WOW i would have expected a much bigger difference!

would be interesting to see if there would be differences in other apps like encoding, and also have a pp4 comparison.

Great job on the test though

article

Is the human eye capable of noticing the difference between 85 or 93 FPS ?

24 FPS is actually enough to trick the eye for movies to be "smooth"; PC games however sit more comfortable at 60FPS; and First Person Shooters can benefit from >100FPS, although this depends from person to person.

anyway, noticing the difference between anything >60FPS is imho very hard, the advantage of having a higher average FPS is that you also get higher frame rates when there is a lot of action on screen and there is a dip in framerate

low latency (2-2-2 timings) is the magic word for A64...
you don't need all that bandwidth

and even that is disputable; CL2.5 3-3-7 seems to be holding up quite good also

very nice article

someone also compared the effects of cas and ras to cas on XS a few months ago and his results were comparable.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=48634

I would also like to see how bandwidth affect encoding with popular software like DVD Shrink and TMPEG encoder. Any chance someone can try this?

I am now able to run the GSkill @ 1.5-2-2-5 with 3 Volt 200 Mhz; hardly any difference with the exception of dropping Sandra mem bandwidth on benchmark; otherwise, there is no performance gain to speak of.

Still bandwidth >6200mb/s; too bad my DVD Shrink is in the Prescott system, otherwise, I will burn a copy DVD disks to test the speed ..... then again, it also depends on HD.

While the premise of the article is interesting, the testing is flawed. 'gamer' set out to prove that increasing memory bandwidth is unnecessary to gamers so he selected two HTTs while holding timings the same. Good start. Then for testing purposes, he/she chooses 2 graphics limited games(Halflife not as much) AND runs them at 10x7 and 12x8 *maximum quality* to add insult to injury! Even with older games(read Quake3) this taxes the graphics card more than the CPU. The article simply reillustrates that those 2 games are graphics limited and abandons the premise of memory/cpu bandwidth.

'Gamer' could you retest using 6x4, possibly 8x6, using a less graphics limited game with *minimal* graphics settings to truly test memory/cpu bandwidth? I am certainly interested in the findings.

IMHO, I don't believe we "gamers" only play the most recent games and that's all. As you can see from the responses above, we re-encode DVDs & video and play many, many other games & applications.

Thanks

Hello Haut^Karl, welcome to the forums

what USE does it have to benchmark games at lower resolutions with less detail when you spend money on a system to play in high detail at high resolutions!

there is no use; surely at 640x480 you will see a larger difference, but that does not prove anything, since you don't play games at that resolution or graphics detail.

about the older games: with a new system you can run older games at higher resolutions with more detail, FSAA/AS enabled and more, again, enjoying the fact that you bought a fast A64 system. there is no need to drop your details just so can say "look my expensive memory runs this game faster at 640x480".

the whole point of the article is to proof that Gamers don't need expensive memory to make their system run faster when playing games

the same point was made in a previous article here when it comes down to CPU power; a 3ghz A64 is too powerful for ANY gamer, as the GPU is limiting factor here. http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=231

about the DVD encoding: we are working on it, I'm interesting in the results as much as you

Hi. Glad to finally be a member in these forums!

The reason you employ lower resolutions is to test the changes in memory bandwidth. More bandwidth means you can move many more frames per second than with less bandwidth. Therefore we would want to provide as many frames as possible in order to fill a fatter pipeline, so to speak. This also removes the GPU as the limiting factor since low res, simple graphics are easy for it to do. This is how you would test the bandwidth issue.

"the whole point of the article is to proof that Gamers don't need expensive memory to make their system run faster when playing [Doom3 and Halflife2]" would be a more correct statement since those 2 games are undeniably graphically intense making ram and CPU speed less relevant. I could agree with that. However if 'gamer' were to choose some CPU limited games like AoE 2, Sims(pick your flavor), or Jedi Knight 2 we could see some relevant results.

But to choose GPU limited examples to highlight changes in memory bandwidth(or CPU speed) is the flaw in the article and meaningless at best. Sorry gamer

For those readers who don't follow what we are discussing, Anand has a good illustration here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2149

The first image shows at lower resolutions, more CPU/memory bandwidth will allow the GPU to crank out more frames. <-- This is what we should see in this article. At higher resolutions it's the GPU that is holding you back and more CPU Mhz/bandwidth will show little effect. The second image shows the 9800 is the bottleneck as it is clearly a generation behind the 6800 and has only half the pipelines.

