It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > Articles & Howto's
Intel Core 2: Is high speed memory worth its price? Intel Core 2: Is high speed memory worth its price?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Intel Core 2: Is high speed memory worth its price?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 1st August 2006, 16:15   #1
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Intel Core 2: Is high speed memory worth its price?

Does the Intel Core 2 need fast DDR2 memory to perform at its best? In this article we compare different memory speed and timings to provide you with the answer. Read on to find if cheap memory is enough to feed the Conroe

http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=472
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2006, 17:42   #2
Rutar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What about overclocking? Are there dividers for Core 2 865 boards as well so we can still clock our Allendales through the roof with cheapskate ram?
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2006, 17:47   #3
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

I don't know for other boards, I975 allows for quite an adjustment range for divider settings http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/In...otke-12981.jpg

Memory Frequency; 333 / 400 / 533 / 667 / 800 Mhz

so with cheap 533 / PC4200 you run run it at 333 and get quite a bit of headroom for overclocking without the memory running out of specifications.

for the newer P965 and older 865 I can only hope there are similar settings, don't know, google ?
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2006, 18:45   #4
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

I've updated the last page with info on the decrease of performance with PC5300 vs PC4200, thanks to Sintel for the clear explanation:

The Core 2 has a front side speed bus (FSB) of 266Mhz x 4 (Quadruple) “1066Mhz”, the ram is running at 266Mhz x2 (Dual Channel) x2 (DDR) = “1066Mhz”, so with PC4200 memory and FSB are running synchronized. When you use PC5300 you are no longer running synchronous with the FSB and a factor of x1.25 has to be used. The older Athlon XP from AMD also displayed this decrease in performance when running memory asynchronous, where memory latency is more important then memory bandwidth; the Core 2 technology is similar in this aspect. With the Pentium 4 the pipe lines were longer and the effect of running asynchronous which increased latency was masked.

By running the memory synchronous to the FSB you have the least amount of latency and thus performance is at its best. Why is PC6400, which is also running asynchronous faster then? Because the memory latency and speed is now that much higher that it compensates for the loss of running asynchronous and overall performance does increase. PC5300 worked great with Pentium 4 but it should be avoided when running Core 2.
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2006, 19:59   #5
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

it's still a bit more complicated it seems:

http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/sho...016#post180016

Quote:
Now we need to look at memory ratios.

In 800 strap we have the following ram ratios.

400,533,667,800 or as some quote them 1:1, 3:4, 3:5, 1:2

In 1066 strap we see the following.

400, 533, 667, 800 but the actual ratios have altered, 400 mode is now a down clock so the following applies.

400=4:3, 533=1:1, 667=4:5, 800=4:6

Moving to 1333 strap we see another change.

400= 5:3, 533=5:4, 667=1:1, 800=5:6
as the SYNC changes if you set a higher strap
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2006, 11:18   #6
impar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings!

How can you say that the reason is the synchronicity between the RAM and the FSB, if you only tested one FSB?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2006, 11:34   #7
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

if you read through the complete text of the forum post linked above, you'll see that by changing the CPU native FSB and thereby also the north bridge strap, you shift the 1:1 sync from 400 to 533 to 667; but even at 667/1333(FSB) the performance is lower, when running in sync, as the NB is running on higher latency to obtain this speed, thereby decreasing performance.

if you CAN change the NB strap, you can alter the NB strap setting, forcing it to run either slower/faster to give you more headroom for overclocking, but that something for a different article.
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2006, 23:18   #8
Xploited Titan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

mmm, I ordered my Core 2 Duo which will arrive second half of August.

I ordered 2GB dual channel G.Skill memory DDR2-800. I took that due to the timings offered (4-4-4-12) at that speed AND it being the lowest priced (near 180€).

Was that a good move? Or was there something better to be bought? If I could clock down the timings to something like 3-3-3-8, would it be interesting enough to try it, or just a waste of time?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 08:17   #9
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

if you are planning to overclock, the headroom of the DDR2-800 will allow you to run 1:1 while you increase the FSB
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 10:11   #10
impar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings!

But then, how to explain the weird behaviour of Quake4?
The performance at 800*600 rises with faster memory, regardless of being 1:1 or not.


From the article:
Quote:
The older Athlon XP from AMD also displayed this decrease in performance when running memory asynchronous...
The synchronicity feature on Athlon XPs applied only to nForce2, not VIAs chipsets.
So, other C2D chipsets may show a different behaviour, no?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Memory Speed and Triple vs Dual Channel Tested on Core i7 jmke WebNews 0 19th February 2010 09:43
Kingston Technology First to Ship 2133MHz HyperX Memory for Intel Core i5 Platform jmke WebNews 0 8th September 2009 09:42
Lynnfield chip will be called Intel Core i5 or Intel Core i7 depending on features jmke WebNews 0 18th June 2009 00:43
Kingston in bed with Intel for high speed SSD jmke WebNews 0 10th January 2009 14:50
Intel shifts future core ® processors into turbo mode jmke WebNews 0 21st August 2008 13:17
Memory speed impact on Intel Core 2 Systems jmke WebNews 5 3rd October 2007 17:06
Intel to Speed Up New Core 2-Based Xeon Introduction - June 19 jmke WebNews 0 18th May 2006 16:01
Astak Team Research PC4800 DDR-600 High Speed Memory Sidney WebNews 0 7th March 2005 21:16
Kingston DataTraveler 2.0 High Speed USB Memory Review jmke WebNews 1 27th September 2004 16:48
Intel Expands Intel Centrino Mobile Technology Line; New Price Points Sidney WebNews 0 24th June 2004 22:57

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO