• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

First AMD Benchmarks With DDR3 Memory Posted

ShadowFold

New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
16,918 (2.85/day)
Location
Omaha, NE
System Name The ShadowFold Draconis (Ordering soon)
Processor AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8ghz
Motherboard ASUS M4A87TD EVO AM3 AMD 870
Cooling Stock
Memory Kingston ValueRAM 4GB DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) XFX ATi Radeon HD 5850 1gb
Storage Western Digital 640gb
Display(s) Acer 21.5" 5ms Full HD 1920x1080P
Case Antec Nine-Hundred
Audio Device(s) Onboard + Creative "Fatal1ty" Headset
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 650w
Software Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
Benchmark Scores -❶-❸-❸-❼-
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
1,870 (0.32/day)
Processor RyZen R9 3950X
Motherboard ASRock X570 Taichi
Cooling Coolermaster Master Liquid ML240L RGB
Memory 64GB DDR4 3200 (4x16GB)
Video Card(s) RTX 3050
Storage Samsung 2TB SSD
Display(s) Asus VE276Q, VE278Q and VK278Q triple 27” 1920x1080
Case Zulman MS800
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply Seasonic 650W
VR HMD Oculus Rift, Oculus Quest V1, Oculus Quest 2
Software Windows 11 64bit
exactly, thats because there isn't any noticeable gain in performance with any new DDR jump.... and there won't be until they can figure out how to bring down latency.


My point, in case it was missed and my guess is that it was, simply is that the transition from DDR2 to DDR3 is the direction that the industry is going in. The transition from DDR1 to DDR2 was a certainty, why fight it?

For example, some people may want a super fast high end single core processor but Intel and AMD will be giving us Dual Core and Quad Core processors for these markets. Both companies will likely phase out even Dual Core,….

That’s life, just be thankful there isn’t a significant performance deficit in most cases with the new memory type,….. ;) Also be thankful that there is a choice between DDR2 and DDR3 for the Phenom II,….. Lord knows Core i7 users don’t have that choice :)
 

EastCoasthandle

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
6,885 (1.00/day)
System Name MY PC
Processor E8400 @ 3.80Ghz > Q9650 3.60Ghz
Motherboard Maximus Formula
Cooling D5, 7/16" ID Tubing, Maze4 with Fuzion CPU WB
Memory XMS 8500C5D @ 1066MHz
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT 858/900 to 4870 to 5870 (Keep Vreg area clean)
Storage 2
Display(s) 24"
Case P180
Audio Device(s) X-fi Plantinum
Power Supply Silencer 750
Software XP Pro SP3 to Windows 7
Benchmark Scores This varies from one driver to another.
If it's possible, one should just get DDR3-1600 at CL7 and try to get the best speed possible. Again, if the setup will allow you to boot with DDR3-1600 at DDR3-1333 (for example). Get the best stable OC for your PII and the highest possible speed for your ram.

Granted we will still need to see a full review between DDR2 vs DDR3. But if I one was to get a AM3 setup regardless, this would be the route I would take if the ram can be used.

However, another question arises from this. If you are not able to get DDR3-1600 can you do CL5 or CL6 at or around DDR3-1400 (for example)? Time will tell either through reviews or through personal experiences.
 

imperialreign

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
7,043 (1.15/day)
Location
Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
System Name УльтраФиолет
Processor Intel Kentsfield Q9650 @ 3.8GHz (4.2GHz highest achieved)
Motherboard ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi; X38 NSB, ICH9R SSB
Cooling Delta V3 block, XPSC res, 120x3 rad, ST 1/2" pump - 10 fans, SYSTRIN HDD cooler, Antec HDD cooler
Memory Dual channel 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800MHz @ 7-7-7-20 1T
Video Card(s) Quadfire: (2) Sapphire HD5970
Storage (2) WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA-300; WD 320GB SATA-300; WD 200GB UATA + WD 160GB UATA
Display(s) Samsung Syncmaster T240 24" (16:10)
Case Cooler Master Stacker 830
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro PCI-E x1
Power Supply Kingwin Mach1 1200W modular
Software Windows XP Home SP3; Vista Ultimate x64 SP2
Benchmark Scores 3m06: 20270 here: http://hwbot.org/user.do?userId=12313
exactly, thats because there isn't any noticeable gain in performance with any new DDR jump.... and there won't be until they can figure out how to bring down latency.

latency timings are not 100% of the performance equation when it comes to the next DDR series.

