Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look
Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look
Date: May 18th, 2007
Topic: CPU & Chipset
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Wesley Fink
Buy the Corsair TWIN3X2048-1066C7 XMS3 DDR3
Blank
 Amazon $103.99
 
 

In our recent DDR3 vs. DDR2 review we discovered a 16% to 18% improvement in memory bandwidth with the P35 chipset. This translated into a 2% to 5% increase in real world performance in some computer applications. This represents a significant improvement in performance. Our review attributed the increase to the P35 memory controller, as we found no real difference in the performance of DDR3 and DDR2 on the new P35 chipset. Both memory types were much faster on P35.

While it is true that P35 exhibits these levels of performance improvement, the reasons for this performance boost are more complicated than the memory controller alone. If you look back at the test configuration, the P965 tests were run at 2.66GHz with an X6800 driving the tests at 10 x 266, while tests on the P35 used the same 2.66Ghz, but with an E6420 running at 8 x 333 speed.

The reason for these configurations was the problems with ratios on P965 and P35 motherboards. We wanted a test bench that examined the same speeds on all three tested boards. However, there is no way to run the P965 at a 333 base FSB (1333) with memory at either DDR2-800 or DDR2-1066. The available ratios do not allow this setup. Similarly the P35 chipset motherboards will not allow the DDR3-1333 setting unless the CPU is set to the 1333 speed. Setting the P35 to 10x266 limits the top memory base setting to 1066 without overclocking. With limitations on both sides the choice was made to test all boards at 2.66GHz, with P965 at 10x266 and P35 at 8x333.

This is a fair setup for the tested chipsets, since P965/975x were designed for 1066 FSB chips and official DDR2-800 memory and P35 is designed for 1333 FSB processors and official DDR3-1066 or official DDR3-1333 memory. P35 also is backwards compatible with 1066 FSB processors and it can also support DDR2 memory if the board manufacturer chooses. The 16% to 18% bandwidth improvement between these tested and representative configurations remains accurate and translates to a 2% to 5% real world improvement in several real-world tests.

In the review we attributed the performance increase to the P35, rather than the DDR3 memory. Technically this is correct, but there are two components at play in the performance increase. First the P35 memory controller itself is improved to provide better memory performance at the same memory speed and timings, and second the chipset supports the 1333 FSB which also improves memory performance. Since many readers have asked which is the primary factor in the memory performance increases - architecture or bus speed increase - benchmarks were set up to try to separate the impact of the memory controller improvement and the bus speed increase on P35.

Memory Test Configuration   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

14 Comments - Last by Wesley Fink, 916 days ago
Username:
Password:
Thanks for the Added Info by rjm55, 917 days ago
I was fairly convinced that the increases you saw the first time were just the 1333 speed. Looks like I was wrong. Thanks for doing more testing that shows the P35 is a better performer and the reasons are the memory controller by itself in gaming. This should shut up the no-difference posters.

Reply
RE: Thanks for the Added Info by sdsdv10, 917 days ago
Agreed. Article like this is why AnandTech is one of best tech sites on the web!

Reply
RE: Thanks for the Added Info by sdsdv10, 917 days ago
Ummm...

Article --> Articles

While they maybe one the best, the comment section could still use a edit function dammit.

Reply
Intel chipset drivers by vailr, 917 days ago
Why don't you use the latest beta version Intel chipset drivers?
[Instead of: System Platform Drivers Intel - 8.3.0.1013]
Version 8.4.0.1010 Beta:
http://www.station-drivers.com/telechargement/intel/intel_inf_8401010beta.exe

Reply
RE: Intel chipset drivers by JarredWalton, 917 days ago
We don't generally used beta drivers unless there is no other viable option (i.e. a new graphics card where the non-beta drivers are not yet available). I don't really expect the later drivers to improve performance, but perhaps that's something Gary will be looking at in our official P35 chipset article. Check back next week. :-)

Reply
RE: Intel chipset drivers by Wesley Fink, 917 days ago
Intel tells us there are no performance imnprovements in the beta drivers. The beta drivers fix a few compatibility issues with Vista. We prefer to use release drivers unless there is a compelling performance or new release reason to use beta drivers. Gary is not testing with the new beta drivers either.

Reply
well by yacoub, 917 days ago
I'd love to know how much performance can be gained on 650i-SLI board going from 10x266 to 8x333. I currently run 10x266 E4400 @ 2.67GHz. I wonder if I'd gain any performance running it at 8x333 and if it'd be worth the added stress to the motherboard to run at 1333MHz fsb. It's an MSi P6N-SLI Platinum.

Reply
RE: well by yacoub, 917 days ago
Also do I leave my PC6400 DDR2 RAM at 800MHz default or raise it a bit (they don't do 1066 very well), but I could lower them to 667MHz if for some reason it was more ideal to run a 1:2 multiplier from the 333MHz fsb than leaving them up at 800MHz.

Reply
Question by noobzter, 917 days ago
quote:

While we don't know exactly why, X6800 processors are often a bit faster in gaming benchmarks than some other Core 2 Duo chips.


Wes, could you elaborate on that? I've always wondered whether there's any difference between running C2Ds at higher multiplier and higher FSB (e.g. 13x267 vs 10x347)

Reply
RE: Question by Wesley Fink, 917 days ago
Several editors have noticed that the X6800 at the exact same speed and timing settings is a bit faster in gaming performance and a bit slower in Super Pi performance compared to other C2D processors. This is somewhat contradictory, but .

We really don't know why this is the case, but we have seen it over a number of boards and in quite a few test configurations. While we don't know exactly what is different about the X6800 Extreme to make it perform this way, we do know the X6800 Extreme behaves a littel differently in benchmarks. We've asked Intel, but we have never received an answer that explained these minor differences to us.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 2

Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
We Buy Laptop and PC Memory! Sell to Us!
Min of 25 pieces required. Call us today at 239.354.1230.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.
Download Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System
Streamline Dev processes, Reduce time to market. Try Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, FREE!




Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
more CPU & Chipset Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information