Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2
by Wesley Fink on August 26, 2003 11:11 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Memory Configuration (continued)
Our benchmarks in Part 1 were consistent with the configuration recommendations in the Intel White Papers for Memory Configuration of the 875 and 865 chipsets. We concluded with the following performance charts based on our testing and the information provided by Intel. We differ from the Intel White Paper charts only in the first and second positions for the Intel 865 chipset. When Intel published their White Papers, we doubt that they had any notion that most of the 865 motherboards being sold would have some version of PAT (Performance Acceleration Technology) on board. Our testing of the ASUS, AOpen, and DFI PAT-enabled boards shows that the PAT 865 boards behave more like 875 boards. We have confirmed that the first and second positions on PAT-enabled 865 boards are, as we report, below — with four DS DIMMs performing faster than two DS DIMMs.
| DDR400 (1:1) Performance | DIMM Configuration | Single-Channel or Dual-Channel |
| 1 | 4 DS | Dual Channel |
| 2 | 2 DS or 4 SS | Dual Channel |
| 3 | 2 SS | Dual Channel |
| 4 | 4 SS/DS Mixed Matched Pairs |
Dual Channel |
| 5 | Any DS | Single Channel |
| 6 | Any SS | Single Channel |
| DDR333/266 Performance | DIMM Configuration | Single-Channel or Dual-Channel |
| 1 | 2 DS or 4 SS | Dual Channel |
| 2 | 2 SS | Dual Channel |
| 3 | 4 DS | Dual Channel |
| 4 | 4 SS/DS Mixed Matched Pairs |
Dual Channel |
| 5 | Any 1 or 2 DS or SS (1 DIMM or 1 in each Channel) |
Single Channel |
| 6 | Any 1 SS | Single Channel |
While SiSoft Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test results demonstrated real differences in performance among these memory configurations, many of you asked what we might see in real-world performance differences with these different memory configurations.
Some of the configurations were easier to test than others. Kingston had provided us with four Single-Bank (single-sided) DDR500 DIMMs that allowed us to look at performance differences in two SS DIMMs versus four SS DIMMs. We looked at performance of 1000FSB/DDR500 at 3-4-4-7-1 memory timings at 2.65V.
| 1000FSB (3.0GHz)/DDR500 Performance — Kingston PC4000 2 x 256 MB SS DIMMs vs. 4 x 256 MB SS DIMMs |
||||
| Number of Single-Bank DIMMs | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 2 | 386.30 | INT 2821 FLT 2786 |
INT 5830 FLT 5748 |
109 |
| 4 | 394.57 | INT 3218 FLT 3195 |
INT 5841 FLT 5818 |
107 |
While the differences in Quake3 frame rate and Super PI times are small, keep in mind that the only change here is using four SS DIMMs instead of two SS DIMMs. As predicted by Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test, the four SS DIMMs perform better than two SS DIMMs.
Comparing two SS DIMMs to two DS DIMMs was done using 2 x 256 MB SS OCZ PC4000 and 2 x 512 MB DS PC4000 at timings of 2.5-3-4-6 at 2.65V. It is almost impossible to keep DIMM capacity the same, which would be the most accurate test, as none of the samples using the same memory chips would have the same exact capacity in SS and DS configurations.
| 1000FSB (3.0GHz)/DDR500 Performance — OCZ PC4000 2 x 256 MB SS DIMMs vs. 2 x 512 MB DS DIMMs |
||||
| Number of DIMMs & Configuration | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 2 SS | 392.30 | INT 2918 FLT 2926 |
INT 5761 FLT 5868 |
109 |
| 2 DS | 400.10 | INT 3282 FLT 3324 |
INT 5965 FLT 5934 |
106 |
Again, the differences are small but real in Quake3 and Super PI, but with 2 DS DIMMs performing better as we had demonstrated in Part 1 with the Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test.
The fastest configuration should be 4 Double-Bank DIMMs on the Intel 875 chipset motherboard. Our first efforts to test this configuration, with 4 x 256 DS OCZ 3700 GOLD modules did not show 4 DS DIMMs any faster than 2 DS DIMMs on the ASUS P4C800-E. This was a real puzzle considering that other predicted configurations were easily verified with Quake3, Super PI and other benchmarks. When we looked deeper, the problem became clear. In every configuration that we had tested with the ASUS P4C800-E, the Performance Mode showed “enabled” but with 4 DS DIMMs at any FSB speed faster than 800, CPU-Z 1.18C shows Performance Mode “disabled”. Our trial was failing here because we were comparing 2 DS DIMMs with PAT on to 4 DS DIMMs with PAT off. We have asked ASUS for the reason behind why PAT appears to be disabled at 4 DS DIMMs above 800FSB.
