ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components▼
Smartphones & tablets▼
Systems▼
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES▼
DEALS

Patriot DDR400 2-2-2/DDR533 3-4-4: Performance AND Value

 by Wesley Fink on April 8, 2005 12:05 AM EST
23 Comments | Add A Comment
23 Comments

Test Results : Patriot PC3200+XBLK

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 particularly Super PI, will crash a less-than stable memory configuration.

Patriot PC3200+XBLK (DDR400/533) - 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 2-2-2-6
2.6V 1T		 545.5 INT 2773
FLT 2952		 INT 6091
FLT 6033		 80 114.5
11x218 436 DDR 2-3-2-6
2.8V 1T		 542.3 INT 2791
FLT 3002		 INT 6455
FLT 6388		 81 114.0
10x240 480 DDR 2.5-3-3-6
2.8V 1T		 547.8 INT 2920
FLT 3135		 INT 6700
FLT 6627		 81 114.6
9x267 533 DDR 2.5-3-3-6
2.9V 1T		 556.1 INT 3188
FLT 3379		 INT 7032
FLT 6948		 80 116.0
8x300 600 DDR 2.5-4-3-6
2.9V 1T		 561.5 INT 3298
FLT 3567		 INT 7199
FLT 7111		 79 117.1
9x315
(2.83GHz)		 Highest CPU/Mem Performance
630 DDR		 2.5-4-3-7
2.9V 1T		 642.0 INT 3642
FLT 3905		 INT 7820
FLT 7946		 72 135.2

In rows 1 to 5, CPU speed is kept at 2.4GHZ and only the Memory Speed is varied. The performance differences you see in that range are a result of Memory Speed and memory timings only.

We have looked at Aida 32 results in the past, and found them very useful in examining read/write performance and memory latency. Aida 32 is now available as Everest Home Edition, a free download from www.lavalys.com.

Everest 1.51
Patriot PC3200+XLBK (DDR400/533) 2x512Mb Double-Bank
CPU Ratio at 2.4GHz Memory Speed Memory Timings
& Voltage		 Everest READ
MB/s		 Everest WRITE
MB/s		 Everest Latency
ns
12x200 400 DDR 2-2-2-6
2.6V 1T		 5877 2033 45.8
11x218 436 DDR 2-3-2-6
2.8V 1T		 6170 2056 44.6
10x240 480 DDR 2.5-3-3-6
2.8V 1T		 6666 2207 44.2
9x267 533 DDR 2.5-3-3-6
2.9V 1T		 7209 2325 40.7
8x300 600 DDR 2.5-4-3-6
2.9V 1T		 7561 2379 40.4
9x315
(2.83GHz)		 Highest CPU/Mem Performance
630 DDR		 2.5-4-3-7
2.9V 1T 		8310 3321 35.2

While maintaining a constant CPU Speed of 2.4GHz, we measured the impact of increasing the Memory Speed from 200 to 300, a 50% increase. Memory Read performance increased about 29% with this 50% speed increase, while Memory Write performance improved by just 17%. Latency showed a reduction or speedup of about 12%. With any TCCD memory, Memory Read/Write/Latency benchmarks are also impacted by the slower memory timings required at higher speeds.


Performance Test Configuration Performance Comparisons
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

23 Comments

View All Comments

  • sphinx - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Great article. But, how well does it perform against Kingston.

  • overclockingoodness - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    #10: While I understand how that may be useful in certain articles, I think it would only delay the time of the article. I bet it already takes AnandTech quite a bit of time to produce each article and when they start to add this "Dual-Core" section, I don't think it will really work out.

    Besides, it would start to get pretty annoying after a while. They might as well do a short piece on memory and how it effects dual-core. A seperate article may be cool, but I don't think I would want a dual-core section in memory reviews or anything else.

  • mariush - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Something is wrong here ( page 4 )

    While maintaining a constant CPU Speed of 2.4GHz, we measured the impact of increasing the Memory Speed from 200 to 300, a 50% increase. Memory Write performance increased about 29% with this 50% speed increase, while Memory Write performance improved by just 17%.

  • Determinant - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Hey guys (AnandTech staff),

    Just want to say that I've recently been really impressed with the quality and thought that goes into your articles.

    I have a suggestion; Now that dual cores are upon us, I think that it would be a really good idea to have a new section in each article. The new section would show how the current product being tested allows for more functionality.

    I'll explain: For example, a lot of people have been complaining about the dual core benchmarks saying that it isn't how they use their computer but that's because they have adapted to a single core environment. Alot of people (me included) turn off antivirus & spyware checkers etc when playing a game not because they want to but because it affects their gaming experience.

    So, for example, in memmory reviews, I don't know if memmory affects the functionality on a dual core system (eg. does this faster memmory also allow me to listen to mp3's while gaming)

    Me personally, I will purchase a dual core cpu not because it improves the performance of my current application but only because it allows me to have increased funcionality, less hassle, and a more enjoyable experience (I won't have to worry about stopping my antivirus when going into a game). Of course, more speed is always welcome.

    If interested, I can provide examples of functionality that I would be interested in (eg. things that I would like to be able to accomplish with my computer).


    Cheers.

  • mongoosesRawesome - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Considering how depending memory performance is on the actual speed of the CPU for Athlon64 systems, it would seem to me that people should be buying relatively cheap PC3200 Cas 2 ram and running with a divider. You can easily reach 90 percent of the performance without having to use 1:1 divider, as long as your divider and multiplier allow you to reach the same CPU speeds.

    Currently at newegg.com PC3200 CAS 2-3-2-5 T1 http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...

    Also - "As you can see in the photo, there are just 8 small components in a row just above the gold connectors. Other boards for TCCD memory have many more components in this row. " Maybe its just me, but I can't see what you are trying to point out in the small picture. Maybe if you linked to the full size pic?

  • Wesley Fink - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    #1 - Supposedly the memory controller runs at the same voltage as the CPU, since it is part of the CPU on the Athlon 64. The memory itself is what runs at 3.3V with VX, and it warranted to 3.5V by OCZ. The fate of the memory controller would therfore be dependent on the voltage used for the CPU. We rarely use more than 1.55V with a CPU with a default of 1.5V.

    #4 - The testing is complete for a Value RAM roundup which will appear next week.

    #6 - Corrected.

    #7 - We have not tested the TwinMOS with the same chips used in OCZ VX, but we have included OCZ Value VX in our upcoming Value RAM Rounup. It costs about $115 for a Gigabyte (2x512) and is made from Winbond UTT chips that have not been binned - like the TwinMOS. You will see how it performs in our Value RAM Roundup.

  • n yusef - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Great article. You guys need to do an article on the new TwinMOS value RAM with the (is Bh-5 or UTT, I forget) Winbond chips though.

  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Page 3:

    The website is http://www.lavalys.com/ not http://www.lavasys.com/

  • Shinei - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Man, DDR630 at reasonable timings... Looks like another nail in DDR2's coffin. I wonder if the RAM could be coerced to tighten up its timings if one was to feed it 3.0 or 3.1 volts instead of 2.9v...

  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Still waiting for a comparison against value memory :P
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now