Patriot DDR400 2-2-2/DDR533 3-4-4: Performance AND Value
by Wesley Fink on April 8, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Performance Test Configuration
Patriot PC3200+XBLK was tested on the DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR. nForce4 is PCI Express, so we used the PCIe version of our standard nVidia 6800 Ultra for testing. Other components remain the same as used in the memory setup in Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules . Performance was compared to the 4 memories retested on this platform in OCZ VX Revisited: DDR Updates on DFI nForce4.The A64 test bed includes components that have been proven in Socket 939 Athlon 64 benchmarking, such as the Socket 939 4000+ (same specifications as FX53), and the OCZ Power Stream 520 Power Supply. Since the Athlon 64 tests represent a new series of DDR testing, we have chosen the current generation nVidia 6800 Ultra video card for benchmarking. We have found the 6800 Ultra to be a particularly good performance match to nVidia motherboards.
All other basic test conditions attempted to mirror those used in our earlier Intel memory reviews. However, test results are not directly comparable to tests performed on the Intel test bed.
| AMD nForce4 Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD 4000+ (FX53) Athlon 64 (2.4GHz, Socket 939, 1 MB cache, Dual Channel, 1000HT) |
| RAM: | Patriot PC3200+XBLK (DS) 2X512MB OCZ EL PC4000 VX Gold (DS) 2X512MB Corsair TwinX1024-4400C25 (DS) 2X512MB Crucial Ballistix (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev 2 (DS) 2X512MB |
| Hard Drives: | Seagate 120GB SATA 7200RPM 8MB Cache |
| PCI/AGP Speed: | Fixed at 33/66 |
| Bus Master Drivers: | nVidia nForce Platform Driver 6.39 |
| Video Card(s): | nVidia 6800 Ultra 256MB PCIe, 256MB aperture, 1024x768x32 |
| Video Drivers: | nVidia Forceware 71.84 Release |
| Power Supply: | OCZ Power Stream 520W |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR |
In past benchmarking, we have found performance of the nForce4 and nForce3 chipsets to be virtually identical, and we have found AGP and PCIe performance to be virtually the same in the benchmarks that we use for memory testing. Therefore, you can also compare results to TCCD results in a recent memory review. The differences will be that the nVidia 71.84 driver is a bit faster than the 61.77 used in earlier memory review. The DFI nForce4 platform is also a bit better at memory overclocking than the MSI K8N Neo2 used in past memory testing.
With nForce3 motherboards, we achieved the fastest performance on AMD Athlon 64 chipsets (nForce3, VIA K8T800 PRO) at Cycle Time or tRAS of 10. However, as we saw in the recent nForce4 SLI roundup, the nForce4 appears to behave a bit differently with memory. Therefore, we ran a complete set of Memtest86 benchmarks with only tRAS varied to determine the best tRAS setting for Patriot PC3200. All memories showed their best bandwidth at a tRAS setting of 6, so a tRAS setting of 6 was used for testing wherever possible.
Test Settings
All AMD Athlon 64 processors are unlocked downward, and the FX CPUs are unlocked up and down. This feature allows a different approach to memory testing, which truly measures performance differences in memory speed alone. All tests were run with CPU speed as close to the specified 2.4GHz of the 4000+/FX53 as possible, with CPU speed/Memory Speed increased at lower multipliers to achieve 2.4Ghz. This approach allows the true measurement of the impact of higher memory speed and timings on performance, since CPU speed is fixed, thus removing CPU speed as a factor in memory performance.The following settings were tested with the Patriot PC3200+XBLK on the DFI nF4 test bed:
- 2.4GHz-12x200/DDR400 - the highest stock memory speed supported on K8T800-Pro/nF3-4/SiS755-FX motherboards.
- 2.4GHz-11x218/DDR436 - a ratio near the standard DDR433 speed
- 2.4GHz-10x240/DDR480 - a ratio near the standard rating of DDR466
- 2.4GHz-9x267/DDR533 - a standard memory speed used in testing other high-speed memory
- 2.4GHz-8x300/DDR600 - tested where this speed could be achieved
- Highest Memory Performance - the highest memory bandwidth and game performance that we could achieve with the memory being tested; this is rarely the highest memory speed that we could achieve - It is normally a lower speed with 1T Command Rate and tighter memory timings.