Since we were mainly concerned with comparing 2 DS with 4 DS DIMMs under the same conditions, we ran 2 DS vs. 4 DS tests at 800FSB/DDR400, so that PAT was enabled in both two and four DIMM setups. We compared prototypes of high-speed PC3700 memory that we tested, looking specifically at the performance of 2 x 512 MB DS to 4 x 512 MB DS at DDR400. Timings were 2-2-4-8 at 2.75V.
| 800FSB (2.4GHz)/DDR400 Performance 2 x 512 DS vs. 4 x 512 DS |
||||||
| Number of DS DIMMs | Quake3 fps |
UT2003 Flyby fps |
UT2003 Botmatch fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 2 | 321.4 | 196.30 | 68.31 | INT 2683 FLT 2722 |
INT 4704 FLT 4691 |
133 |
| 4 | 324.5 | 197.60 | 69.38 | INT 2830 FLT 2923 |
INT 4678 FLT 4717 |
132 |
While the differences here are quite small, they still show 4 DS modules performing better than 2 DS modules. We suspect that we would see larger differences at higher speed, as we have in our other comparisons.
We have confirmed with game benchmarks and a number-crunching benchmark that the best 875/865 memory configurations can also be seen in real-world benchmarks. Because memory performance is only one component of game performance and overall system bandwidth, the effect on these benchmarks is, as expected, smaller than the variation seen in benchmarks that measure only memory performance, like Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Interesting review....I've been waiting for this one. As for the criticism, I would say don't just look at this one review. There seem to be plenty of reviews from other sites listed in the memory news section here. Why not check out what other sites have to say about the memory listed in this review...unless you think they are all shills for a particular product. IMO I think Wesley and AT are on the level...but if you have doubts there are other reviews out there. I'm still dissapointed tho...It seems that most of the 500mhz modules are just overclocked 400mhz modules with poor timings...I wonder if there are going to be true 500mhz modules with better timings in the works or is this the last stop before we see DDR2.artifex - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Ok, I stopped being lazy. It's me!Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
hey 43/44, you must be a stringer for Mushkin, because you're cheering at the end (Mush! Mush!)Just kidding. I usually post as "artifex" but am too lazy to find my password right now. You'll see I've mentioned them before. Also comments about Anandtech being the site (along with SharkyExtreme) that I rely on heavily...
I bought my first ever Asus mobo (a7n8x deluxe) a couple months ago because of the reviews here (my first and last Soyo had just died from some bad capacitors, I won't trust them again) so what I want now is to see a shootout of the best memory for dual-channel nforce2 boards (especially mine :) )
Speaking of, I'm running one of the new weird 333FSB 2600+ XPs that's still a Tbred B, and I'm wondering, would I really benefit from memory that's pc3200 (probably not) or even pc2700, or are my current 2 512mb sticks of 2-3-3 pc2100 memory fine?
p.s. ironically, I also bought the Soyo based on reviews, but reviews don't make up for long-term experience with hardware (when cheap components fail). It'd be cool to see a follow up article or two, even just anecdotal, from the reviewers about how their own personal systems are working a year or so after they assemble them... and see if that changes their views about the vendors.
retrospooty - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Cool, Muskin rocks...I would REALLY like to see some Mushkin PC3500 at 5:4 2-2-2 against all those other PC4000 at 1:1 3-4-4-8... I know the PC3500 would win, I would just like to see it in print. !
