POST A COMMENT

24 Comments

Back to Article

  • Wesley Fink - Monday, July 10, 2006 - link

    Crucial has advised AnandTech that "all of Crucial's memory products come with a lifetime warranty". We have updated the review to reflect this information on the Crucial warranty. Reply
  • MacGuffin - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    quote:

    DDR2 1067 (2:3) Performance


    It should read DDR2 1067 (1:2) Performance.
    This needs to be fixed on Page 10, along with the link on Page 9 that points to page 10, and the Article Index drop-down list.

    Excellent Review, nonetheless.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    Fixed, thanks. :) Reply
  • PLaYaHaTeD - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    I thought since the front side bus of the 965 is 1066, it would be the 'Holy Grail' to have the memory running at 1066 as well. Wouldnt this make it synchronous again? What am i missing? Reply
  • MacGuffin - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    Synchronous Operation (meaning FSB:DRAM Ratio at 1:1)
    266MHz FSB -> 266MHz RAM Speed -> 533MHz DDR2

    The 1:2 Divider (which isn't synchronous) yields 1066MHz
    266MHz FSB -> 533MHz RAM Speed -> 1066MHz DDR2

    Am I right or have I gotten it wrong? I haven't used Intel since I got this Socket 754 I am typing on.
    Reply
  • poohbear - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    hello, just wanna clarify if the a64 can actually use any of the extra bandwidth provided by ddr2 800+? is it only for bragging rights or is the a64 actually saturated for memory bandwidth & therefore this higher bandwidth provides performance improvements? thanks in advance. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    The A64 does exhibit tremendous DDR2 bandwidth with the on-chip DDR2 memory controller, and memory bandwidth continues to improve as speed goes up. However, as we found in our testing of the AM2 in the DDR2 vs. DDR article, the AM2 design is not memory bandwidth starved, and the extra memory bandwidth makes almost no difference in real-world performance on the current AM2 platform. The improved memory bandwidth may make more of a difference in future AM2 designs. Reply
  • lopri - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    I thought this issue was mentioned in the article but I couldn't find it when I re-read it. I know on intel system the memory running slower than 1:1 will result in small penalty, but how about memory running faster than FSB? I vaguely remember that I've heard somewhere it's better than 1:1 cause that way memory "pushes" or "rushes to" FSB. Another theory I've heard is that faster memory can make up for possible performance loss on FSB subsystem, leading to less CPU idle time. According to this review, regardless the ratio, the performance seems to increase linearly to memory speed increase.

    So the questions being:

    1. Is 1:1 the most ideal ratio without "waste"?
    2. Or a slightly higher memory speed than FSB (such as 4:5) better than 1:1, preventing possible CPU idle time and "pushing" the data at the same time?
    3. Or under the same CPU/FSB speed, the faster the memory the better the performance - indefinitely, taking advantage of faster memory speed?

    I would think No.3 doesn't make sense because of the very FSB. In the end the FSB has been what's limiting both CPU and memory on Intel system. How could the performance get benefit from 3:5? In an ideal world there should be waste of 2. (5 - 3 = 2) Is the performance even better with 1:2? I can't imagine the FSB system being only 50% efficient, but is that the case?
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    Lopri,

    Please email me about this subject. Short story is 1:1 or 4:5 are your best ratios for the Intel platform at this time although this will change depending your choice of Conroe model. We will go over this in more detail shortly and I will respond here further once I complete some article testing.

    Thanks,
    Gary
    Reply
  • Locust - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    Very good article, but I have a question. How come you guys did not review Corsair's PC8500 memory modules. I have been using 2GB kit(2x1GB) for over a month and getting timings comparable to OCZ's. DDR2 800 runs at 3-3-3-5 memory settings on same mobo.
    Best si DDR 1000 @ 4-4-3-8 @ 2.2 recommended voltage.

    Good to see more vendors offering these memory speeds, now let's just hope prices will get under $400 :-)
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    We're working on more memory reviews, and Corsair's offering will be reviewed soon. Reply
  • araczynski - Monday, July 10, 2006 - link

    didn't know that was an option, but that's ok, with the adblock solution i get to kill many birds with one stone. Reply
  • araczynski - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    ...i'm getting fed up with the damn intellitext ads all over the place, anyone know of a surefire way to block that crap?

    TIA
    Reply
  • araczynski - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    NM, found adblock for firefox, brilliant! Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    Another option is to simply http://www.anandtech.com/siteinfo.aspx?intelli=y">turn it off in your site preferences. :) Reply
  • lopri - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    Excellent review in that it shed light on DDR2 testing methodology on Intel platform. I should admit that I'd been quite ignorant about DDR2 scaling to this date. This article exaplains alot about the way Intel platform works and how dividers are used - in plain English. It seems, in a sense, it's easier to test memory on Intel platform, especially once Conroe arrives, with so many dividers available at any given CPU clock.

    Thanks for an excellent review. BTW, when can we expect the P5W-DH review and/or DFI 975X Infinity review?

    lop

    *nitpick1 : On page 5, there is a typo. ;)
    quote:

    With ratios, memory speed remains constant at 3.46GHz and memory speed is varied by choosing different ratios


    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    Thanks, Lopri. The typo is now corrected.

    Now that AMD has moved to DDR2 with AM2, memory dividers and memory speeds work exactly the same, with standard supported speeds to DDR2-800.

    The P5W-DH review will post next week.
    Reply
  • semo - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    why don't you make a dedicated error reporting section for each article?
    last page fifth paragraph:
    quote:

    DDR2 Memory on the Intel platform, however, is by definition Double Data Rate, so a 266 base setting is 533 (2x266).
    shoudln't that be "amd platform"
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    We were talking about how Intel handles memory speed which is why AMD was not also mentioned. DDR-533 is DDR-533 on BOTH the Intel and AMD platform. However, the CPU clock speed on the AMD platform is 400, while the bus speed on the Intel is 1066. AMD double pumps 200 on the clock to achieve 400, while the latest Intel processors quad pump 266 to achieve 1066. The BASE speed is still 200 AMD and 266 Intel.

    1:1 on the AMD is therefore DDR2-400, but Hyper Transport and the on-chip memory controller on AM2 means the memory speed or ratios don't really matter. There is no penalty for running AM2 at ratios, but there is a very slight penalty for running Intel at other than 1:1 (DDR2-533) - in the range of 1% to 5% memory bandwidth reduction.

    The AM2 has massive DDR2 memory bandwidth, but it is not memory-starved and really can't use the extra bandwidth in the current CPU design. It might matter more in future AMD designs.
    Reply
  • semo - Sunday, July 09, 2006 - link

    ok thanks i think i get it now. and it's a shame amd can't take advantage of the advances ddr2 has made (apart from the reduction in penalty going from ddr to ddr2) Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, July 08, 2006 - link

    That is DDR2-533 is DDR2-533 on BOTH Intel and AMD. Reply
  • rallyhard - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    Wow, that's some nice memory!
    Kinda makes me feel a little less rediculously proud of the Mushkin XP2 PC2-5300 2gb sticks that I'll possess tomorrow.

    Oh well, at least I paid less than half the price of either of these!

    And to the above poster: Get a life!
    Reply
  • TheGlassman - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    And since they were not tested on AM2, no point for me to consider any of them. Reply
  • ShoNuff - Friday, July 07, 2006 - link

    First in!!! I've allways wanted to do that...reading now. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now