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
#37Point well taken, But remember depending which bencmarks you use ,The diference you see could be less than you expect for example look at buffered vs unbuffered sandra scores.
Half the motherboards I have played with wont run 5/4 above 280 anyway.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Let the ignorance run wiiiilllldddd!!!!For sponsored links, I also see it at the bottom of tomshardware and the bottom of extremetech.com. I figure a company is selling those spots on multiple review sites so whoever wants a spot can grab it and have a text link on those sites.
I see big banners for corsair and googlegear on the front page of anand, which I assume would cost at least 10x more than a text link, so why didn't corsair win? They obviously pay more for advertising! Gee Kingston has full color banners too. Why didn't they win? Maybe because their modules didn't test as high, oooh, what a thought, the ram that performs the best wins, i can't believe it!!!! /sarcasm
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
What this (and most other) article fails to mention is that you get better performance a high FSB with a 5:4 ram divider at low latency...In other words,
275FSB at 5:4 2-2-2-5 is WAY faster than
275FSB at 1:1 2.5-4-4-7
If you have ram taht can run at 2-2-2, test it for yourself.
In short, last years low latency PC3200 and 3500 2-2-2-6 ram is faster and cheaper than todays PC4000 with rediculously horrid timings like 3-4-4-8
Radelon - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
The simple fact in the matter is anybody can take the same sets of ram from all different brands and will see approximately the same results. In all my tests, OCZ is the leader, sometimes less than others but fact is, it's still on top. I've done these tests on 4 different canterwood/springdale motherboards and OCZ has always come out the best for me. "Don't knock it until you try it" That seems to be the statement of the year. The people that do knock it before they try it, are only hurting themselves and the others they influence.Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I've been in the hardware website business before. People don't know that they will get more hardware from a company if the give them their props. The posters who bitch about OCZ have a valid claim.You have to look at the whole picture and not just what they are doing today. I'm sorry to say that OCZ, even if they have "good" products still wouldn't be a choice by me or even recommending it.
I've heard some bad rumors with OCZ and other websites it's not even funny. 3DGameMan I heard used to give raging reviews because of getting more hardware. Overclockers something used to be in the same ballpark.
It's hard to judge reviews these days. To recommend a brand over another brand just because of the results you received is flat out ignorant at best. So many variables play into account. Corsair and Mushkin will always get my money. Even if it's more money. Their products have been around for awhile and have proven to be noteworthy.
GeIL is another company that raises an eyebrow. The owner of GeIL is the owner of an online store. All he does is buy and overclock memory and then sells it at a premium. It helps to do research on these companies.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
What about Mushkin? They didn't even get entered into the test, and it used to be that Anand was always touting them, right?Hmmmmmmmmm. Anand should explain what happened to wipe Mushkin from his list totally...
AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I found the link, here it is:http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=...
Look down the page for Anand's post, kind of long, but it explains it! :)
I hope someone appreciates that link, hehe, it actually took about 15 minutes to find, not that long, but its not the most fun thing to do, but I had to since its for AT...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Sadly, it is clear that people still don't trust OCZ, and will go as far as to say that a positive review automatically means the web site in question (Anandtech in this case) has sold out. What's illogical about this argument is that Mushkin, Corsair, and Crucial ALL advertise on Anandtech as well, and have been advertising on Anandtech for MUCH longer than OCZ. Hopefully anyone who has read all these comments now realizes that their argument is completely invalidated by this fact. Not only that, but the writer of this particular Anandtech article even says that he has no affiliation with any of the ads that get displayed in a review, and another Anandtech editor says that OCZ isn’t even a direct advertiser. If people would learn the facts we would haven’t so many ignorant comments such as #11, #15, #16/#17, and #23.Secondly, you'd have to be blind not to see that OCZ memory is clearly one of the best solutions out there today. Anandtech is NOT the only web site that has found OCZ memory to be of the highest quality. Please search Google if you are not aware of this fact. Any review in the last 9 months will prove my point.
AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Hey guys, go through and look through some old posts in the archive section that Anand Lal Shimpi has talked in. One of them discussed advertising. It may be outdated, but atleast its something to look at, and if this is mentioned already, sorry, I haven't read through all the responses yet.Anyway, Anand clearly stated that the advertising portion is done by another group of people and that they do not talk directly with him or any of the article writers... hope that helps, I'll try searching around for the link...
pastorjay - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I am appalled that anyone would think that Wesley would do anything to compromise the integrity of his reviews. I have read many, many reviews at many other sites, and they have come to a similiar conclusion. OCZ has got several good products on their hands at the moment. THey are doing a spectacular job of producing quality products NOW. THey also happen to have the best Customer support in the industry, whether it would be Ryan or Sean or Bo... whoever I have dealt with, they have all been a terrific help in solving problems, and making sure I am happy. Now, I am no OCZ fanboy. I will use what i feel is the best on the market at the time... and to me... OCZ is it right now.