Anywho! The DVD encoding will be relevant but will not concur with the original article. Since encoding is all about CPU speed and memory bandwidth, it will jump and giggle everytime you give it more bandwidth(either through HTT or timings).

Off to walk the dog now!!

Just came back from walking my Lab. Well, I thought the article focuses on where is the best to spend the money; memory with tight timings or better graphic card. For example, a pair of 512 mB PC3200 priced below $100 versus low timings PC4400 costing over $200, the price difference could enable a gamer to reach for better graphic card. Naturally, it is better to have both. Bottom line, where to get the most from your hard earned money.

Wasn't the tests done on windows xp?
Maybe the more expensive chips will shine in windows xp x64.

the fact that you don't see the changes in bandwidth is the whole point of the article;

I can run Jedi Knight 2 in 1280x1024 4xFSAA/8xAS and you'll see no gains in performance again when overclocking the HTT on the A64.

if you want to play Sims then you don't need an Athlon 64, as that game will run fine on a Pentium I 166mhz

there is no denying that the Doom3, Quake3 and HL2 engine will be widely used for newer games, and this article points out that your PC will be ready to handle them, regardless of what kind of memory you have installed, as the difference between expensive tight timings / high Mhz and cheap PC3200 stuff is virtually not existant.


On the contrary, that is not what we should see in this article, since you should not be playing Doom 3 at 640x480... and if you are , and you have money to spend, should you
a) spend that money on more expensive memory so you now run Doom3 10% faster at 640x480, or..
b) spend that money on a new videocard and enjoy Doom3 at 1024x768 and beyond.

see my point?


the difference between games running 32-bit vs 64-bit is.. well.. not there
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY1LDEx

The focus of this article is to determine if upgrading to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition with an AMD Athlon64 would give us a better gaming experience in current games. We used eight games for our evaluation including one that supported Win64 AMD64 specifically.

What we found isn’t too shocking really, but rather reassuring. In all the 32-bit games tested, we saw overall static performance using Windows XP Pro x64 Edition. The only game in our lineup that had a specific Win64 AMD64 instruction path, The Chronicles of Riddick, actually performed worse in 64-bit than it did in 32-bit Windows.

JMKE,
If the extra bandwidth isn't useful for gaming, what is it good for? I am considering getting faster ram for my rig because I am overclocking. Right now, I am running my A64 3000+ at 255 X 9 with a memory divider that brings my value ram down to 163. I was thinking of getting some PC4000 so I could run things at 1:1 right around 250 HTT but if there is no performance increase anywhere, particularly video encoding, I won't spend the money. What would you advise? Thanks.

hey perdomot; CPU intensive tasks which rely solely (or mostly) on the CPU alone will show benefits; but this increase will not be that impressive either.

I would advise to spend money on faster HDD, videocard, burner, etc, before buying speedier RAM; or maybe consider buying MORE ram; as having more does not hurt, and you might be able to run a RAMDISK and increase performance tenfold

solidshot @ futuremark ran some benchmarks, including rendering, 3dmark and superpi, his results concur with what I stated in my post above ^^


quote: http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/...=5&o=0&fpart=1

All tests were run on the following system:
AMD 64 3200+ Winchester
DFI NF4 Ultra-D with 5/10-3 Bios
Sapphire Radeon X850XT @ Stock (no tweaks, no aa/af unless specificed. Drivers are Catalyst 5.5)
Windows XP SP2
Every memory option, including volts were the same for all tests, the only difference in timings were the changes from 2-2-2-5 to 2.5-3-3-7.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.6GHZ 260HTT 216FSB 10x260 2-2-2-5 5/6 Divider (166)

CPU - 2.6GHZ 10x260 (260 HTT)
MEM - 216fsb 2-2-2-5 1t (166 Divider, DRAM/FSB :5/06)
X850XT @ Stock
DFI NF4 Ultra-D 5/10-3 Beta Bios

SuperPI 1MB: 34.45s
Everest Latency: 40.6ns
Everest Bandwidth: 6,400mb/s

LightWork Render Bench:
Setting: 800x600
Results: 5min 25s

3DMark01 SE:
Results: 26,827

Doom 3 timedemo demo1:
Settings: 1024x768 High Quality, noAA/8xaf (af automatically set to 8x @ high quality)
Results: 95.2 FPS
1280x1024 Test (High Quality, same settings)
Results: 75.0 FPS

Half-Life 2 CS:Source Stress Test
Settings: 1024x768. Model High, Texture High, Water Reflect All, Shadow High, AA none, Filtering Trilinear, Shader High, Vsync Disabled
Results: 144.82 FPS
1280x1024 Test (same settings)
Results: 132.95 FPS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.6GHZ 260HTT 260FSB 10x260 2.5-3-3-7 1/1 Divider (200)

