Memory Performance

The biggest question on our minds when comparing these two heavyweights was: who has the better memory controller?  We turned to the final version of ScienceMark 2.0 for the answer.

Memory Latency Comparison

Amazingly enough, at the same memory timings, NVIDIA drops memory latency by around 13%.  This is a worst case scenario for memory latency. In all of our other memory tests, the nForce4's memory controller was equal to Intel's controller - but even any advantage here is impressive, not to mention such a large advantage.

Memory Bandwidth Comparison

NVIDIA's latency reduction and DASP algorithms offer a negligible 2% increase in overall memory bandwidth.  While you'd be hard pressed to find any noticeable examples of these performance improvements, the important thing here is that NVIDIA's memory controller appears to be just as good as, if not faster, than Intel's best.  Kudos to NVIDIA - they have at least started off on the right foot with performance. 

DDR2-667 or 533?

When Intel sent us their 955X platform, they configured it with DDR2-667 memory running at 5-5-5-15 timings.  NVIDIA sent their nForce4 SLI Intel Edition board paired with some Corsair DIMMs running at 4-4-4-15 timings at DDR2-667.  Given that we have lower latency DDR2-533 memory, we decided to find out if there was any real performance difference between DDR2-667 at relatively high timings and DDR2-533 at more aggressive timings. Once again, ScienceMark 2.0 is our tool of choice:

DDR2: 533 vs 667

Here, we see that even at 3-2-2-12, DDR2-533 isn't actually any faster than DDR2-667. 

DDR2: 533 vs 667

...and it offers slightly less memory bandwidth. 

It looks like there's not much point in worrying about low latency DDR2-533, as higher latency DDR2-667 seems to work just as well (if not a little better) on the newest Intel platforms. 

The Motherboards Business Application Performance


View All Comments

  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Oh! A link to Tom's....

    Can I link to Tom's article about Athlons that burn themselves up?

    Please, no respecting Anandtech reader should be siting Tom.
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Let me explain it to you:
    Intel get's a cut of the money from every chipset nVidia sells. What part of that don't you get?

    But that's okay that you don't understand that, after all your post implies that AMD is going to put Intel out of business: "You are pretty stupid if you think Intel has a chance against AMD".

    Ummm...yeah right, go right on thinking that.

  • overclockingoodness - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #23 segagenesis: I don't it's worth to post links here. It's quite apparent that Questar is an idiot himself, so why bother. :)

    We are only wasting our energy on ignorant people like him.
  • segagenesis - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #20 - Sorry to rain on your parade but

    Quit calling people idiots when you dont even keep up on current events.
  • overclockingoodness - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #20 QUESTAR: "Too Hot" is merely a figurative comment. Don't try and be a smart ass. We all can clearly see through your Intel favoritism. You are definitely not as knowledgable as Anand or some of the people here, so get lost.

    If you don't like what AnandTech has to say, stop reading the site. People like you only waste valuable bandwidth, plus, it will be one less troll on the Internet.
  • overclockingoodness - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Questar: Please, you're comments are quite stupid. You are not the only one with Power, Intel and AMD CPUs, you know.

    Just to let you know, AnandTech has a reputation of being the best of the best, and Anand is the pioneer of reviewing hardware, so he has been in this business for a long time. Therefore, it means that he has seen quite a bit of hardware in these 8 years running AnandTech. It's pretty ignorant of you to question him.

    I agree with everyone. You are pretty stupid if you think Intel has a chance against AMD. Prescotts are illogical and rather poorly designed CPUs.

    "Intel probably makes as much net profit off the licensing of the nVidia chipset as they do selling thier own - after all thay don't have to design, build, ship or sell anything. So why would they be worried?"

    Once again, your opinion. Can you please get Intel to leak these numbers to you, so we can have a reason to believe you?

    Licensing prices are fixed. Sure, Intel could be making more money from licensing their technologies to NVIDIA, but what will happen in the future when PCIe and DDR2 will start to pick up the pace. Then, Intel would want to sell as much of their chipsets as possible for maximum revenue and when you have a strong chipset maker like NVIDIA, it would be pretty hard, don't you think? In the future, NVIDIA's licensing fee wouldn't cut it.

    It's pretty logical: If company A makes chipsets and company B makes the chipset with same technologies, the market will surely divide between the two.

    I guess your brain is sealed somewhere, which is why you probably can't think straight. I hate stupid people and I think you are one of them.

  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Yes Prescott CPU's are hotter than some other CPU's. Stating they are "too hot" is opinion. Please provide your quanitative proof that they are "too hot". Reply
  • segagenesis - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    So are you avoiding having to make sense? Quit making up stories when you call for proof yet provide none yourself. I gave you proof, now its your turn.

    Here, I'll help you decipher it because you seem to be ignoring posts in favor of your own flawed logic. Here is a snippet of one of your own.

    > "Honestly, Intel processors and even the platform haven’t been interesting since the introduction of Prescott. They have been too hot and poor performers, not to mention that the latest Intel platforms forced a transition to technologies that basically offered no performance benefits (DDR2, PCI Express)."

    > Your opinion only, don't make this out to be fact.

    The link I provided shows that in *fact* there is more heat output by modern Intel processors. Yes, this is a quantitative analysis. If it was qualitative you could have called it opinion, but its not eh? Try again.
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    So are you changing the argument? I never argued about heat. Please have somebody that is capable of actual cognitive thought explain to you what post #8 says.
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Actually I'm rather agnostic between CPU makers. I own systems based upon Power, Intel and AMD cpu's.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now