Test Design

One of the difficulties in testing memory is that most of the memory benchmarks available are synthetic. While synthetic benchmarks can be useful in comparing performance, they can also paint a distorted picture of real-world performance. This is the reason why AnandTech has always preferred benchmarking with real applications. Benchmarks using games are dependent on many system components for their results, including the CPU speed and Video Card, which have a major impact on the final scores. While memory does impact the game benchmark score, it is only one small part of the total score. Finding a game benchmark that is sensitive to memory is not always easy. We discovered Gun Metal 2, for instance, tends to be video-card bound, making it very useful for testing video cards, but not so useful for measuring subtle differences in system performance. After looking at available game benchmarks, we found Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003 to be the most useful for our memory testing.

The following Benchmarks were used in our Memory Testing:

1) SiSoft Sandra Max3 UNBuffered Memory Test

Part 1 of “Searching for the Memory Holy Grail” demonstrated the usefulness of the SiSoft Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test as a sensitive benchmarking tool for memory bandwidth. The Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test turns off Memory Buffering schemes in an attempt to improve the measure of raw memory bandwidth. As a result, it also correlates well with bandwidths reported with Memtest86, an industry-standard memory testing tool.

The idea of the UNBuffered Memory Benchmark is very simple — you merely turn-off all memory buffering techniques. Sandra makes this very easy to do. Select “Memory Benchmark”, right-click “Module Options”, and uncheck the nine boxes that are related to buffering.



2) SiSoft Sandra Max3 Standard Memory Test

The UNBuffered Memory Benchmarks are quite different from what you may be accustomed to seeing in memory testing with SiSoft Sandra. For reference, we are again including the Sandra Max3 standard Memory Test, sometimes called the Buffered Memory Test.

3) Super PI

Pure number-crunching benchmarks are very useful for measuring system bandwidth. Some of the more popular number-crunchers are the MPEG/DIVX encoding tests, such as the ones that we used in our standard motherboard testing, and Super PI. MPEG/DIVX tests are valuable for a single motherboard benchmark and in cross-platform testing — Athlon vs. Pentium4, for example. However, they are often very sensitive to the test environment or system configuration, and can be difficult to use reliably in an environment that tests a large number of conditions with the same test, such as we will be doing here in our memory testing. Super PI, on the other hand, is very simple to use and has been shown to be less sensitive to the operating system environment. In other words, we don’t have to reinstall the operating system on a clean hard drive each time we run a benchmark just to get reliable numbers.

Super PI for Windows 1.1 is a freeware program developed by the Super Computer Consortium at the University of Tokyo. The concept of Super PI is very simple — it calculates the value of pi to “x” number of places, and reports the time this calculation requires. We chose to use 2 million places in our tests. Super PI measures total system bandwidth, and memory is only part of that bandwidth, since the CPU has a significant impact on results. We therefore would expect to see smaller changes in Super PI relative to larger changes in memory-only benchmark tests like Sandra.

4) Quake3 Demo FOUR.dm_66

Quake 3 Demo FOUR is one of our standard game benchmarks. As Evan Lieb showed in his PC3200 memory tests, Quake3 can also reveal variations in memory performance. You will likely be surprised how sensitive Quake3 can actually be in testing wide variations in Memory Speed. We run the benchmark three times, check for score consistency, repeat if we see any wide variation in individual scores, and then average the three scores for the reported Frames per Second (FPS) value.

5) Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo

The Benchmark program built into the UT2003 demo is a contemporary game test that does respond to variations in memory bandwidth. We used it mainly to show the impact of memory speed on UT2003 scores, and to confirm the validity of Quake3 as a real-world test of memory performance. With our new standard ATI 9800 PRO video card, UT2003 shows variation in both Flyby and Botmatch in tests with memory of different speeds. All benchmarks are run at our standard 1024x768 resolution.