I'm not going to go into it here, as there are more than enough threads running around TPU that discuss this little aspect; there's no need to get hung up on the high-timings of DDR3 when you stop to consider how much more information DDR3 moves per clock cycle compared to DDR2.
 

iamverysmart

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
74 (0.01/day)
exactly, thats because there isn't any noticeable gain in performance with any new DDR jump.... and there won't be until they can figure out how to bring down latency.
The latency is fine. Do some research. The timings don't directly convert to latency.

For example you can have 1066Mhz C6 with lower latency then 800Mhz C4.
 

EastCoasthandle

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
6,885 (1.00/day)
System Name MY PC
Processor E8400 @ 3.80Ghz > Q9650 3.60Ghz
Motherboard Maximus Formula
Cooling D5, 7/16" ID Tubing, Maze4 with Fuzion CPU WB
Memory XMS 8500C5D @ 1066MHz
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT 858/900 to 4870 to 5870 (Keep Vreg area clean)
Storage 2
Display(s) 24"
Case P180
Audio Device(s) X-fi Plantinum
Power Supply Silencer 750
Software XP Pro SP3 to Windows 7
Benchmark Scores This varies from one driver to another.
What research? There are no benchmark results using AM3 yet. What we are looking for is to see what results are when AM3 is put to the test. At the time of this post, I don't know of any link providing this information. Do you have a link providing these results using AM3?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
3,638 (0.63/day)
Location
California
However, another question arises from this. If you are not able to get DDR3-1600 can you do CL5 or CL6 at or around DDR3-1400 (for example)? Time will tell either through reviews or through personal experiences.

Check the current market, there is no such DDR3 at that latency.

But here, the fastest DDR3, and it's not released yet.

It's tomshardware funded by Gigashit. What else do you expect?

GIGAshit? Lolz

At least, GIGA Boards don't need to boot from any kind of devices to update their board bios, (Press End when POST, and update your bios from FAT32 partition), and that isn't from Windows.
 
Last edited:

EastCoasthandle

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
6,885 (1.00/day)
System Name MY PC
Processor E8400 @ 3.80Ghz > Q9650 3.60Ghz
Motherboard Maximus Formula
Cooling D5, 7/16" ID Tubing, Maze4 with Fuzion CPU WB
Memory XMS 8500C5D @ 1066MHz
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT 858/900 to 4870 to 5870 (Keep Vreg area clean)
Storage 2
Display(s) 24"
Case P180
Audio Device(s) X-fi Plantinum
Power Supply Silencer 750
Software XP Pro SP3 to Windows 7
Benchmark Scores This varies from one driver to another.
Check the current market, there is no such DDR3 at that latency.

But here, the fastest DDR3, and it's not released yet.
I honestly don't think you understood my question. I am talking about when folk do us DDR3-1600 and are not able to actually get 1600 MHz (something lower around 1400 for example). Will they be able to use CL5 or CL6? This type of question cannot be answered until they are made available for use.
 

imperialreign

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
7,043 (1.15/day)
Location
Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
System Name УльтраФиолет
Processor Intel Kentsfield Q9650 @ 3.8GHz (4.2GHz highest achieved)
Motherboard ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi; X38 NSB, ICH9R SSB
Cooling Delta V3 block, XPSC res, 120x3 rad, ST 1/2" pump - 10 fans, SYSTRIN HDD cooler, Antec HDD cooler
Memory Dual channel 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800MHz @ 7-7-7-20 1T
Video Card(s) Quadfire: (2) Sapphire HD5970
Storage (2) WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA-300; WD 320GB SATA-300; WD 200GB UATA + WD 160GB UATA
Display(s) Samsung Syncmaster T240 24" (16:10)
Case Cooler Master Stacker 830
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro PCI-E x1
Power Supply Kingwin Mach1 1200W modular
Software Windows XP Home SP3; Vista Ultimate x64 SP2
Benchmark Scores 3m06: 20270 here: http://hwbot.org/user.do?userId=12313
I honestly don't think you understood my question. I am talking about when folk do us DDR3-1600 and are not able to actually get 1600 MHz (something lower around 1400 for example). Will they be able to use CL5 or CL6? This type of question cannot be answered until they are made available for use.