CPU - 2.6GHZ 10x260
Mem: 260FSB 2.5-3-3-7 1t 1:1
X850XT @ Stock
DFI NF4 Ultra-D 5/10-3 Beta Bios

SuperPI 1MB: 32.95s
Everest Latency: 39.7ns
Everest Bandwidth: 7,337mb/s

LightWork Render Bench:
Setting: 800x600
Results: 4min 4s

3DMark01 SE:
Results: 27,334

Doom 3 timedemo demo1:
Settings: 1024x768 High Quality, noAA/8xaf (af automatically set to 8x @ high quality)
Results: 96.0 FPS
1280x1024 Test (High Quality, same settings)
Results: 77.8 FPS

Half-Life 2 CS:Source Stress Test
Settings: 1024x768. Model High, Texture High, Water Reflect All, Shadow High, AA none, Filtering Trilinear, Shader High, Vsync Disabled
Results: 145.71 FPS
1280x1024 Test (same settings)
Results: 133.06 FPS


-------------------

Breakdown Results for 2-2-2-5 216fsb and 2.5-3-3-7 260fsb while cpu maintained 2.6GHZ

SuperPI 1MB
2-2-2-5: 34.45s
2.5-3-3-7: 32.95s

Everest Latency
2-2-2-5: 40.6ns
2.5-3-3-7: 39.7ns

Everest Bandwidth
2-2-2-5: 6,400mb/s
2.5-3-3-7: 7,337mb/s

RenderBench 800x600
2-2-2-5: 5min 25s
2.5-3-3-7: 4min 4s

3DMARK01 SE
2-2-2-5: 26,827
2.5-3-3-7: 27,334

Doom 3 1024x768 High Quality
2-2-2-5: 95.2 FPS
2.5-3-3-3-7: 96.0 FPS

Doom 3 1280x1024 High Quality
2-2-2-5: 75.0 FPS
2.5-3-3-7: 77.8 FPS

HL2 CS:Source Stress Test 1024x768 (Options maxed no aa/af)
2-2-2-5: 144.82 FPS
2.5-3-3-7: 145.71 FPS

HL2 CS: Source Stress Test 1280x1024 (Options maxed no aa/af)
2-2-2-5: 132.95 FPS
2.5-3-3-7: 133.06 FPS



I think this should help most of us out. In general, if you cant get high FSB from your ram to run 1:1 your cpu intensive applications are going to be slower (look at render and superpi, aswell as 3dmark01.) Higher FSB and bandwidth seems to help out quite a bit in windows and applications in general, but not so much in games. However, in games, even running a divider but @ 2-2-2-5 216fsb it pretty much on par with it going 42mhz faster @ 2.5-3-3-7.

I'm not sure what the problem was but I am sure there was an issue with the A64 and 4 sticks of ram.

Like I said, I can't remember what. did it not work at all? did it only work for a lucky few? did it not work with 4*256 or 4*512 or both?

Venice and San Diego presumably can handle 4 sticks.

the "problem" is that you need to drop the command rate to 2T instead of 1T, which will cause performance to drop a little;

the newest A64 revisions do run 4 sticks at 1T

Here are Gamer's DVD Shrink performance numbers (the article has been updated with this also)



that's ~4% performance increase going from CL2.5 3-3-7 @ 200Mhz to 280Mhz...

I have certainly not read every article but I remember from one that I did read that 4 sticks was still a no go.

And I've seen tccd at 340'ish 2T get out performed by tccd at 270'ish 1T

I don't know if any of this is a good representation of what we can generally expect with these settings/setups but I would like to see that proven wrong

Thanks for the update JMKE. Looks like getting tighter timings is almost as good as getting the HTT super high. Gives me something to think about.

I believe you could still get higher HTT whenever is allowed in your system; but you could use memory divider instead of getting the super expensive ones. I trust this is the very point JMKE is trying to express.

Everybody has constraints and specially in dealing with money. Why spend $270 on memories in a system with <$150 CPU, like in my case, with slight improvement (a few %)in games?

He indicated spending the money on newer HD, or graphic card would serve your system efficiency better.

All bets are off if you have money to waste; or simply spending money pleases you more.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mem...-ddr600_4.html

Good illustration here.

