Super Talent & TEAM Join the Fast DDR2 Club

by Wesley Fink on 10/10/2006 4:00 AM EST
POST A COMMENT

16 Comments

Back to Article

  • PeteRoy - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Anandtech you should really stop using these graphs, their a pain to read. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Would you prefer the bar graphs like we used in past memory reviews? If so, let us know. Reply
  • imaheadcase - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Yes stop using these graphs. Whats the point of putting squiqly lines on a graph if the performance is pretty close to equal on memory tests you can't notice a diffrence visually? It would be diffrence if your comparing perfomance based on early computers to the latest computer..you could see a change.

    Stick to the bars plus numbers graphs please.
    Reply
  • Frumious1 - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    You people are friggin morons! "Oh noes! We can't read the graph! Please make a goddamn huge ass page with EIGHTEEN graphs instead of three useful charts!" They even give you the numbers at the bottom - is it THAT HARD!?!? Well, for you two, probably, but PLEASE AnandTech, stick with charts like this where it makes sense.

    Allow me to demonstrate how much less desirable separating the data would be, by using as an example Half-Life 2: Lost Cost. Here you go, all 6 settings put into in-duh-vidual charts:

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-400
    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-533
    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-667
    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-800
    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-1067
    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">Maximum Performance (OC)

    Isn't that GREAT!? I mean, now we can't easily see how performance is affected going from DDR2-400 to 533 to 667, etc. If you want to whine about non-zero-based charts, whatever. Mine are zero-based, and as you can see there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference past DDR2-800. In fact, there's not much of a difference from DDR2-400 through maximum OC performance... 8.8% more performance from minimum (Super Talent DDR2-400) to maximum (OCZ/Team Highest). Great!

    Know what? ALL OF THAT DATA WAS ALREADY CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ONE CHART!

    Please, go back to junior high and retake some of those math classes, because clearly they didn't stick.
    Reply
  • theprodigalrebel - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    I see nothing wrong with the graphs in this article. For instance, I see a green line (TEAM) stand out at DDR2-667 for the first two tests & stand out again at DDR2-533 in Q4. It is more or less tied with the others. This is useful information. I don't care about 1-3% differences (which could very well be nominal variance) - that means, just buy whatever is cheaper.

    Why would I need bar graphs that detail performance variances as tiny as .16 frames per second?
    Reply
  • imaheadcase - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Most people would rather glance and pure numbers than any graphs. You would take LESS space than what they use now. Reply
  • Shortass - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Well the graphs are certainly a little harder to read than large bar graphs, but I enjoy them more since it compresses a lot of information into a smaller space and you can see on one graph the entire set of tests (easier comparison and taking a few extra seconds to read the data is much better than scrolling down a massive page trying to remember the numbers each scored at different speeds, etc). Reply
  • Guuts - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    It would be nice if you could include some "value" RAM in with these performance RAM reviews for comparison. Instead of just talking about how you need to use fairly decent timings if you want to run the modules at 1067 to see a performance advantage, why don't you add in some actual value DDR2-800 RAM that maybe can only run 5-5-5 @ 1067 and 4-3-4 @ 800 (or whatever they can do these days) so we can see just how much performance we're going to lose if we want to save 100$ on RAM? Just how much performance is lost by having looser timings at the same speed?

    I love performance parts, and want the best components I can afford, but I can't justify paying 50% more for a 5% increase in performance (or +5 FPS) that I'm never going to even be able to notice in real-world use. Note that I said that *I'M* not going to notice, before you start flaming me...

    Good article though!
    Reply
  • deathwalker - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Careful guy...there are flaming hound-dogs just lurking around out there waiting for value minded people like you and I. But in defense of the article it was not created with the intent to satisfy that niche. Check out this AT article for some value ram suggestions..http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797 Reply
  • Guuts - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Yes, thanks, I've read that one... increasing the voltage and loosening tbe timings on DDR2-667 is a little TOO value. I was basically asking what one could do with some value DDR2-800 running at 1067 and how much of a performance hit would be incurred by the loose timings you'd have to use, or even the performance of value DDR2-800 with 4-4-4 timings.

    Sure that article shows what you could do with that Value RAM as far as pushing the speed and tweaking the timings, but I don't see any performance numbers, nor any comparisons between different timings at the same speeds...which seems pretty important since the price of memory starts to really climb the tighter the timings are at a certain speed. I'd just like to know how much performance one loses between 3-3-3, 4-4-4, and 5-5-5 with DDR2-800, for example, because I sure know how much the price difference is.

    I can see the small difference in the TEAM memory vs. the slightly looser timed Super Talent memory, but I can't remember ever reading about the performance differences between more widely varied timings and was curious to see just how much of a hit it makes on the new Core 2 Duo platforms...especially with memory prices what they are today, and 2GB kits seemingly being the recommended "standard" configuration in new systems.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    As I stated in the review, we have yet to see a value DDR2-800 that will run at DDR2-1067. The value parts we have tested with Elpida chips can achieve 4-3-3 timings at DDR2-800. We tested and showed results in the Conroe Buying Guide. Part 2 of that guide is in the works and will include more value RAM. Reply
  • Guuts - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    Thanks Wes. Reply
  • deathwalker - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    These modules certainly appear to be a "no go" for most of the 1.8 vlt. C2D platforms...and there certainly seem to be many of them out there that only offer modest voltage settings above 1.8 vlts. Reply
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    This would have been true early on with most of the P965 boards. However, as the bios and memory SPDs have matured this is no longer the case for the vast majority of P965 boards. I have not had an issue with the high end PC2-8000 and up modules booting properly at this time in most of the P965 boards with the latest bios, the lone exception being the Intel branded boards. However, unless you have a E6300/E6400, a very overclocking friendly board, and are benchmarking for money then there are better choices in the DDR2-800 family for the P965 setup. ;-) Reply
  • duploxxx - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    We all know memory performance is much more important on AM2, so what's the point on reviewing it only on Core.

    You should add the performance benches of the fx to this chart. But I am sure you won't. Because many know what will happen to the performance crown when using such memory to the AMD system (without the trick of lowering cas to memoryspeed you did in your performance king review), but marketing is at a whole other level these days.....
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link

    I stated in the review that AMD bandwidth goes up more than Core2Duo as memory speed increases. We showed that in our C2D vs. AM2 article. However, even with the massively increased bandwidth AM2 performance does not increase accordingly - and we also showed that in our earlier review. The fact is that the current AM2 design is not memory bandwidth starved, so the memory bandwidth improvements have almost no impact on performance. In the future AM2 die-shrink, with perhaps a memory controller update, we might see AM2 make better use of it's memory bandwidth advantage. When that happens, we will definitely report it. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now