Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2
by Wesley Fink on August 26, 2003 11:11 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Memory Configuration (continued)
Our benchmarks in Part 1 were consistent with the configuration recommendations in the Intel White Papers for Memory Configuration of the 875 and 865 chipsets. We concluded with the following performance charts based on our testing and the information provided by Intel. We differ from the Intel White Paper charts only in the first and second positions for the Intel 865 chipset. When Intel published their White Papers, we doubt that they had any notion that most of the 865 motherboards being sold would have some version of PAT (Performance Acceleration Technology) on board. Our testing of the ASUS, AOpen, and DFI PAT-enabled boards shows that the PAT 865 boards behave more like 875 boards. We have confirmed that the first and second positions on PAT-enabled 865 boards are, as we report, below — with four DS DIMMs performing faster than two DS DIMMs.
| DDR400 (1:1) Performance | DIMM Configuration | Single-Channel or Dual-Channel |
| 1 | 4 DS | Dual Channel |
| 2 | 2 DS or 4 SS | Dual Channel |
| 3 | 2 SS | Dual Channel |
| 4 | 4 SS/DS Mixed Matched Pairs |
Dual Channel |
| 5 | Any DS | Single Channel |
| 6 | Any SS | Single Channel |
| DDR333/266 Performance | DIMM Configuration | Single-Channel or Dual-Channel |
| 1 | 2 DS or 4 SS | Dual Channel |
| 2 | 2 SS | Dual Channel |
| 3 | 4 DS | Dual Channel |
| 4 | 4 SS/DS Mixed Matched Pairs |
Dual Channel |
| 5 | Any 1 or 2 DS or SS (1 DIMM or 1 in each Channel) |
Single Channel |
| 6 | Any 1 SS | Single Channel |
While SiSoft Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test results demonstrated real differences in performance among these memory configurations, many of you asked what we might see in real-world performance differences with these different memory configurations.
Some of the configurations were easier to test than others. Kingston had provided us with four Single-Bank (single-sided) DDR500 DIMMs that allowed us to look at performance differences in two SS DIMMs versus four SS DIMMs. We looked at performance of 1000FSB/DDR500 at 3-4-4-7-1 memory timings at 2.65V.
| 1000FSB (3.0GHz)/DDR500 Performance — Kingston PC4000 2 x 256 MB SS DIMMs vs. 4 x 256 MB SS DIMMs |
||||
| Number of Single-Bank DIMMs | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 2 | 386.30 | INT 2821 FLT 2786 |
INT 5830 FLT 5748 |
109 |
| 4 | 394.57 | INT 3218 FLT 3195 |
INT 5841 FLT 5818 |
107 |
While the differences in Quake3 frame rate and Super PI times are small, keep in mind that the only change here is using four SS DIMMs instead of two SS DIMMs. As predicted by Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test, the four SS DIMMs perform better than two SS DIMMs.
Comparing two SS DIMMs to two DS DIMMs was done using 2 x 256 MB SS OCZ PC4000 and 2 x 512 MB DS PC4000 at timings of 2.5-3-4-6 at 2.65V. It is almost impossible to keep DIMM capacity the same, which would be the most accurate test, as none of the samples using the same memory chips would have the same exact capacity in SS and DS configurations.
| 1000FSB (3.0GHz)/DDR500 Performance — OCZ PC4000 2 x 256 MB SS DIMMs vs. 2 x 512 MB DS DIMMs |
||||
| Number of DIMMs & Configuration | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 2 SS | 392.30 | INT 2918 FLT 2926 |
INT 5761 FLT 5868 |
109 |
| 2 DS | 400.10 | INT 3282 FLT 3324 |
INT 5965 FLT 5934 |
106 |
Again, the differences are small but real in Quake3 and Super PI, but with 2 DS DIMMs performing better as we had demonstrated in Part 1 with the Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test.
The fastest configuration should be 4 Double-Bank DIMMs on the Intel 875 chipset motherboard. Our first efforts to test this configuration, with 4 x 256 DS OCZ 3700 GOLD modules did not show 4 DS DIMMs any faster than 2 DS DIMMs on the ASUS P4C800-E. This was a real puzzle considering that other predicted configurations were easily verified with Quake3, Super PI and other benchmarks. When we looked deeper, the problem became clear. In every configuration that we had tested with the ASUS P4C800-E, the Performance Mode showed “enabled” but with 4 DS DIMMs at any FSB speed faster than 800, CPU-Z 1.18C shows Performance Mode “disabled”. Our trial was failing here because we were comparing 2 DS DIMMs with PAT on to 4 DS DIMMs with PAT off. We have asked ASUS for the reason behind why PAT appears to be disabled at 4 DS DIMMs above 800FSB.
