Value RAM Roundup: Computing On a Budget
by Wesley Fink on April 11, 2005 4:26 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Performance Comparisons
Performance of the seven Value memories was compared to all of the memory recently tested on the DFI nF4 AMD Athlon 64 platform. Results are also generally comparable to earlier results on the nForce3 testbed using the AGP version of the same nVidia 6800 video card. The performance differences will be that the nVidia 71.84 driver is a bit faster than the 61.77 used in earlier memory review.While we did not test on an Intel platform, the performance results can also be broadly compared to previous DDR benchmark results on the Intel 875 memory test bed. More results are available in recent DDR memory reviews at:
Patriot DDR400 2-2-2/DDR533 3-4-4: Performance AND Value
OCZ VX Revisited: DDR Updates on DFI nForce4
OCZ VX Memory + DFI nForce4 = DDR533 at 2-2-2
Corsair 4400C25: Taking Samsung TCCD to New Heights
PQI & G. Skill: New Choices in 2-2-2 Memory
Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules
OCZ 3700 Gold Rev. 3: DDR500 Value for Athlon 64 & Intel 478
Geil PC3200 Ultra X: High Speed & Record Bandwidth
= F-A-S-T= DDR Memory: 2-2-2 Roars on the Scene
Buffalo FireStix: Red Hot Name for a New High-End Memory
New DDR Highs: Shikatronics, OCZ, and the Fastest Memory Yet
The Return of 2-2-2: Corsair 3200XL & Samsung PC4000
OCZ 3700EB: Making Hay with Athlon 64
OCZ 3500EB: The Importance of Balanced Memory Timings
Mushkin PC3200 2-2-2 Special: Last of a Legend
PMI DDR533: A New Name in High-Performance Memory
Samsung PC3700: DDR466 Memory for the Masses
Kingmax Hardcore Memory: Tiny BGA Reaches For Top Speed
New Memory Highs: Corsair and OCZ Introduce DDR550
OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev. 2: The Universal Soldier
OCZ 4200EL: Tops in Memory Performance
Mushkin PC4000 High Performance: DDR500 PLUS
Corsair TwinX1024-4000 PRO: Improving DDR500 Performance
Mushkin & Adata: 2 for the Fast-Timings Lane
Searching for the Memory Holy Grail – Part 2
Kingston KVR400X64C25/512, Kingston KVR400X64C3AK2/1G, Mushkin PC3200 EM, OCZ PC3200 Value Series (VX), OCZ PC3200 Gold (BH5), OCZ PC3200 Premier, and Transcend JM366D643A-50 were compared at 200x12 (2.4Ghz, DDR400), 218x11 (2.4Ghz, DDR438), 240x10 (2.4Ghz, DDR480), and the Highest Memory Performance Settings that we could reach. With a constant CPU speed, memory comparisons (except for top performance) show the true impact of faster speed and slower memory timings on memory performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
ChineseDemocracyGNR - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
#39,"2) RAM multipliers are usually limited. If you have a standard set of 400, 320, and 266 speeds, you could only achieve DDR400 speed at a CPU frequency of 250. Anything lower than that would be running the RAM at less than 400. Most A64 CPUs can't do 250 on air at stock multipliers (the low end ones can) so they will be running less than optimum ram speed. That's where you could lower CPU multipliers or use a board like the DFI with lots of intermediate RAM ratios. "
I'm not sure I'm following.
With a 9x CPU multiplier, DDR266 memory divider and 312MHz reference clock the memory would be running at DDR400.
With a DDR200 option you could go up to 400MHz on the reference clock. That means that no DDR400 memory will limit the overclock of a CPU with a 9x multiplier.
"1) There is an Asynchronous Latency penalty, which can be tweaked somewhat on boards with better BIOS options like the DFI. It is not, hoever, the kind of asynchronous penalty you see on a FSB board like Intel. "
In my own tests there's no real-world penalty at all. I compared an Athlon 64 running at:
REFCLOCK: 200MHz
Memory Divider: DDR400
CPU multiplier: 9x
LDT: 5x
with:
REFCLOCK: 300MHz
Memory Divider: DDR266 (DDR400 effective)
CPU multiplier: 6x
LDT: 3x
The results where near identical.
"In other words, the easiest way to consistently improve memory performance is 1:1 memory speed."
There's no memory fast enough to run at 1:1 with an Athlon 64. ;)
An Athlon 64 at 9*200 is on a 1800/9 ratio with DDR400 memory.
I'm sorry but I stand by what I said before, there's no reason to invest in memory if you want to overclock your Athlon 64, only if you want to overclock the memory as well.
Kind of on the subject, I hope the round up of AMD PCI-E boards (there is one coming right?) tests the best reference clock the motherboards can achieve without memory as a limiting factor, unlike the reviews before.
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
Excellent review, both for the modules it covered and what it didn't.One small point- there is no such thing as 1:1 memory timings with A64 processors. The reduced latency and higher performance that a 1:1 ration gave when the processor to chipset FSB was running synchronously with the chipset memory-controller, is irrelevant with the Athlon 64 as there is no intermediate bus operating at a differnt speed to the memory controller to cause overheads. Selecting a lower memory speed just changes the CPU:Memory ratio in the processor.
The memory on an Athlon 64 system works just as efficiently (though ay a lower bandwidth of course) if set to DDR333 as it does at DDR400, which means there is no real penalty when overclocking in choosing a lower memory speed to compensate for the increasing bus speed.
Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2392&am...> Transcend is another memory that costs just $100 for a Gigabyte and yet manages to nearly reach DDR550 in overclocking.
550?
The table claims 510 (2 x 223), but 2 x 223 = 446.
Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
Is Lavalys sponsoring this article? Why is that paragraph repeated on every page?JustAnAverageGuy - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
I would have liked to see Mushkin Blue($147 per GB)
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?desc...
and Corsair VS 2.5
($174 per gb)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...
I won't whine about the voltage, that's been done before :)
Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
-LX - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
Why isn't the OCZ4001024WV3DC-K on the OCZ site???CobraT1 - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
If you are interested in the OCZ Value VX, note the differences in the two part numbers, one with a "W" and one without.Value VX = OCZ4001024WV3DC-K
2.5-3-3-7 (picture) Supports EVP (Extended Voltage Protection)
Value = OCZ4001024V3DC-K
3-4-4-8 Does not Support EVP
See this link for both.
http://www.newegg.com/app/searchProductResult.asp?...
Hope this clears up the confusion.
segagenesis - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
Wesley - Fair enough. But when that ATACOM link posted in #44 shows 3-4-4 even on the label in the picture its hard to tell who to believe (and its hard to read the part # on it). If its all the same chip then fine... but why label it differently then? Buyer beware?Maybe I am off base...
Turin39789 - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link
I get real tired pushing ferrari's out of my driveway. There isnt any racing alcohol available to me, sometimes I have my neghbor tow me to work in his chevrolet cobalt