From what little I've seen, timings with DDR3 don't seem to make too phenomenal of a difference in terms of overall performance. DDR3 seems to benefit a lot more from higher clock speeds than it does tighter timings.
 

EastCoasthandle

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
6,885 (1.00/day)
System Name MY PC
Processor E8400 @ 3.80Ghz > Q9650 3.60Ghz
Motherboard Maximus Formula
Cooling D5, 7/16" ID Tubing, Maze4 with Fuzion CPU WB
Memory XMS 8500C5D @ 1066MHz
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT 858/900 to 4870 to 5870 (Keep Vreg area clean)
Storage 2
Display(s) 24"
Case P180
Audio Device(s) X-fi Plantinum
Power Supply Silencer 750
Software XP Pro SP3 to Windows 7
Benchmark Scores This varies from one driver to another.
From what little I've seen, timings with DDR3 don't seem to make too phenomenal of a difference in terms of overall performance. DDR3 seems to benefit a lot more from higher clock speeds than it does tighter timings.

IMO when it comes to ram speed is everything at a decent timing. I was speculating on a specific scenario were a user wasn't able to achieve DDR3-1600.

In the end, we will have to wait and see if they are able to actually get DDR3-1600 stable or not.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
856 (0.14/day)
Location
Eastern Tennessee
System Name Firebird
Processor Ryzen 7 1700X
Motherboard MSI X370 Titanium
Cooling Tt Water2.0 PRO (They use the same bracket as 3.0)
Memory G.Skill TridentZ 2x8GB 3200 15-15-15-35 B-Die (@3333 ATM)
Video Card(s) ASUS STRIX R9 390 8GB
Storage Too many. Samsung 750GB, 120GB 850 EVO, Seagate 1TB, Toshiba 1TB, OCZ 32GB Cache Drive
Display(s) Samsung 46" UN46D6050 1080P HDTV
Case Home-made tech bench.
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar Essence STX (I use HDMI though *cry*)
Power Supply CWT PUC1000V-S 1000W, Abee Supremer (import) 1200W currently used as primary.
Mouse Razer Copperhead (circa 2005)
Keyboard Tt Challenger Pro (AVOID! Keys wear super fast)
Software Win 10 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Meh.
On my Toledo 939 X2, the overclock HELP my latency. I get 47ns @ 450mhz mem and 2.7ghz CPU, but 49.9ns @ 426mhz mem and 2.55ghz CPU. This is Corsair 2x1gb XMS Platinum @ 2.5-3-3-6 1T (highest overall timing is only 9). So maybe that's a DDR2/3 issue with higher clocks making the memory's latency rise.
 

imperialreign

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
7,043 (1.15/day)
Location
Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
System Name УльтраФиолет
Processor Intel Kentsfield Q9650 @ 3.8GHz (4.2GHz highest achieved)
Motherboard ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi; X38 NSB, ICH9R SSB
Cooling Delta V3 block, XPSC res, 120x3 rad, ST 1/2" pump - 10 fans, SYSTRIN HDD cooler, Antec HDD cooler
Memory Dual channel 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800MHz @ 7-7-7-20 1T
Video Card(s) Quadfire: (2) Sapphire HD5970
Storage (2) WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA-300; WD 320GB SATA-300; WD 200GB UATA + WD 160GB UATA
Display(s) Samsung Syncmaster T240 24" (16:10)
Case Cooler Master Stacker 830
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro PCI-E x1
Power Supply Kingwin Mach1 1200W modular
Software Windows XP Home SP3; Vista Ultimate x64 SP2
Benchmark Scores 3m06: 20270 here: http://hwbot.org/user.do?userId=12313
IMO when it comes to ram speed is everything at a decent timing. I was speculating on a specific scenario were a user wasn't able to achieve DDR3-1600.

In the end, we will have to wait and see if they are able to actually get DDR3-1600 stable or not.

