# Motherboard & RAM



## jayhusky (Dec 6, 2011)

I'm currently working on a PC build for a friend, they've specified the parts so please don't blame me for anything that may be wrong with them.

I noticed that the motherboard they chose (GIGABYTE GA-870A-USB3 AM3) supports DDR3 upto 1333MHz. 


			
				NewEgg.com said:
			
		

> Memory Standard
> DDR3 2000(O.C.)/1333/1066


Link = http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128485

The RAM they want to use is Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz DDR3 (8GB)

I then noticed that the frequency of the RAM is higher than that of the Motherboard.

Am I right in thinking that the memory won't work, or is that 2000 next to the DDR3 the highest possible frequency that is capable of being handled by the motherboard.


----------



## ZerX (Dec 6, 2011)

the ram will work but it doesn't mean that it will run @ the rated ram speed. what can happen is that the ram will work @ 1333mhz. You are still able to set the speed manually.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 6, 2011)

Even if the mobo doesn't support a RAM frequency between 2000MHz and 1333MHz for some reason, the RAM itself can operate at the slower clock speed.  1600 is the rated maximum, not the speed it's required to run at.

I'm curious why he specified what is now an old board with a last-gen socket, though.  The value/performance sweet spot for literally every system builder right now aside from some HTPC builds is an Intel i5-2500k Sandy Bridge processor on a P67/Z68 chipset board.


----------



## jayhusky (Dec 6, 2011)

I think I can turn him to what you suggested Lobar, I found what you said. Looking through the specs it can support 1600mhz so it should be alright.
He told me when he was giving me the list it was for gaming, nothing extremely high end but decent enough to run some of the newer games.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 6, 2011)

AM3 is technically not a last-gen socket, but comparatively speaking, AMD can't touch Intel at all in the mid-range and above. That board, incidentally, _is_ ancient, and is no longer even being sold at Newegg.

Also ASUS.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 7, 2011)

Runefox said:


> AM3 is technically not a last-gen socket, but comparatively speaking, AMD can't touch Intel at all in the mid-range and above. That board, incidentally, _is_ ancient, and is no longer even being sold at Newegg.
> 
> Also ASUS.



I thought AM3 sockets were incompatible with AM3+ chips?  Or is there a technicality involved here?

And normally I'd stick up for Gigabyte here but I've got seemingly non-functional USB3 ports on the machine I just built and it looks like an RMA may be in my future.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 7, 2011)

AM3+ was only just recently rolled out; Some board manufacturers say they can support AM3+ chips on AM3 boards via a BIOS update.

Gigabyte's OK, but I find ASUS has a greater range of mid-high boards that are decent, and usually have more features (like actual EFI rather than "hybrid EFI").


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 7, 2011)

ASUS vs Gigabyte drives remind me of WD and Seagate fights 

I've had people experience a lot of bad things with either board listed, and will defend one over the other due to this experience.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 7, 2011)

I've now had bad ASUS and Gigabyte boards.  Only my MSI machine has been trouble-free.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 7, 2011)

Every company will have quality control problems, even 'gods' like Apple. Acer and Gigabyte are fine, so are WD and Seagate (though Seagate had a very bad run when they bought out Maxtor (the worst possible company for a hard drive prior to that). They've picked up the pieces since, though, and they're good.) The only (reasonably well-known) companies that you really need to stay away from are ECS and Biostar. Both make extremely unreliable, nigh-disposable gear.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 7, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I've now had bad ASUS and Gigabyte boards.  Only my MSI machine has been trouble-free.



Forsaking a company because one example of their products went bad on you is pretty silly.  A 3% failure rate of products is industry standard for almost any company and somebody is going to get one of those 3%.  This is why retailers have return policies.


----------



## jayhusky (Dec 8, 2011)

Noted Runefox, I'll remember that for when I get around to building my own PC.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2011)

AshleyAshes said:


> Forsaking a company because one example of their products went bad on you is pretty silly.  A 3% failure rate of products is industry standard for almost any company and somebody is going to get one of those 3%.  This is why retailers have return policies.



I know this, and would still go with any of those brands again.


----------

