Memory Test Configuration

The comparison of DDR3 and DDR2 used exactly the same components in the same test bed wherever possible. For the fairest comparison to the P35, both the P5K and P5K3 motherboards were powered by an Intel E6420 processor running at a 1333 FSB (333 quad pumped). All that was required to do this was increase the base CPU bus to 333, leaving the default multiplier at 8. We did not even need to increase the CPU voltage and left it at the default setting. This simple setup allowed us to run the 2133MHz (8x266) Core 2 Duo E6420 at a new speed of 2666MHz. This is equivalent to an E6700 Core 2 Duo in speed. Due to issues with memory ratios on the P965 we were forced to use an E6700 for comparison. This CPU also runs at 2666MHz using a 10x266 configuration.

Memory Performance Test Configuration
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo E6420
(x2, 2.66GHz, 8x333, 4MB Unified Cache)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700
(x2, 2.66GHz, 10x266, 4MB Unified Cache)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
(x4; 2.4GHz, 9x266; 3.0GHz, 9x333; 2.66GHz, 8x333; 8MB Unified Cache)
RAM Corsair CM3X1024-1066C7
(2GB Kit - 2x1GB)
Wintec AmpX PC3-8500
(2GB Kit - 2x1GB)
Corsair Dominator CM2X1024-8888C4
(2GB Kit - 2x1GB)
Hard Drive Samsung 250GB SATA3.0Gbps (8MB Buffer)
System Platform Drivers Intel - 8.3.0.1013
Video Card Leadtek WinFast 7950GT 256MB
Video Drivers NVIDIA 93.71
CPU Cooling Intel Retail HSF
Power Supply Corsair HX620W
Motherboards ASUS P5K3 Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR3)
ASUS P5K Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR2)
ASUS P5B Deluxe (Intel P965 DDR2)
Operating System Windows XP Professional SP2
Bench Software SiSoft Sandra XI SP2
CPU-Z 1.39.4
CPU-Z 1.40
Everest 4.0
SuperPi 1.5
Far Cry - HOC River Demo

While memory timings were matched to the same memory speed wherever possible, there were a few settings where the chipsets did not allow a direct comparison. DDR3-800 runs at 6-6-6-15 timings. The P965 has options to set 6-6-6-15 timings but the board would not boot under any settings or voltage we fed it at 6-6-6 timings. The closest timings that would work on the P965 at 800 speed were 5-6-6-15. The P5K DDR2 board, based on the P35 chipset, would allow setiing and running 6-6-6-15 timings. This is reflected in our charts with the line ID of 5/6-6-6- for timings. We also tested DDR2 at the fastest timings it could achieve with complete stability on both the P5B Deluxe and P5K Deluxe. This was 3-3-3-9 at DDR2-800 and 4-4-3-11 at DDR2-1066.

It is a noteworthy advantage with the P35 chipset motherboards that every Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processor we tested on the P35 boards ran at 1333 FSB speeds at the stock multiplier without the need to increase voltage. This is a significant, free, and pain-free overclock provided courtesy of the new 1333 bus speed option. The only exception to this was our top-line X6800 which did require a mild voltage boost to run at 333x11 (3.67GHz).

All of the CPUs listed above in our table are 1066 FSB processors, but all ran fine at 1333 FSB at default multiplier and default voltage. Of course this is the FSB frequency Intel will be introducing on their soon-to-be-announced processors. This little side effect will make the P35 with DDR2 a favorite overclockers' board with current Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors. A $189 E6420 can perform even better than an E6700 just by selecting a 1333 bus on P35 and leaving everything else at default. Likewise, a $500 Q6600 will outperform the ~$1000 QX6700 with just a bus speed change.

This little side effect will certainly be noticed by Intel. We have to wonder how fast the 1066 processors may start disappearing with this kind of free, painless overclocking available with the new P35 boards.

DDR3 Memory and P35 motherboards Bandwidth and Memory Scaling
POST A COMMENT

45 Comments

View All Comments

  • RichyDitch - Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - link

    Hey there, I'm still not sure what would be better. I have an AsRock P35 motherboard, and am totally confused as to what would be better when it comes to DDR2 or DDR3.