I tend to agree, but, in regards to DDR3, I don't think forcing lower CAS timings would prove to be that beneficial, even for users who can't push higher clock speeds.

In regards to my setup, I saw little benefit in forcing CAS6 versus my current timings at the same clock speed (1800). So little, actually, I decided that it wasn't worth the risk of instability to shave fractions of a ns off latency benches.

Granted, this is with a X38 chipset - AMD's might be a completely different ballpark in regards to actual operational performance of DDR3 on their setups.
 

Polarman

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
1,626 (0.28/day)
Location
Rimouski
System Name Polar's Dragon
Processor AMD Phenom II 975BE
Motherboard MSI 890FXA-GD65 (Bios 18.7)
Cooling Zalman CNPS 9700 Led
Memory Gskill 8GB DDR3-1333 (8,8,8,21)
Video Card(s) MSI HD6870 Hawk
Storage WD Raptor 250 - WD RE4 500GB
Display(s) Samsung T240 (1920 X1200)
Case Silverstone Raven 2
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC892
Power Supply PC Power&Cooling Silencer 750 (Red)
Software Windows 7 Home Premium 64Bit + SP1
Pretty pointless.

Everyone wants a DDR2 Vs DDR3 comparison using the exact same settings to actually see it it really does improve at all.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,277 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
just my two cents...that looks more like gigabyte marketing than anything else...Gigabyte GPUs, Board, CPU Cooler (which cannot be qualified as an OC cooler by any means)

That cooler looks sufficient for a 2.60 to 3.10 GHz OC (voltage is constant), though the marketing crap is where they used two HD 2600 XT silent cards.

This p(r)eview shows performance scaling with an overclock that roughly sends the memory frequency to that of DDR3-1600.
 

EastCoasthandle

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
6,885 (1.00/day)
System Name MY PC
Processor E8400 @ 3.80Ghz > Q9650 3.60Ghz
Motherboard Maximus Formula
Cooling D5, 7/16" ID Tubing, Maze4 with Fuzion CPU WB
Memory XMS 8500C5D @ 1066MHz
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT 858/900 to 4870 to 5870 (Keep Vreg area clean)
Storage 2
Display(s) 24"
Case P180
Audio Device(s) X-fi Plantinum
Power Supply Silencer 750
Software XP Pro SP3 to Windows 7
Benchmark Scores This varies from one driver to another.
I tend to agree, but, in regards to DDR3, I don't think forcing lower CAS timings would prove to be that beneficial, even for users who can't push higher clock speeds.

In regards to my setup, I saw little benefit in forcing CAS6 versus my current timings at the same clock speed (1800). So little, actually, I decided that it wasn't worth the risk of instability to shave fractions of a ns off latency benches.

Granted, this is with a X38 chipset - AMD's might be a completely different ballpark in regards to actual operational performance of DDR3 on their setups.

Thus the reason why we have to wait until either
A. Someone tests it for themselves and post results
B. A review is made available regarding the subject

In the end, what can be said without speculating is that if a lower latency doesn't hurt performance and proves to be stable there is no reason why one shouldn't.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
5,250 (0.90/day)
Location
IRAQ-Baghdad
System Name MASTER
Processor Core i7 3930k run at 4.4ghz
Motherboard Asus Rampage IV extreme
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 4x4G kingston hyperx beast 2400mhz
Video Card(s) 2X EVGA GTX680
Storage 2X Crusial M4 256g raid0, 1TbWD g, 2x500 WD B
Display(s) Samsung 27' 1080P LED 3D monitior 2ms
Case CoolerMaster Chosmos II
Audio Device(s) Creative sound blaster X-FI Titanum champion,Creative speakers 7.1 T7900
Power Supply Corsair 1200i, Logitch G500 Mouse, headset Corsair vengeance 1500
Software Win7 64bit Ultimate
Benchmark Scores 3d mark 2011: testing
good , but the new gigabyte mobo support 1600 ram fsb , why they use 1333
 