Since we were mainly concerned with comparing 2 DS with 4 DS DIMMs under the same conditions, we ran 2 DS vs. 4 DS tests at 800FSB/DDR400, so that PAT was enabled in both two and four DIMM setups. We compared prototypes of high-speed PC3700 memory that we tested, looking specifically at the performance of 2 x 512 MB DS to 4 x 512 MB DS at DDR400. Timings were 2-2-4-8 at 2.75V.
| 800FSB (2.4GHz)/DDR400 Performance 2 x 512 DS vs. 4 x 512 DS |
||||||
| Number of DS DIMMs | Quake3 fps |
UT2003 Flyby fps |
UT2003 Botmatch fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 2 | 321.4 | 196.30 | 68.31 | INT 2683 FLT 2722 |
INT 4704 FLT 4691 |
133 |
| 4 | 324.5 | 197.60 | 69.38 | INT 2830 FLT 2923 |
INT 4678 FLT 4717 |
132 |
While the differences here are quite small, they still show 4 DS modules performing better than 2 DS modules. We suspect that we would see larger differences at higher speed, as we have in our other comparisons.
We have confirmed with game benchmarks and a number-crunching benchmark that the best 875/865 memory configurations can also be seen in real-world benchmarks. Because memory performance is only one component of game performance and overall system bandwidth, the effect on these benchmarks is, as expected, smaller than the variation seen in benchmarks that measure only memory performance, like Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
As an OCZ employee, it is hard for me to understand why somebody would blatantly trash us when they have nothing to gain from it. I spend countless hours doing my best to make sure our customers are happy. If you have had a problem with OCZ, as my colleague stated, OCZ will gladly take care of it.Our product and service speak for themselves. Try our memory, I am sure that you will enjoy your experience with OCZ.
-Sean Sinha
Marketing Specialist
OCZ Technology
Sean@OCZTechnology.com
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I cant find any BBB complaintsAnonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I would like to add a note to the folks who are complaining ,I have added this before and will continue to repeat it ,If you have or have had in the past a problem with an OCZ product , take a minute to email me about it , It is certainly worth your while
oczguy@ocztechnology.com
If you have not , stop the bashing or at least bash with your real name. I have a strong feeling anyone saying anything negative , has never had a bad expirence with an ocz product or service.
Thanks
OCZGuy
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Anandtech does not get paid directly for the those links to OCZ , a company named Industry Brains I beleive sells those pay per click links on a number of sites to OCZ , they are the same links that show up on toms hardware as well as numerous other sites and are purchased in bulk by OCZ who does not control where the links show up.In addition those links have been here for quite a while and I have just begun seeing positive ocz reviews here while I have been seeing positive feedback about ocz on several other sites for several months.
Maybe you all can consider the possibility that OCZ is doing something better that other people , Its not as if the win here was not nessarily a landslide , I beleive geil was only slightly trailing.
thanks
oczguy@ocztechnology.com
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
No point in complaining anymore. AT has gone down the same toilet as Tom's. Both are shining examples of what happens when a person who knows what he's talking about turns over his site to a bunch of people who don't.Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#19,What do you expect? They obviously think we are stupid people. We do know that OCZ Technology is a sponsor. It's SHOWING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
This site is tainted. I'm so sick of these OCZ reviews. I'm sick of these biased and tainted reviews just to impress the company.
Anandtech needs to fire all his staff and hire people that "know something about the industry"...
Ryan Peterson is STILL with OCZ. He has a criminal record. That company decietfully left Indiana because of the BBB complaints. Can't complain if they are in another state now can ya?
Now you got to ask yourself. Why would Anandtech take them on a sponsor when other sites won't touch them? Money..... Straight up Money. If I see another fricken OCZ review on this site. Then I know that Anandtech sold himself to the devil.
It's quite comical. Kyle hates OCZ but yet deals with Anand. I guess it's true about big sites. It's all about the money and they lie straight to your face that it isn't. What a laugher
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#14 -With manufacturers supplying the memory, even if they ALL "Cherry-pick", the comparison is still valid. We would be comparing the best of the best.
In my next review of DDR400 memory performance, a different manufacturer was the fastest DDR400 memory available - because it TESTED the fastest. I report what I find, and if I didn't do that my reviews would not be credible. My integrity, and AnandTech's integrity, matter much more than any favorable review.
As for ads, our site software is designed to cluster related reviews and ad links around the item being reviewed - to make it easier for YOU - our readers - to find more information on what you are reading. As Editors, we have no idea what ad links will be associated with our reviews.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
sorry for double postAnonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
QUOTE~#11: OCZ is not a paid advertiser. If you pay attention to those links, you'll see its companies like ATACOM, Newegg, and SVC promoting OCZ memory. If you do not feel comfortable with OCZ, then I would suggest not using those merchants.
Kristopher
Kris umm where it says Sponsored Links (Get Listed) that link for OCZ memory is directly to there site no ATACOM, or newegg is promoting that site?So why say OCZ is not a paid advertiser??
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#15 are u dumb? There is going to be a module that going to get the high rating and of course if Atacom sees which module from a specific company got the honors they are going to promote it!!! and anyway just because OCZ was shining in the review that did'nt mean there where others modules that were'nt shining as well ex Geil, and Corsair