Motherboard, CPU, and Peripherals

In Part 1 of “Searching for the Memory Holy Grail”, we used the Abit IC7 for our 875 tests and the Asus P4P800 Deluxe for 865 tests. Because of the impact of PAT on/off at different FSB, we decided to use only the Intel 875 for testing in Part 2. This presented our first problem, since the Abit IC7 has a strange quirk in the way it handles 1:1 memory. No matter what we did, we could not operate the Abit IC7 at greater than a 255 setting (1020FSB). We talked with Abit about this issue, and they are hard at work on a BIOS revision to correct this problem. To be fair, most users will not need to run memory at faster than a setting of 255, and 5:4 and 3:2 memory ratios do not have this issue. However, for our tests here, we expected that we might reach a speed of 275 (1100FSB), and the 255 limitation was not acceptable.

Next, we considered the DFI 875PRO LanParty as the motherboard for our testbed. The DFI had no problem handling settings above 255, which corrected that problem. However, as Evan Lieb pointed out in his review of the 875PRO, the vDIMM range to only 2.7V was too limiting for our high-speed memory tests. DFI has told us that they are releasing an updated version of the 875PRO in the near future with expanded vDIMM options. If that were available today, the DFI would have worked well for our testbed.

The latest revision of the ASUS flagship 875 motherboard is the ASUS P4C800-E. This board adds Intel GigaLAN (using the dedicated Intel CSA bus), and incorporates the ICH5R Southbridge with Intel SATA RAID. We will be doing a review update on this new revision of the ASUS flagship Canterwood shortly. The P4C800-E met our requirements of high speed 1:1 operation and a vDIMM adjustment range that was useful. vDIMM is available to 2.85V on the P4C800-E. As a bonus, we were able to use Intel SATA RAID with SATA drives for all testing.

Our 3.0C Pentium 4 800FSB chip was not very useful for testing DDR500 memory. With a maximum overclock of around 245 (980FSB), we could not even reach the rated speed of the memory. We settled on a 2.4C 800FSB Pentium 4 that has been proven to perform very well at high speeds. On the ASUS P4C800-E, this 2.4C was able to reach a stable 288 setting (1152FSB) at default 1.525V, and a setting of 298 (1192FSB) with a modest vCore setting of 1.6V. We were confident that this test setup would allow us to reach the maximum speeds possible with memory rated at a high as DDR500, since we did not anticipate that synchronous operation would exceed DDR596 in our testing.

Since all testing would be done on a single testbed configuration and only compared to test results on that testbed, we chose the best-performing components that we had available. For CPU cooling, we used the Thermalright SLK-900U heatsink with a 120mm adjustable-speed Vantec Tornado cooling fan. The idea here was to remove any concerns about CPU cooling or overclocking ability from the memory test as much as possible. For the video card, we used our new standard ATI Radeon 9800 PRO with 128 MB memory. Hard drives were a pair of Western Digital Raptor 10,000RPM Serial ATA drives running in a SATA RAID 0 (Striping) configuration on the stock Intel ICH5R.

Index Performance Test Configuration
Comments Locked

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #37
    Point well taken, But remember depending which bencmarks you use ,The diference you see could be less than you expect for example look at buffered vs unbuffered sandra scores.
    Half the motherboards I have played with wont run 5/4 above 280 anyway.


  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Let the ignorance run wiiiilllldddd!!!!

    For sponsored links, I also see it at the bottom of tomshardware and the bottom of extremetech.com. I figure a company is selling those spots on multiple review sites so whoever wants a spot can grab it and have a text link on those sites.

    I see big banners for corsair and googlegear on the front page of anand, which I assume would cost at least 10x more than a text link, so why didn't corsair win? They obviously pay more for advertising! Gee Kingston has full color banners too. Why didn't they win? Maybe because their modules didn't test as high, oooh, what a thought, the ram that performs the best wins, i can't believe it!!!! /sarcasm
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    What this (and most other) article fails to mention is that you get better performance a high FSB with a 5:4 ram divider at low latency...

    In other words,

    275FSB at 5:4 2-2-2-5 is WAY faster than
    275FSB at 1:1 2.5-4-4-7

    If you have ram taht can run at 2-2-2, test it for yourself.