    The motherboard it's self can hold up to 8gb of PC2 8500 1066mhz duel channel DDR2 memory, and up to 4gb of PC3 10600 1333mhz duel channel DDR3 memory.

    What would end up being better, if I get the max amount of memory for the motherboard. The DRR2 specifications I mentioned or the DDR3 specifications mentioned?
    Reply
  • mikegonzalezrubio - Saturday, January 24, 2009 - link

    I WANNA BUY A NEW LAPTOP BUT I DONT KNOW WHAT IS THE BEST CHOISE IS BUY A DDR2 LAPTOP OR DDR3 LAPTOP MY OPTIONS ARE:

    HP - Pavilion Laptop with Intel® Centrino® 2 Processor Technology - Bronze/Chrome
    Model: dv7-1285dx
    WITH
    Intel® Centrino® 2 processor technology with interrelated Intel® Core™2 Duo processor P8600
    Intel® Wi-Fi Link 5100AGN (802.11a/b/g/n) network connection and extended battery life capability.
    6GB DDR2 memory
    For multitasking power, expandable to 8GB. 1066MHz frontside bus, 3MB L2 cache and 2.4GHz processor speed.
    Multiformat DVD±RW/CD-RW drive with double-layer support
    Records up to 8.5GB 17" WXGA high-definition widescreen display
    With BrightView technology and 1440 x 900 resolution
    500GB Serial ATA hard drive (5400 rpm)
    NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics

    *LINK OF THE PRODUCT http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9166...">http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp...&typ...


    OR TO BUY A DELL Studio XPS 16
    WITH
    Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8400 (3MB cache/2.26GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
    LCD PanelEdge-to-Edge HD Widescreen 16.0 inch WLED LCD (1366x768) W/2.0 MP
    8X DVD+/- RW(DVD/CD read/write) Slot Load Drive
    Specifications - DVD+/-RW or Bluray Drive
    4GB2 Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
    320GB3 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
    ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 - 512MB4
    Intel® 5100 WLAN Wireless-N (1x2) Half Mini Card
    LINK OF THE PRODUCT IS http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx...">http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/...kc=produ...
    WHO CAN TELL ME WHAT IS THE BEST CHOICE HERE BETWEEN THOSE LAPTOP...?
    thanks for your help i wait an aswer
    sincerely
    MIGUEL ANGEL
    Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, May 17, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Two conditions would shift the recommendation to DDR3 instead. When DDR3 prices come close to DDR2 then buy DDR3 instead. More significantly, when DDR3 becomes available at higher speeds and/or faster timings then definitely choose DDR3 if you are looking for performance - even if the price is higher.


    No there are not just two conditions. There is a third condition that I wish you'd start considering: How it screws over everyone who wants to upgrade. This article has proven that Intel can squeeze more performance out of their memory controller. What this ultimately shows is that improvements in memory controller design actually outweigh the change to a new memory standard! Is DDR2 18% faster than DDR? (Maybe now, just barely. After 3 years!) Yet intel just pulls a new memory controller out of their wazoo that does 18% better? I smell a big rat and anadtech aint talking about it.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Thursday, May 17, 2007 - link

    You're not the first person to be frustrated by how poorly memory speed increases, but there are a few things to consider.

    For one, the new controller is NOT 18% faster than the old, that is only in bandwidth, not latency. Latency is VERY important, and discounting is a huge fallacy. And yes, bandwidth has increased a lot more than 18% from DDR.

    Secondly, this isn't by any means the end of DDR2, it's a forward looking move that paves the way for DDR3. DDR2 will continue to dominate the market, and by the time it's obsolete you'll have DDR3 ready. What would happen if Intel waited for DDR2 to already be obsolete before they introduced DDR3? You'd have that long wait while memory companies worked on the new technology, and prices were very high and performance wasn't what it should be. After a couple of years, DDR3 would finally be mature in performance and cost, but nearly obsolesence itself. So, Intel is just getting things started so when DDR3 does become necessary, it is ready. It's like a pipelined processor, Intel is starting DDR3 in stage one while DDR2 is in stage 2.

