Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules
by Wesley Fink on October 1, 2004 12:45 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Test Results: Crucial Ballistix PC3200
To be considered stable for test purposes, Quake3 benchmark, UT2003 Demo, Super PI, Aquamark 3, and Comanche 4 had to complete without incident. Any of these, and in particular Super PI, will crash a less-than stable memory configuration.| Crucial PC3200 Ballistix (DDR400) - 2 x 512Mb Double-Bank | |||||||
| CPU Ratio at 2.4GHz | Memory Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage |
Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
Wolfenstein - Radar - Enemy Territory fps |
| 12x200 | 400 DDR | 2-2-2-10 2.6V 1T |
514.0 | INT 2622 FLT 2799 |
INT 6082 FLT 6033 |
81 | 110.3 |
| 11x218 | 438 DDR | 2-2-2-10 2.6V 1T |
520.9 | INT 2815 FLT 2952 |
INT 6471 FLT 6402 |
80 | 111.5 |
| 10x240 | 480 DDR | 2.5-2-2-10 2.7V 1T |
526.2 | INT 2917 FLT 3101 |
INT 6703 FLT 6625 |
79 | 112.6 |
| 9x267 | 533 DDR | 2.5-3-3-10 2.75V 1T |
529.1 | INT 3029 FLT 3258 |
INT 6960 FLT 6870 |
79 | 113.2 |
| 8x297(2.38GHz) | Highest Mem Speed 594 DDR |
3-4-3-10 2.85V 2T |
513.8 | INT 2897 FLT 3080 |
INT 6708 FLT 6647 |
80 | 110.3 |
| 9x278(2.5GHz) | HIGHEST Performance 556 DDR |
3-4-3-10 2.85V 1T |
536.5 | INT 3117 FLT 3299 |
INT 7165 FLT 7109 |
76 | 116.1 |
As we first saw on the Intel test bed, Ballistix continues to astound with fast memory timings at the DDR438 (2-2-2) and 480 (2.5-2-2) speeds. The biggest surprise, however, was the added bandwidth that we achieved on the Athlon 64 test bed. Where Ballistix topped out at DDR514 on our Intel tests, we were able to reach DDR594 - right at DDR600 - on the Socket 939 testbed. While this did require a 2T Command Rate, we still achieved DDR556 at a 1T rate.
We have asked AMD to provide some insight into why we are getting much higher speeds with the Micron chips on the Athlon 64 Socket 939 platform that we have seen in testing on the Intel platform.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
saechaka - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
i can't seem to find a legit place to buy that ocz 3200 rev. 2. any suggestionsAvalon - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Excellent article. It's good to know what different memories can do on the Athlon 64 platform.ramclocker - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
14The psu is probably around 20A on the 12V...I know from my testing 20A doesn't cut it anymore on a high end gaming/benching rig....you also have to remember that at high speed the ram will be drawing high levels of current also and the board will draw higher current due to heat etc.
I found the article an excellent read due to the fact it finally proved to me with reasonably tight timings running high fsb over 2-2-2 at 200 is the way to go...running 2.4gig for all tests Wes was the wise move here...great work.
Blappo - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
The computer would probably wouldn't use more than 250W. I understand that you don't want to mention the make and model. The nVidia 6800 Ultra draws most of its power through the 12V connection to the PSU, where the ATI 9800 Pro draws its power from the AGP slot. What is the max current rating on the 12V rail for the 465W PSU that you were using? I agree that a high quality PSU is needed (although not necessarily high max rating).Wesley Fink - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
#12 - The Asus A8V is reviewed at http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2128 and compared to other 939 boards. In memory testing we use a standard test bed to minimize variables.#11 - The 90nm Athlon 64 tests should appear next week. We have just received 90nm 3500+ and 3000+ processors. AMD did not do a media launch on these processors, so we had to find them on the open market
#9 and #11 - A Value RAM roundup is in the works, but it has been moved out a while because of a large number of new launches this month.
Deuce - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
It sure would be nice with tests also conducted on the Asus A8V. I'm still deciding between the two.PrinceGaz - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Just to follow up that comment, I suppose the DDR533/2.4GHz results are actually the most useful out of them all when it comes to comparing those particular modules. All of them were fastest (at 2.4GHz) at that speed, except for the OCZ PC3200 Plat Rev.2 which was marginally faster at 8x300 for DDR600.Anyway, I'm looking forward to the reviews of the desktop 90nm A64 processors, and especially finding out how well each of them overclocks.
And also the Value Memory review you promised a few weeks ago :)
PrinceGaz - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Although all the (admittedly premium quality)memory could reach very high speeds, that didn't have much impact on performance.Taking the highest clocking brand as an example, the OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev.2, from the DDR400 2-2-2 speed to the DDR534 2.5-4-3 speed which was the best result still at a CPU speed of 2.4GHz, the results were
Quake 3: 516.3 -> 525.8
Super PI: 80 -> 79 (lower is better)
Wolf: 110.8 -> 112.7
So running the memory at DDR534 instead of DDR400 provided less than 2% increase in performance. This is to be expected when you compare the real-world performance of S754 and S939. The only thing that is important is that the memory can do 1T command-rate to the maximum overclock of your A64 at default multiplier.
I think the results on the highest memory performance page are probably misleading to some readers. It shows the Crucial Ballistix coming in at 536.5fps on Q3. Looking at the results I see that was at 9x278 for a CPU speed of 2.5GHz. Your CPU was able to reach over 2.6GHz so the performance in real world tests would have been somewhat higher with a 10x multiplier. Sandra results are irrelevant to most people.
It would be better if you included an additional test in addition to Highest Memory Speed, and Highest Memory Performance. This would be Highest CPU Speed where the CPU is maxxed out, and the memory run at whatever multiplier gives best performance on real-world tests (ignoring Sandra). I suspect the results would be a *lot* closer.
AtaStrumf - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Now about some value RAM tests? These modules are just too expensive for most of us.Jalf - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Or maybe the "average" user would rather blow $200 on 1GB memory ;)