor stability.

The 2 x 2GB DDR3-1600 memory package is the G.Skill F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL.

The 2 x 4GB DDR3-1600 memory pacakge is the G.Skill F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL, which should be in stock with NewEgg shortly.

The best DDR3-1333 memory package for 4 sticks would be the G.Skill F3-10666CL8D-4GBRM.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you
GSKILL SUPPORT

[Tradesman]

And just as a side note: And I will say, this is true of all motherboards basically, in their specs thay may list 16GB max, 24GB max, etc - but I have yet to find ONE that will give the particulars of what or how it will handle that maximum it list. I.E. with AMD, if the mobo specs state 16GB as the max, it may well require an X4 965 and for the RAM to be 1066 (in DDR3) and even then...it might be stating it as a spec, not as an actual practicality.

.....and you opened the door when you asked if you should go Intel, I'll freely say that I've been building PCs for about 20 years and in system for close to 30, and to be honest I don't ever remember recommending an AMD based system as a first choice (and I normally will suggest two system setups for most clients. Further, normally when AMD is the 2nd option, it normally is based on the clients stated preferences.

AMD bases the bulk of it's advertising on it's price point...which admittedly is a good point, look at the latest greatest AMD, the 965....right now about $220 after the latest price drop...most people look at that and compare it to Intel latest offerings the I5 and I7s which obviously cost more (the one thing I don't like about Intel, they put alot into them, but I think pricing should be lower...but that's getting off track here, so let's look it closer

The AMD X4 965 3.4 GHz at $220 or an i5, i7 right? Take a look though at other Intel CPUs (some have been around a long time) E8400, E8500, Q9300, Q9400, Q9550 all of which about the same price OR LESS and all will stand right up to the 965 and in most cases outperform it when OCed. Also for these CPUs (all socket 775) mobo prices are generally around the same or less than the AM3 mobos, with these CPUs you are using a MC (Memory Controller that's part of the NB and more highly developed and more stable.

Intel has always handled the 64 bit OSs better than AMD going back to the beta days of XP64 and continues to. To be honest it always torques my jaw when I see AMD reviews and they compare AMDs OCed vs stock Intel CPUs...you take a look and see for instance the 965 squeaking by the 9550 (they basically never even show the stock 9650 (granted it does cost more) but you take a 9550 which stock runs at 2.83 but will run 3.8+ easy, the older E8500 duo runs 3.9-4.1 easily on a decent mobo on air, the 8500 real close, if you can find a Q6600 I've got one that I have had running 24/7 for a couple years now at 3.6 GHz...Widh the reviewers would compare these OC benchmarks w/ the AMD OC Benchmarks.

The 2x4GB would be on the expensive side and may still have problems, another option would be to get the 2x2x2 (8GB) at a higher speed and run it at a lower speed with tighter timings, and then as new BIOS upgrades come out see if the speed can be increased.

Tman

PS...if you couldn't tell, yes I'm a bit biased towards Intel CPUs.....LOL

Caveat: I do on occasion build AMD boxes and work on them all the time

[txborn]

GSKILL and Tman, thanks for all the information. I am now looking at the Intel i7 860 or the Q9650 or Q9550. I'm leaning towards the quad core i7 for the future. All had great reviews on newegg. When I decide which way I am going to go I will do a new post for memory recommendations/settings if I don't find anything by doing a search.

You guys give great support here!

[Tradesman]

All are good choices, you should be happy with any of those