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Good points #42. I should have included similar in my last comment as I feel exactly the same. A quick explanation (by name) of which major manufacturers did not make the deadline or will be reviewed later would satisfy my curiousity on why large manufacturers weren't present. I cannot wait to see what the Mushkin stuff rates at and THEN I will choose between them, OCZ, Geil, and Corsair. Just in case I did not make it clear before, I do feel that when AnandTech does put out new articles they are often very good. The basis of the general readers scrutiny comes from how things look overall with the manufacturers listed on the same page as their reviews. Since the use of META data has become so prevailent in page content, it is easy to believe that all advertisements for memory would show up on a memory review. One would think that was a good idea, right?! As to the integrity of AnandTech, I still think you guys are unbiased and professional. Just remember to foster that perception in bold stroke so the goobs who cannot fathom the idea that any one company can be in it's prime and actually BE producing the best product on several reviews. That said, I still want you guys to make more content and faster. Come on! Get to work! Make it 60... No. 80 hours a week each!! Mush! Mush!Cheers,
Wiley
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
cool. thanks for saying that about Mushkin.I hadn't seen much of them in Anandtech reviews or advertising on the site lately, so I was wondering.
I used to be a big Crucial.com fan until they started slipping (recommending wrong types and amounts of memory, customer service, etc), and then went with Mushkin when the chance presented itself, based entirely on seeing their name associated with good things here in the past. My first set of sticks from them actually gave errors about a year into use, and I had bought them at Fry's (stupid, I know), but Mushkin overnighted me replacements anyway, so I'm definitely loyal to them now (the cost of overnight probably ate the marginal extra I paid over Corsair, which I also considered).
I know this is long winded, and probably sounds like astroturfing, but I want the editors to remember that we really do buy stuff based on what you say, and when it looks like "favorite" brands are disappearing without any comment, it makes us wonder. Hey, even if you guys get into a fight with a vendor and they stop lending you review stuff, that's a legitimate reason... just tell us.
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Tom Duong from Mushkin had contacted AnandTech several weeks before this review to let us know that their memory sample would not make to us in time for the review. We do have some other articles with Mushkin coming up.Cheers,
Kristopher
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Personally, I would just like some parity for these reviews. Every time I read these I wodner why Mushkin is never listed. I realize that teh manufacturer needs to provide product for testing and by a deadline. However, it just seems silly that a company the rates its DDR400 memory at Cas2-2-2 (Black Level II) has not been listed here. Can't AnandTech sport for the 400 bucks to GET memory when a reviewer cannot send it or does not do so in a timely manner. I always had the impression that sites like this were produced with the best interest of the end reader in mind. Anytime a single manufacturer is lauded repeatedly for their product and that product happens to be promoted profusely in advertising on the reviewers site, there will be questions regarding favoritism. I'm not saying you fudge your numbers to keep people at OCZ happy, there is too much data to support your conclusions regarding the quality of OCZ memory. But it does make you wonder. The lask of Mushkin in the original DDR400 porion of your latest memory benchmarks on this site being a perfect example. Who is to say that the Mushkin stuff was not left out just to leave a better window of opportunity for somone like OCZ to succeed i your tests? I hope that is not the case but again, I have to wonder why I never see them here. Get on them and get some of their product to test too! I have to agree with many here that teh content at AnandTech is slipping. The updates are way to far apart, there are few articles when an update DOES occur, and the content is subject to scrutiny for bias. In all fairness, any of the ideas I have posited could be true or false. However, with this sites reputation being the MAIN provider of it's marketability, AD sales potential, and reader support, don't you think that making sure there is NEVER a question of integrity would be a good business practice? And update the site more often! I used to read this site everyday. Now I just come here once a week tops.Cheers,
Wiley
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Mushkin did not have PC4000 ready in time for the review.Im sure Wes will review it as soon as he recieves samples.Wesley has got to be the most unbiased reviewer i know.He upset a few at abxzone and im sure he will do the same here.
Just because OCZ has been doing well is NOT because they paid for a good review....its because the modules are the best at the moment..nothing more.
OCZ have worked hard these past 12 months or more,they are gaining market share and more sites are starting to use their ram for board reviews etc..the only people this will upset is Corsair who have had a strong hold on review sites for a long while.
So all you "employee's" coming here to bash OCZ--- please give it a rest.If you have an issue with OCZ product contact me. oczguy2@ocztechnology.com
Please remember this thread is about Wes's review after all, not bashing OCZ so please lets all get back on topic.
Thanks.
bigtoe
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
The differece is small on synthetic tests like Sandra mem tests, but large on real stuff like games,and 3dmark real apps.the same thory hold true at any speed, try it at 250, 230 or even 200
5:4 at 2-2-2 is faster than 1:1 at 3-4-4 period
Try it.