We ran our standard suite of memory performance benchmarks - Quake 3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein-Enemy Territory-Radar, Super Pi 2M, and Sandra 2004 Standard and UnBuffered. We also included Everest Home Edition memory tests, free at www.lavalys.com, for read speed, write speed, and Latency.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
sphinx - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Great article. But, how well does it perform against Kingston.overclockingoodness - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
#10: While I understand how that may be useful in certain articles, I think it would only delay the time of the article. I bet it already takes AnandTech quite a bit of time to produce each article and when they start to add this "Dual-Core" section, I don't think it will really work out.Besides, it would start to get pretty annoying after a while. They might as well do a short piece on memory and how it effects dual-core. A seperate article may be cool, but I don't think I would want a dual-core section in memory reviews or anything else.
mariush - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Something is wrong here ( page 4 )While maintaining a constant CPU Speed of 2.4GHz, we measured the impact of increasing the Memory Speed from 200 to 300, a 50% increase. Memory Write performance increased about 29% with this 50% speed increase, while Memory Write performance improved by just 17%.
Determinant - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Hey guys (AnandTech staff),Just want to say that I've recently been really impressed with the quality and thought that goes into your articles.
I have a suggestion; Now that dual cores are upon us, I think that it would be a really good idea to have a new section in each article. The new section would show how the current product being tested allows for more functionality.
I'll explain: For example, a lot of people have been complaining about the dual core benchmarks saying that it isn't how they use their computer but that's because they have adapted to a single core environment. Alot of people (me included) turn off antivirus & spyware checkers etc when playing a game not because they want to but because it affects their gaming experience.
So, for example, in memmory reviews, I don't know if memmory affects the functionality on a dual core system (eg. does this faster memmory also allow me to listen to mp3's while gaming)
Me personally, I will purchase a dual core cpu not because it improves the performance of my current application but only because it allows me to have increased funcionality, less hassle, and a more enjoyable experience (I won't have to worry about stopping my antivirus when going into a game). Of course, more speed is always welcome.
If interested, I can provide examples of functionality that I would be interested in (eg. things that I would like to be able to accomplish with my computer).
Cheers.
mongoosesRawesome - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Considering how depending memory performance is on the actual speed of the CPU for Athlon64 systems, it would seem to me that people should be buying relatively cheap PC3200 Cas 2 ram and running with a divider. You can easily reach 90 percent of the performance without having to use 1:1 divider, as long as your divider and multiplier allow you to reach the same CPU speeds.Currently at newegg.com PC3200 CAS 2-3-2-5 T1 http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...
Also - "As you can see in the photo, there are just 8 small components in a row just above the gold connectors. Other boards for TCCD memory have many more components in this row. " Maybe its just me, but I can't see what you are trying to point out in the small picture. Maybe if you linked to the full size pic?
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
#1 - Supposedly the memory controller runs at the same voltage as the CPU, since it is part of the CPU on the Athlon 64. The memory itself is what runs at 3.3V with VX, and it warranted to 3.5V by OCZ. The fate of the memory controller would therfore be dependent on the voltage used for the CPU. We rarely use more than 1.55V with a CPU with a default of 1.5V.#4 - The testing is complete for a Value RAM roundup which will appear next week.
#6 - Corrected.
#7 - We have not tested the TwinMOS with the same chips used in OCZ VX, but we have included OCZ Value VX in our upcoming Value RAM Rounup. It costs about $115 for a Gigabyte (2x512) and is made from Winbond UTT chips that have not been binned - like the TwinMOS. You will see how it performs in our Value RAM Roundup.
n yusef - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Great article. You guys need to do an article on the new TwinMOS value RAM with the (is Bh-5 or UTT, I forget) Winbond chips though.JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Page 3:The website is http://www.lavalys.com/ not http://www.lavasys.com/
Shinei - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Man, DDR630 at reasonable timings... Looks like another nail in DDR2's coffin. I wonder if the RAM could be coerced to tighten up its timings if one was to feed it 3.0 or 3.1 volts instead of 2.9v...JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link
Still waiting for a comparison against value memory :P