I was wrong, with older CPU cores the memory speeds drops to PC2700/DDR333

JMKE,
Well, I already spent some bread getting myself a Raptor and a 6600GT vid card so I think my rig will be plenty fast in those departments. I was wondering if you could test the effects of changing the different dividers available on the mobo without changing the multi/HTT. As an example, I am running at 255 X 9 and using the 133 divider to keep the ram below 200. Would getting memory that would allow me to use the 166 divider show any improvement in gaming or encoding? I don't recall any reviews that tested the effects of dividers on the performance of a rig. Thanks.

dividers test @ [M] http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=22 6

can't use dividers, don't know why....

but you get the idea from the post above

Looks like the divider doesn't make much difference either. Guess the game is being able to get the highest megahertz possible.

No, it does not matter; and not much even with tight timing.

another interesting thing to do when you have 1G or more of ram is to load the windows core into your ram, it's a simple reg edit, from what i've heard it gives quite the boost

have any links/docs on this? might be worth trying out and reporting the results

well, i shouldn't be telling you this i think, but anyhow, a mate of mine made an optimised version of windows xp, i still have the reg file somewhere on my comp which has most of the reg edits, one of them in there is the one i talked about, i'll search it and i'll give you the edit, maybe something to be tested by [M] maybe it might help out on certain benchmarks too? (for those benchlovers out there )

Keep the core system in RAM

Windows XP takes portions of the operating system, applications, and data files that aren't currently needed in RAM and temporarily stores the data on the hard disk in the paging file. During a normal computing session, Windows regularly moves data back and forth from RAM and the paging file.

If you have a considerable amount of RAM in your system--512 MB or more--you can improve system performance by preventing the OS from sending user-mode and kernel-mode drivers, as well as kernel-mode system code, to the paging file.

You can do so by changing a setting in the registry. Here's how:


Launch the Registry Editor (Regedit.exe).
Go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\
Session Manager\Memory Management.
Double-click DisablePagingExecutive DWORD value.
Change the value in the Value Data text box from 0 to 1, and click OK.
Close the Registry Editor.

You may need to restart the system or log out of Windows XP for the change to take effect.

Note: Editing the registry is risky, so be sure you have a verified backup before making any changes.

yes, that should be it, anyhow, i've added a reg file that should do the trick

that key was already set on this machine; can't say I ever noticed a "major" performance boost

That's just one of the tricks you can use to add a little extra "oomph" to XP. Things like disabling unnecessary services and cutting back on the eye candy also add a little bit more.

Does that work as well with Win2k?


I thought I heard that MHz being important on the A64 also has to do that the higher frequency tightens the timings of the memcontroller (all timings). So if you haven't maxed out the memory with A64 tweaker there is an additional boost.

don't think it will work for 2000

oh well, all bits help i think the key isn't set by default though, unless you have a pirated version atm?

I tweaked my Workstation's XP with this guide about a year ago: http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/supertweaks1.htm

thnx for the link, i'll check it out

JMKE,
Got a curve ball for you. I remember reading the article that showed that using a single stick of ram in SKT 754 rigs allowed for higher OCs than 2 sticks and since max mhz seems to be the key to performance, I was wondering if you'd run your bandwidth tests using 1 stick on a 939 rig and then compare the real world tests. I've got the sneaking sensation that you'd be able to get a higher HTT using one stick on the 939 rig and that would in turn allow for better performance since it would boost the total max mhz you could OC a PC to. If I'm wrong in my logic, please let me know and thanks.

you need about 150 mhz more to beat Dual Channel.

Its called "robbing Peter to pay Paul"; yes Paul is the bastard, but Peter remains wealthy after being robbed in this case.

lol, nicely put lazyman

I'm going to test this out today and see what happens. If I can get back to 270 or more on 1 stick, I'll be ordering a 1 GB stick and running single channel. Hopefully, other people will run some benchies too. I plan on checking how vid encoding changes by testing with TMPEG and V-Dub to see if there is a difference between mpeg and divx. If anyone can do the usual Sandra stuff, we'll be able to get a good comparison.

i wouldn't hope for it, i don't think you'll be able to make up for the lost bandwith with some extra mhz on your cpu,

the 3400+ is a S754 setup in these tests: http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=23 0

clock speed is all the same; to it comes down to pure core improvements, cache size and DC memory.