    Also, keep in mind that DDR2 is not made to go much faster than it is, and will run into a wall. That's where DDR3 comes in. Again, it's forward looking by Intel. DDR2 can still increase a bit, but by the time it runs into a wall, DDR3 will be right there to go to higher speeds.

    Also keep in mind the number of people that upgrade is very, very small. It's not their intention to screw people over, but it's something they are willing to do because of the importance of evolving technology, and the miniscule percentage of people that upgrade processors without motherboards. It's a necessary evil.
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - link

    quote:

    We can tell you that Intel does not really have an NDA, but they have been very aggressive in holding first tier manufacturers to a May 21st performance embargo and retail distribution on June 4th


    Funny how we can let you benchmark hardware not coming out till this Autumn but we can't let out any info or benchmarks on a new chipset coming out in 5 days.
    Reply
  • cornfedone - Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - link

    Anyone who thinks 2-5% increase in system performance is a big deal needs to get their head examined as it don't mean nothing real world. Most people couldn't even see a 2-5% system performance increase on their best day. Bearlake is more hype with no tangible performance increase. Reply
  • TA152H - Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - link

    Wow, that's a really uninformed remark.

    You might not notice X-Rays, but they can kill you. So don't talk about this babble with tangible (it's a poor choice of words, since it literally means "touchable" and it's bad enough Anand overuses it) and what's noticeable. You're getting an amazing increase from a chipset, and this is the mainstream chipset. On top of that, it supports DDR2 and DDR3 so it pushes the technology envelope forward. Getting any increases in memory performance is simply amazing at this point, since chipsets are so mature it's not like there is a low hanging fruit, and Intel processors have such a large cache it makes memory performance less important than would otherwise be. It's a fantastic chipset, arguably the next 440BX. I knew it was good, but even I'm shocked at just how good it is. Kind of kills the argument for the on-die memory controller, which I never was completely sold on. It's scary though, it makes you wonder just how well Intel will do with that if they can get this type of performance with the memory controller on the chipset.

    It's an amazing chipset, it is shocking in terms of performance, so much so I doubt anyone thought it was possible. Give them their kudos when they deserve it, because they do with this bad boy. I wish I knew how they did it, but my guess is by finally moving their chipsets to modern lithography, they were able to include a lot more buffers and run it faster without using too much power. I am really clueless though, that's pure speculation. I don't know how they made this so much better than everything else. It's shocking.
    Reply
  • bldckstark - Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - link

    Shockingly enough, 2% is within the error of the tests performed, and therefore is not, statistically speaking, significant. Not only that, but the cost of progress is passed on to the consumer, who usually rates the speed of their computer based upon how fast their favorite website loads, not on how fast it performs computations. Shocking, I would say. Reply
  • TA152H - Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - link

    So, you're saying that on every single test by weird coincidence, the Bearlake is higher just be statistical scatter? You're saying the huge increase in bandwidth is somehow also weird coincidence?

    How do you know what the margin of error is anyway? When you get repeatable results where one is always higher, you can conclude pretty easily that they are real and not statistical scatter.

    And you know the cost of Bearlake how? You are sure it's more expensive? It probably uses less power, since it's made on finer lithography. So, you're talking about something you probably don't know anything about. I do agree that most people don't need the latest and greatest, so I fundamentally agree with that part, but who is going to make them buy this chipset? If they want cheap, they can still buy something cheap, if this isn't, which I don't know. But, some people need performance, and this is a great item for that, and it's a real accomplishment from Intel.

    By your perverse logic, all improvements that don't increase web speed are immaterial. That's clearly wrong. That only applies to some people.

    You're completely illogical.
    Reply
  • OrSin - Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - link

    Thats total system performance, from 1 part. Memory performance is 16% and that huge from a low cost part. Unless your adding a $400 video card over $200 card you will not notice the diffenecen either. One part theats 15% more in price then a similar part will rarely give you 5% improvement.

    Remember this is a systems and it mean each part gives some improvement to make a better system.

    Yeah you will not notice 5%. Bet then why get a part that works 5% slower when the cost is similar. Some people are never happy.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now