jmke

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

__________________

Haut^Karl

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!!

Sidney

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.

__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

unusualfire

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

jmke

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.

__________________

perdomot

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.

jmke

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

__________________

jmke

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.

__________________

kristos

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?

Sidney

Venice and San Diego presumably can handle 4 sticks.

__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II