Bl4ck

New Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
74 (0.01/day)
Location
Mental Hospital called Poland
System Name the HandsomeRulerOfTheUniverse was taken
Processor Q6600 G0 @ 3600Mhz @1.35V~1.4
Motherboard MSI P35Neo2 FIR
Cooling LC - EK Multioption res,EK DC 4.0, Swiftech Apogee GT, Feser Tubes.
Memory 2x2GB Kingston HyperX
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX275 overclocked.
Storage Samsung F1 750GB
Display(s) LG 2261VP-PF HDMI
Case Coolermaster Dominator (RC690)
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Extreme Gamer
Power Supply Corsair HX520
Software Win7 Ultimate x64
i know what my next cpu will be ;], time to go quad, Intel is to pricey for me , i rather give the money to AMD for now , not really need those "super pi breakers" ;]
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
40,435 (6.61/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
5,250 (0.90/day)
Location
IRAQ-Baghdad
System Name MASTER
Processor Core i7 3930k run at 4.4ghz
Motherboard Asus Rampage IV extreme
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 4x4G kingston hyperx beast 2400mhz
Video Card(s) 2X EVGA GTX680
Storage 2X Crusial M4 256g raid0, 1TbWD g, 2x500 WD B
Display(s) Samsung 27' 1080P LED 3D monitior 2ms
Case CoolerMaster Chosmos II
Audio Device(s) Creative sound blaster X-FI Titanum champion,Creative speakers 7.1 T7900
Power Supply Corsair 1200i, Logitch G500 Mouse, headset Corsair vengeance 1500
Software Win7 64bit Ultimate
Benchmark Scores 3d mark 2011: testing
next logical step, and 1600 ram is really for overclocking anyway.

i mean i want to see overclock the 1600 ddr3 , how much this mobo can handle
 

nanohead

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
122 (0.02/day)
I'm staying with DDR2 AM2+ until there is a material difference that I can feel in day to day work, or DDR3 is almost as cheap as DDR2 is now.

While the amount of data moved in and out of memory with DDR3 is somewhat greater, remember that DDR3 was really motivated by large power reductions (claimed 30%) over DDR2, and less so for lower latency.

And everyone complained with DDR2 CAS numbers went from 1.5 or 2 all the way up to 7 when DDR2 was initially released. Somehow we survived that horrific event in human history :roll:
 

Lozza

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
43 (0.01/day)
Location
Great Wyrley-UK
System Name Heap O' Junk
Processor AMD Opteron 165 @ 2.8ghz
Motherboard ASUS A8R32-MVP Deluxe
Cooling Gigabyte G-Power Pro
Memory 2GB (2 x 1GB) G.Skill ZX
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT
Storage 2x250GB RAID0 7200.10 Seagate & 160GB WD Caviar SE
Display(s) 24" LCD
Case Thermaltake Lanfire Xaser III
Audio Device(s) Creative Audigy 2 Platinum ex
Power Supply Silverstone Zeus ST75ZF
Software Dual boot vista/xp pro
The overclocked chip scored a crunch-time of 46.613 s (1M).

That seems ridiculous. My Opteron 165 scores 30.907s in 1M at 2.8GHz so there is definitly something wrong with their testing, or the chips have somehow got worse.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
298 (0.05/day)
Location
Serbia, Nis
System Name Fedora-bluesky
Processor AMD FX 8350
Motherboard Asus 970A Pro Gaming
Cooling Noctua U14S
Memory Kingston 2x8192MB 667MHz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte 960TI
Storage 2 x WD RED 2TB, 64GB SSD
Display(s) Dell 1920x1200 24"
Software Ubuntu, Fedora, Open Source Software...
Explanation

That seems ridiculous. My Opteron 165 scores 30.907s in 1M at 2.8GHz so there is definitly something wrong with their testing, or the chips have somehow got worse.

That's what I thought too. Is that a normal score?

EDIT: OK, here is the explanation:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3600818&postcount=3

I noticed a few mistakes/issues in their preview.First of all,their wPrime numbers are way off,it looks like wprime used only 1 core instead of 4 cores(take 46s for 3.12Ghz OCed AM3 Phenom II,apply the 3.89x scaling with 4 cores and you get right in the territory of known and valid scores for Phenom IIs at that clock).
Second,the OCed superPI number is not valid,it should be around 21.9s,instead they listed almost the same results for 1M for stock and OCed CPU.
Third,as they wrote the BIOS is not optimized for performance but for stability at this moment and they expect a performance lift(probably a few %s,still worth mentioning):
 
Last edited:

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
40,435 (6.61/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
That seems ridiculous. My Opteron 165 scores 30.907s in 1M at 2.8GHz so there is definitly something wrong with their testing, or the chips have somehow got worse.