Hey guys,
I was wondering how big the difference would be in an enthousiasts benching program like super-pi.
low fsb bad timings
low fsb tight timings
high fsb bad timings
high fsb tight timings

since I don't have A64 I can't do it myself.

www.xtremesystems.org holds all the answer to that one

Update:
I pulled out one of my sticks of ram and tested out the rig. I also tested with the two sticks in to serve as a baseline. I used two programs to encode an avi file into 2 different formats, mpeg and divx so as to see what differences there are. Here are the results:

9 X 255 in Dual Channel Mode:
Tmpeg: 46 seconds to encode a 1 minute file.
VDub: 38 seconds to convert to divx.

9 X 255 in Single Channel Mode:
Tmpeg: 49 seconds.
VDub: 40 seconds.

9 X 270 in Single Channel Mode:
Tmpeg: 46 seconds.
VDub: 38 seconds.

Observations thus far:
1-Dual channel saves between 2-3 seconds per minute on encoding apps. This can save you between 4-6 minutes when encoding a 2 hour movie.

2-Running the rig about 135mhz faster balances things back to DC level but I think there should be an increase in performance in other areas that would justify having the higher HTT in single channel mode. Hopefully, somebody how has Sandra and other standard benchies installed will be able to test this out.

One possible fly in the ointment: The two 512MB sticks are from different manufacturers so I'm going to test the second stick to see if it is what limits me to 255 in DC mode. When I first set up the rig, I had 2 sticks from PQI and was able to run at 270 smoothly. I didn't think it would be a problem since the ram wasn't going to be run at full speed but I will test this next and report my results.

More info:
I test the other stick alone in the rig and got the exact same results. Considering its quality samsung ram, I'm not surprised. This is making me think that the SKT 939 mobos benefit more from running one stick than two. Hopefully, somebody will run the tests for Sandra, etc. and post the results. The next step for me will be seeing how high I can take the HTT with the default multiplier of 9. Hoping for 2.5 Ghz

Even more info:
Well, I decided to test moving the two sticks to channels 3 & 4 since I recalled some folks doing that and it seems to have worked for me. Am now at 9 X 270 in DC mode

I ran the two encoding tests and saw a small gain. Saved one second on TMPEG and two seconds on VDub. Not much but I'll take any little bit I can get. Also found out that 270 is about the max HTT I can reach thats totally stable with the 9 multiplier. Hope this info helps folks out a bit.

Well, 270 started giving me problems even with one stick so I'm back to my theory that the quality of the ram makes a difference. The two sticks of PQI Turbo didn't give me any problems at 270 and I was using the 166 divider which made the memory run at 224. Even with the 133 divider, the cheap value ram seems to have issues so I think people thinking about the cheapy value ram might want to consider this.

i think all of us here already knew that value ram wouldn't be able to hit 270HTT, even with those dividers

Why not? The dividers should have the ram running about 178 which is below its rated 200 so I don't see what the problem is. Can you explain?

no, i wouldn't really have an idea why, maybe it isn't fully compatible with your mobo, but as i said, i wouldn't have a clue

you're not making sense?

if you are using dividers you let the ram run slower then your HTT, and the only advantage this can have, is that you can clock your CPU higher if you don't have an Athlon FX, which means you'll be stuck with a maximum multiplier.

there is no other advantage of increasing your HTT and using dividers imho

JMKE,
That's what I thought. The only two other possibilities that occur to me are:

The PQI Turbo ram I could hit 270 with was single sided whereas the value ram is double sided. Since there is no Bank Interleave control in the bios of my VNF4, I think this might be affecting my OC potential. I might need to get some single sided 512 MB modules if this is the problem but I'm not sure if those are made.

The only other thing that occurs to me is that maybe the PCB is causing problems but I am totally ignorant of how the PCB affects ram performance. Any suggestions?

lol, indeed you are right jmke, duno what i was thinking when i wrote that it was kinda late so i prolly wasn't thinking very clear anyhow, what i prolly meant was what i wrote, without the part of the dividers, and permodot, i don't think they make singlesided modules of 512, they do with 256 though if i'm not mistaken

That's what I think Gibson which could be a problem then if the bank interleave is what is causing the issue.

i guess switching to 2*256 isn't really a good option eh, 512 is not enough these days i think, btw, are you sure there aren't any bank interleave options? (sometimes motherboard makers hide certain advanced options to keep things tidy)

I've looked, believe me. Only other option is to get a different mobo but I'm not sure which one. This Chaintech VNF4 was pretty inexpensive, $85, so trying to find something that OCs well at a low price will be a little tricky. Any recommendations for an NF4 Ultra mobo?

the DFI nf4 ultra should be good for oc'ing, it runs at +-130€ atm, it's a bit more, but i bet you get a lot more extra's too
personally i'm planning to buy a DFI nf4 SLI-DR in july