Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2by Wesley Fink on August 26, 2003 11:11 PM EST
- Posted in
We looked for the best performing memory configuration for the 865/875 motherboard in Part 1 of “Searching for the Memory Holy Grail”. In Part 2, we will benchmark the latest high-speed memory, DDR500 and DDR466, to determine how it performs on the Intel 865/875 platform.
When Part 1 was published a few weeks ago, the fastest memory that we had tested was a DDR466 module called OCZ 3700 Gold. It was the first memory we tested to pass the DDR500 mark, which represents a raw bus speed of 250. Since the Pentium 4 bus is quad-pumped, that translates to a Front Side Bus of 1000MHz or ONE GHz — a milestone in FSB speed.
Now, just a few weeks later, we have memory from five manufacturers that claim to run at DDR500. We have even seen a recent announcement from Geil of PC4200 (DDR533) memory. Intel legitimized DDR400 with the 875/865 chipsets, and that is now an official JEDEC standard. These faster memories, however, are basically built to DDR400 specifications, and then tested by their manufacturers to run at the much faster DDR500 speed. There is no official standard yet for DDR500, but all of the manufacturers seem to be using the 875/865 chipset motherboards to verify their high-speed performance. Frankly, there is no real need for DDR500 on the current fastest AMD chipsets — the nForce2 Ultra 400 and VIA KT600 — since neither the chipsets nor the Athlon CPUs have shown any capability of reaching DDR500 performance levels. While this may change with the introduction of Athlon64, the DDR500 and high-speed memory phenomenon is, for now, an Intel chipset playground — primarily related to the Intel 875/865 chipsets.
Things are organized a bit differently in our Part 2 of “Searching for the Memory Holy Grail”. We were forced to modify our testbed in order to better test the performance of the new DDR500 modules. We also added Game performance and Number Crunching benchmarks to Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test to confirm results with real-world benchmarks.
Armed with the fastest memory available from Adata, Corsair, Geil, Kingston, and OCZ, our quest is to find the best performing memory for your Canterwood (875) or Springdale (865) computer.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
dshodson - Friday, September 5, 2003 - linkSo what is the best memory to put in my new dell server coming in a week which has the 875 chip. I heard u cant really overclock this system although i havent received mine yet.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 2, 2003 - linkSorry about the typos ( its 11:36 PM here )
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 2, 2003 - linkUberclocker ,
If your having a problem with a OCZ part , email me directly , Most problems are related it simple setup issues , and your problem is verry likely fixed in a few simple steps , or with a bios update
My email is email@example.com
I will not like answer your email until tomorow ( tuesday ) as today is a holiday and I am not in the office today
Anonymous User - Monday, September 1, 2003 - linkHello, I have followd your recommendation and bought an OCZ 4000 in Germany, this weekend. Unfortunately it has not performed to its specification. Can you tell me if there is a special part number I should look for to get their special 'reviewers golden sample' ?
Anonymous User - Saturday, August 30, 2003 - linkI think if you have a cpu that will do 250 FSB and you purchase memory based on this article and you get within 98% of the results posted in this article, you owe Wesley $10.00. If 20% of the people with favorable results donated, there would be no more need to advertise. Now for the people who did not purchase ram based on this article and are bitching about it being bias, what are you bitching for?. This article has not cost you a cent.
Thanks Wesley, you saved me a $100 on ram. I almost got caught up in all the hype about 4000 and 4200.
Anonymous User - Saturday, August 30, 2003 - linkThis article goes part way to answering the question of what memory configuration is fastest but I was disappointed that there was no variation in ratio.
I would like to see a review that tests agressive timings against high frequency to see what produces the best results.
Also a test of all P4C chips running @ 3.6Ghz to see whether there's any benefit in buying the fastest chip.
With most motherboards easily hitting 1Ghz are we likely to be seeing a P4D which supports a 1066Mhz FSB?
Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - linkI think the way to do these reviews is to tell the manufacturer you'd like to include them in a review, purchase the memory from a store you trust, and then get re-imbursed by the manufacturer. That way, there'd be no selected modules and you would know what you were going to put into the review (4 ss vs 2 ds).
So, when do we get that part 2 of the 865/875 mobo roundup ?
retrospooty - Friday, August 29, 2003 - linkWesley,
I have run these tests myself on an IC7G at 200 , 230 250 and 280 FSB and found that 5:4 2-2-2 always beats 1:1 at 2.5-4-4, even 2.5 4-3 ... However SOME motherboards arent as efficient at 5:4 with some types of ram as others... If you try the same test on several different mobo's I think you will find that 5:4 2-2-2 is quite a bit faster in non-synthetic mem test benchmarks.
Oldfart # 64, you are right about the reviewers and using the synthetic tests to boost sales. good point.
Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - linkIf your not going to overclock, get low latency pc 3200 or 3500, the PC4000 wont help you at all
even IF you ARE going to overclock, the PC4000 will not likely get you better performance.
Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link#67 I'm not an expert by any means but here is how I understand this discussion:
If you are planning to use one of the faster processors such as the 3.0C you won't be able to achieve a big overclock because the multiplier for that processor is 15. If you want to use a higher speed processor such as the 2.8C or the 3.0c, you really dont need to spend the money on faster memory such as the PC4000 because you probably won't be able to overclock to a point that you will be able to reach a front side bus speed of 250mhz which is the lowest rated speed (x2=ddr500) of the memory module. So as the article has explained,you would be better off with
slower ram that has faster timings. However, if you have a slower processor such as the 2.4C or the 2.6C, you should be able to achieve a higher overclock because these processors have lower multipliers. In this case you would need faster ram such as the PC4000, because with these processors many have been able to set their front side bus up to and beyond 250mhz. In most scenarios with fast processors/slower ram vs slower processors/faster ram, IMHO, the performance difference may be fairly equal. What is really happening is a cost/benefit consideration. As always be careful!!! Overclocking can damage your system...you do it at your own risk!