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 3rd August 2006, 10:16   #11
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,579
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

even with VIA there was an noticeable performance increase if both CPU:MEM were running in sync

Quote:
The results obtained by the memory subsystem in SiSoft Sandra 2002 benchmark prove our conclusions once again. DDR333 turns out much more efficient if not only the DDR SDRAM frequency grows but also the processor bus frequency. In standard VIA KT333 mode, however, that is when the FSB frequency is 133MHz, the use of faster DDR333 memory instead of DDR266 hardly tells on the performance. This observation lets us conclude that it would make much more sense to use DDR333 in Athlon systems supporting synchronously working 166MHz CPU bus.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...lonxp-166.html

the Quake 4 results mirror the synthetic Sisoft Sandra benchmark where raw memory BANDWIDTH wins over lower LATENCIES

you can compare 667 5-5-5-15 vs 533 3-3-3-8 and will see the result difference remains consistent in all benchmarks.
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 10:17   #12
[M] Reviewer/HWBot *****
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,344
RichBa5tard Freshly Registered
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by onetimeposter
Greetings!
....
Quote:
onetimeposter. posts 2 (0.00 posts per day)

liar!
__________________
HTPC (mac osx): Mac Mini | Core Duo 1.6Ghz | 2GB DDR2 | 26\" TFT
Development (mac osx): Macbook | Core 2 2.0Ghz | 4GB DDR2 | 250GB HD
Games (win xp): E2160 @ 2.4Ghz | HD3850 OC | Asrock 4coredual-vsta | 2GB DDR2
RichBa5tard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 10:40   #13
impar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings!
Quote:
Originally posted by jmke
[b]even with VIA there was an noticeable performance increase if both CPU:MEM were running in sync
Check this article:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chi...cketa-400.html
Particularly, the FSB333 tests:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chi...eta-400_7.html
Where you see the KT600-FSB333-DDR400 faster than KT600-FSB333-DDR333.

The nForce2 chipset was built to achieve better performance at 1:1. Will look for the PDF.
Quote:
Originally posted by RichBa5tard
liar!
Not really. The forum no longer recognized my username and when I tried to re-register, it didnt allowed me to use my e-mail, as it said it was in use. I asked for it to send the username/password to the e-mail and got this new username.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 10:48   #14
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,579
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

what was your old username?

article I linked seemed to be a bit dated, your link is better, thanks! And for the Core2 the same still applies, as DDR2 800 is faster then DDR2 533 , although DDR2 800 is not running in sync

raw bandwith overcomes the lower latencies, but if you check PC4200 with very tight timings (3-3-3-8) you see it's not trailing far behind PC6400.
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 11:10   #15
impar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings!
Quote:
Originally posted by jmke
what was your old username?
Should have been the usual one, "impar". If you have access to the member database, could you see to which username is my e-mail attributed to?
Quote:
Originally posted by jmke
And for the Core2 the same still applies, as DDR2 800 is faster then DDR2 533 , although DDR2 800 is not running in sync
Yeah... so the comparison to Athlon XP shouldnt be made on the article. As you can see on the XbitLabs article, the nForce2 was what made the Athlon XP work better at 1:1.
Granted, every enthusiast had a nF2, not a KT600 motherboard.
If it had to be compared to any CPU it would be the A64, for its love for tight timings.
Per this article:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=325



Found the nForce2 PDF:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/LO_20021105_7263.html
Check at the bottom of page 2.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 11:23   #16
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,579
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

"No users found matching those criteria." for Impar ... weird can you find your older username in the memberlist? http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/memberlist.php?s=
I could just change your current nickname to the one you want too

well.. tight timings AND running in sync, as even with tight timings the 667 does not do better than 533
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 12:00   #17
impar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings!
Quote:
Originally posted by jmke I could just change your current nickname to the one you want too
Then, please do change it for "impar".
Quote:
Originally posted by jmke
well.. tight timings AND running in sync, as even with tight timings the 667 does not do better than 533
Ok, then.
I still think that the comparison to Athlon XP shouldnt be made and that the article should have been made using other FSBs than the default (lets face it, Madshrimps readers wont run theirs C2D at default).

Also, and this is a picky one, when I read PC3200 I still think DDR-400, not DDR2-400. PC2-3200 is the acronym I relate to DDR2-400.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 12:41   #18
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,579
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by onetimeposter
lets face it, Madshrimps readers wont run theirs C2D at default
I disagree with you here; I run my main system at default speed.

we'll have an overclocking Core 2 / DDR2 article pending, this one is for mainstream and does help people a lot; just today a friend send me his new PC config, he doesnt overclock, he mixxed his E6600 with DDR2-800 which sky rocketted the price (180 for 512Mb ) so .. yes this article is for our readers, which (hopefully) doesn't solely include overclockers but PC enthusiasts and mainstream also
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 13:04   #19
impar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings!
Quote:
Originally posted by jmke ... yes this article is for our readers, which (hopefully) doesn't solely include overclockers but PC enthusiasts and mainstream also
That would make an interesting poll for the Home page.

If you can, on the upcoming C2D overclocking article, test different RAM speeds/timings. I know its a lot of work...

Regarding username, thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2006, 13:12   #20
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,579
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

well, the ram timings/speed have been mostly tested here, what we'll try is to see if a higher FSB on CPU helps performance (in combination with lower multiplier to keep CPU speed the same) with Athlon XP this FSB increase paid of well, it worked good with P4 too, less with Athlon 64 (if not at all) so it'll be interesting to see how the Core 2 will handle this;

here is a test by Hardware France (translated) which looks at timings/DDR2 speed and FSB speed: http://www.behardware.com/articles/6...-duo-test.html

Quote:
Originally posted by impar
That would make an interesting poll for the Home page.
mainstream users would come from other sites, google searches, forums, etc; they won't see the main site, and even if they did, spend time to cast a vote. They want information served fast and clearly; spending time on reading a large page and clicking on links which "polls" is not high on their priority.

If I started a poll and the "mainstream user" got 0 votes, it would actually prove that point
__________________
jmke is offline   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 02:45.


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