    In short, last years low latency PC3200 and 3500 2-2-2-6 ram is faster and cheaper than todays PC4000 with rediculously horrid timings like 3-4-4-8
  • Radelon - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    The simple fact in the matter is anybody can take the same sets of ram from all different brands and will see approximately the same results. In all my tests, OCZ is the leader, sometimes less than others but fact is, it's still on top. I've done these tests on 4 different canterwood/springdale motherboards and OCZ has always come out the best for me. "Don't knock it until you try it" That seems to be the statement of the year. The people that do knock it before they try it, are only hurting themselves and the others they influence.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I've been in the hardware website business before. People don't know that they will get more hardware from a company if the give them their props. The posters who bitch about OCZ have a valid claim.

    You have to look at the whole picture and not just what they are doing today. I'm sorry to say that OCZ, even if they have "good" products still wouldn't be a choice by me or even recommending it.

    I've heard some bad rumors with OCZ and other websites it's not even funny. 3DGameMan I heard used to give raging reviews because of getting more hardware. Overclockers something used to be in the same ballpark.

    It's hard to judge reviews these days. To recommend a brand over another brand just because of the results you received is flat out ignorant at best. So many variables play into account. Corsair and Mushkin will always get my money. Even if it's more money. Their products have been around for awhile and have proven to be noteworthy.

    GeIL is another company that raises an eyebrow. The owner of GeIL is the owner of an online store. All he does is buy and overclock memory and then sells it at a premium. It helps to do research on these companies.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    What about Mushkin? They didn't even get entered into the test, and it used to be that Anand was always touting them, right?

    Hmmmmmmmmm. Anand should explain what happened to wipe Mushkin from his list totally...
  • AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I found the link, here it is:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=...

    Look down the page for Anand's post, kind of long, but it explains it! :)

    I hope someone appreciates that link, hehe, it actually took about 15 minutes to find, not that long, but its not the most fun thing to do, but I had to since its for AT...
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Sadly, it is clear that people still don't trust OCZ, and will go as far as to say that a positive review automatically means the web site in question (Anandtech in this case) has sold out. What's illogical about this argument is that Mushkin, Corsair, and Crucial ALL advertise on Anandtech as well, and have been advertising on Anandtech for MUCH longer than OCZ. Hopefully anyone who has read all these comments now realizes that their argument is completely invalidated by this fact. Not only that, but the writer of this particular Anandtech article even says that he has no affiliation with any of the ads that get displayed in a review, and another Anandtech editor says that OCZ isn’t even a direct advertiser. If people would learn the facts we would haven’t so many ignorant comments such as #11, #15, #16/#17, and #23.

    Secondly, you'd have to be blind not to see that OCZ memory is clearly one of the best solutions out there today. Anandtech is NOT the only web site that has found OCZ memory to be of the highest quality. Please search Google if you are not aware of this fact. Any review in the last 9 months will prove my point.
  • AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Hey guys, go through and look through some old posts in the archive section that Anand Lal Shimpi has talked in. One of them discussed advertising. It may be outdated, but atleast its something to look at, and if this is mentioned already, sorry, I haven't read through all the responses yet.

    Anyway, Anand clearly stated that the advertising portion is done by another group of people and that they do not talk directly with him or any of the article writers... hope that helps, I'll try searching around for the link...
  • pastorjay - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I am appalled that anyone would think that Wesley would do anything to compromise the integrity of his reviews. I have read many, many reviews at many other sites, and they have come to a similiar conclusion. OCZ has got several good products on their hands at the moment. THey are doing a spectacular job of producing quality products NOW. THey also happen to have the best Customer support in the industry, whether it would be Ryan or Sean or Bo... whoever I have dealt with, they have all been a terrific help in solving problems, and making sure I am happy. Now, I am no OCZ fanboy. I will use what i feel is the best on the market at the time... and to me... OCZ is it right now.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now