DDR 1 vs DDR 3 dude, do the math, IIRC the HTT setup is a lowlatency solution, not a massive bandwidth solution like Core 2/P4/AM0D XP was.

also with this comparison

DDR1 PC 3200 (400MTS) VS DDR2 PC2 6400 (800MTS)

both get work done at the same time, but it takes the PC2 to run at a slower latency and higher bandwidth to get it done aka
222 5 (DDR) vs 444 10 (DDR2) etc now if DDR was Upped to PC 6400 it would eat PC2 6400 alive.
 
Last edited:

spearman914

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
3,338 (0.57/day)
Location
Brooklyn, New York 11223
System Name Mine | Dad + Mom
Processor E8500 E0 Wolfdale @ 4.6GHz 1.5V | E2180 M0 Allendale @ 3.0GHz 1.3V
Motherboard Asus Maximus Formula (X48) w/ Rampage BIOS | Asus P5Q Pro (P45)
Cooling Xigmatek Rifle HDT-S1283 w/ SFF21F Fan | Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
Memory G.Skill Pi Black 2x2GB 1.02GHz CL5 | OCZ Reaper 2x2GB 1.05GHz CL5
Video Card(s) Sapphire 4870X2 2GB 820/1020MHz | Sapphire 4850 1GB 700/1100MHz
Storage WD VR 150GB 10K RPM + WD 500GB 7.2K RPM | WD 200GB 7.2K RPM
Display(s) Acer P243WAID 24" 1920x1200 LCD | Acer V193W 19" 1440x900 LCD
Case Cooler Master HAF 932 Full-Tower | Antec Twelve Hundred Mid-Tower
Audio Device(s) Fatal1ty Xtreme Gamer w/ Z-5500 5.1 | On-Board Audio w/ S-220 2.1
Power Supply PC Power and Cooling 750W Non-Modular | Corsair HX-520W Modular
Software Windows Vista Home Premium X64 | Windows Vista Home Premium X64
Benchmark Scores Not Wasting Time!
500MHz is a fine oc. Keep it up, AMD!!
 

Lozza

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
43 (0.01/day)
Location
Great Wyrley-UK
System Name Heap O' Junk
Processor AMD Opteron 165 @ 2.8ghz
Motherboard ASUS A8R32-MVP Deluxe
Cooling Gigabyte G-Power Pro
Memory 2GB (2 x 1GB) G.Skill ZX
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT
Storage 2x250GB RAID0 7200.10 Seagate & 160GB WD Caviar SE
Display(s) 24" LCD
Case Thermaltake Lanfire Xaser III
Audio Device(s) Creative Audigy 2 Platinum ex
Power Supply Silverstone Zeus ST75ZF
Software Dual boot vista/xp pro
DDR 1 vs DDR 3 dude, do the math, IIRC the HTT setup is a lowlatency solution, not a massive bandwidth solution like Core 2/P4/AM0D XP was.

also with this comparison

DDR1 PC 3200 (400MTS) VS DDR2 PC2 6400 (800MTS)

both get work done at the same time, but it takes the PC2 to run at a slower latency and higher bandwidth to get it done aka
222 5 (DDR) vs 444 10 (DDR2) etc now if DDR was Upped to PC 6400 it would eat PC2 6400 alive.

I see what you're trying to say, that now RAM is now more focused on bandwidth instead of latency.

But what I'm saying is that it should be able to produce better results despite this, because if you look at the price difference and how new the tech is you would expect it to be faster than a 2+ year old tech. It's the same as when DDR2 800 came out originally, the figures were similar to DDR 400 because of the latencies. The only thing going for it was the power consumption. That's only for the memory tests though.

But then if you look at Core 2 figures and Phenom figures in a superpi test the Core 2 is better even using the same RAM with the same latencies - so there is still scalability with respect to clock speed/computing power of the chip.

So I would expect the new chips to be better than the old one, even if they are using this "slower" memory.
 
Top