Value RAM Roundup: Computing On a Budget
by Wesley Fink on April 11, 2005 4:26 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Performance Test Configuration
All seven Value RAM memories were tested on the DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR used in our most recent memory reviews. 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 5 top performing memories tested on this same platform in OCZ VX Revisited: DDR Updates on DFI nForce4 and Patriot DDR400 2-2-2/DDR533 3-4-4: Performance AND Value.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 are using 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: | Kingston KVR400X64C25/512 (DS) 2X512MB Kingston KVR400X64C3AK2/1G (DS) 2X512MB Mushkin PC3200 EM (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Value Series (VX) (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Gold (BH5) (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Premier (DS) 2X512MB Transcend JM366D643A-50 (DS) 2X512MB Patriot PC3200+XLBT (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 |
| Motherboard: | DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR |
| BIOS: | 3/10/2005 Release |
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 these results to TCCD benchmarks in recent memory reviews. The differences in results are 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. The performance differences, however, are not large enough to negate performance comparisons.
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, 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 these memories. We achieved the best bandwidth at tRAS settings ranging from 5 to 8, 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, removing CPU speed as a factor in memory performance.The following settings were tested with the seven Value RAM memories on the DFI nF4 test bed:
- 2.4GHz-12x200/DDR400 - the highest stock memory speed supported on VIA 939/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. Several of the Value Memories achieved stable performance at this speed and complete benchmarks were run at this speed with those memories.
- 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
102 Comments
View All Comments
LoneWolf15 - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - link
Thanks for a good article. I usually post response for constructive criticism, but I ought to balance that out more. The Value VX OCZ RAM was particularly interesting and worth knowing about.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - link
#79 - I double-checked the part number on the OCZ "Value BH5" and corrected the Part Number on page 2. Thanks for pointing this out.ericeames - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - link
I belive that the idea of this roundup was good but it has some flaws:I dont think that getting memories directly from the manufacturer is a good idea. I know that this is how it "works" it makes the result less credible!
The overclocking possibilities is not THAT important altough it should not be neglected.
Compairing them with better brands was a good idea, it makes the results relative.
/
Eric
srstudios - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - link
Wesley, it seems that the part number is incorrect for the BH-5 OCZ shown on page two.http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_e...
ELDCGE-K for BH-5 2-2-2
Nice article though, thanks for all the great work!
srstudios - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - link
xsilver - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
another thing I have to clear up..... I don't mind extreme voltages used on a "performance" review but this was supposed to be a "VALUE" roundup.... so in this situation extreme voltages may not be warrantedxsilver - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
#62 wesley... you continiued analogy is flawed....the thing you forget to mention is that the ferrari only smokes the chevy IF and ONLY IF the racing alcohol is used (3.4v) and the racing alchohol is only available to people who buy say brand X tyres (dfi board).... so in essence you cannot separate the dfi board and the vx + bh5 ram.... they must be used together.....
I stand by my statement that this "review" smells a bit like an advertisment for dfi and ocz
#74
I thought it was generally accepted that you can now get the same performance with 1:1 overclocking on loose cas3 timings as a lower mhz with tighter cas 2 timings.... so the need to push the ram to the highest mhz is unnessessary to get the best performance
JustAnAverageGuy - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
Poor Wesley.The crowds can never be pleased.
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
ChineseDemocracyGNR's post reminded me of one more thing that is sooooo... wrong with this article. 240MHz is nowhere near enough for 1:1 OC-ing of A64s, because unlike you, we don't have 2,4 GHz (4000+, 939, 12x multiplier) chips which cost a fortune, but rather 1,8/2,0 GHz (3000+/3200+, 939, 9x/10x multiplier) chips which cost much less. So if you do the math that is 2160/2400 MHz, which is not exacly the limit, at least not anymore, now that the 90 nm Venice chips are just around the corner.AtaStrumf - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
I noticed that typo too Olaf van der Spek, but more importantly this very same Transcend RAM gave me quite a bit of trouble and I would not recommend it to anyone with an A64. I was getting strange errors on my ABIT KV8 K8T800Pro, A64 3200+ S754, 2x512 transend RAM combo, like consistent NERO Identity check failures after a DVD burn. Really annoying!!! There were other stuff too, but the point is after I switched to TwinMOS Twister 3700, PQI OEM 3200, Geil Value 3200, Crucial Ballistix 3200 CL2 (best RAM I tested so far), Corsair XMS 3700 (crap RAM BTW), APACER 4000 (TCCD chips; on A64 won't run with any other stick, eg. 1x512 Ballistix + 1x512 APACER, system only sees 512MB of APACER RAM; checked with many different memories) or any other memory for that matter, everything worked just fine, so there is something really strange wrong with Transcend RAM so I strongly recommend that all A64 users avoid it like a plague.I agree that the only good choice in this roundup was a OCZ VX Value. You shouldn't let manufacturers pick the RAM you test. Ask us what we want to see tested, we'll have plenty of ideas. The ones I'd like to see are Corsair Value (which I know is crap, I just want you to show in Anand's recent blog entry AT's much advertised backbone and prove to Corsair that you will not take their BS excuse and will still test their RAM, even if they don't want you to, because we, the readers, come first), then GEIL Value 3200 isn't all that bad, then TwinMOS Speed Premium, PQI 3200 OEM, Geil pc4000 Ultra Platinum isn't that expensive either.
And please stop at 2,9V, because that is as high as most are willing to go, and don't test more that CAS 2.5 and 1T.