Searching for the Memory Holy Grail: Part 1
by Wesley Fink on July 27, 2003 11:13 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Intel White Papers Confirm Results
We have seen that SiSoft Sandra UNBuffered Memory benchmarks show four DIMMs to perform better than two in all configurations at DDR400 or higher base speeds on the 875/865 chipsets. However, MemTest86 Bandwidth and Sandra Standard Memory benchmark do not show improvement in going from two to four double-sided DIMMs. So why do we believe Sandra UNBuffered Memory benchmarks?
The answer, surprisingly, is in Intel 875P Chipset Memory Configuration Guide White Paper and the Intel 865P Chipset Memory Configuration Guide White Paper. The tables below are taken from Page 13 of the 875P White Paper, but the tables are identical in both the 865 and 875 documents, except that the first and second positions are reversed in the DDR400 chart for the 865. The Intel performance rankings exactly match the rankings we have measured using SiSoft Sandra UNBuffered Memory Test. It is interesting that UNBuffered Sandra was able to distinguish the performance differences between #1 and #2 –- four double-sided vs. two double-sided. This performance distinction was not apparent in either MemTest86 Bandwidth or SiSoft Sandra Standard Memory Test.
| DDR400 Performance Configurations on Intel 875/865 from Intel White Papers |
|||||
| DDR Speed | Number of DIMMS | Sides per DIMM | Mode | SC or DC | Performance |
| 400 MHz | 4 | 2 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 1 (2 for 865) |
| 400 MHz | 2 | 2 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 2 (1 for 865) |
| 400 MHz | 4 | 1 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 2 |
| 400 MHz | 2 | 1 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 3 |
| 400 MHz | 4 | any | Normal | Dual Channel | 4 |
| 400 MHz | any | 2 | Dynamic | Single Channel | 5 |
| 400 MHz | any | 1 | Dynamic | Single Channel | 6 |
| 400 MHz | any | any | Normal | Single Channel | 7 |
| DDR266/333 Performance Configurations on Intel 875/865 from Intel White Papers |
|||||
| DDR Speed | Number of DIMMS | Sides per DIMM | Mode | SC or DC | Performance |
| 233/333 MHz | 2 | 2 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 1 |
| 233/333 MHz | 4 | 1 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 1 |
| 233/333 MHz | 2 | 1 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 2 |
| 233/333 MHz | 4 | 2 | Dynamic | Dual Channel | 3 |
| 233/333 MHz | any | any | Normal | Dual Channel | 4 |
| 233/333 MHz | 2 (1 in each channel) |
any | Dynamic | Single Channel | 5 |
| 233/333 MHz | 1 | 2 | Dynamic | Single Channel | 5 |
| 233/333 MHz | any | 1 | Dynamic | Single Channel | 6 |
| 233/333 MHz | any | any | Normal | Single Channel | 7 |
While we didn’t test Asynchronous 5:4 or 3:2 performance, or Memory Performance when using a 533FSB CPU, the DDR266/333 table should be useful for those situations. When running DDR333/266 as a base speed, two double-sided DIMMS or four single-sided DIMMS perform the fastest. Two single-sided DIMMs are second in speed performance, and four double-sided DIMMs – the fastest performer at DDR400 and higher – drops to third place.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Friday, August 1, 2003 - link
Thanks, Michael. Your comments are appreciated, since your memory reviews are always a "must read" for everyone in the industry.I got an idea for an article from your review of OCZ3700 GOLD at Lost Circuits. When it posts at AnandTech, I think you will find it interesting.
You may want to look at some of ThugsRook's game benches posted in the Forums here. As a skeptic he was trying to prove SS/DS made no difference in game benches. What he found, however, was that SS game benches were consisitently lower than DS benches. The differences were smaller than we see with SiSoft unbuffered, as expected, but they appear to be genuine.
MS - Friday, August 1, 2003 - link
Nice review, Wes.One single issue I have is that if you are running SiSoft unbuffered, you constantly hammer the memory, which means that the idle counter will not go in effect and you keep the maximum number of pages open at all times (I believe it is 32 combined to 16 wide pages in dual channel mode). This is really why you see the performance benefit with double-sided DIMMs.
However, in real life applications, this benefit is not present, at least as far as I can tell. No criticism intended, just a side-note.
Regards
Michael
p.s. and the guys who did some of the performance studies at Intel used to call me quite a few times .. :-)
Anonymous User - Friday, August 1, 2003 - link
This reads too much like an ad by OCZ - any non-OCZ users of the P4P800 Deluxe Asus board got a recommendation for best memory sticks to get stable, solid 1 gig of DDR333 (little, if any OC)? ThanksAnonymous User - Friday, August 1, 2003 - link
In fact OCZ announced PC-3700 Gold Quad pairs at 2003-07-03 for Intel 875 chipset.:SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA
OCZ Announces Dual Channel Gold Quad kits.
OCZ is pleased to announce the release of OCZ PC-3700 Dual Channel Gold EL DDR memory in 1GB kits featuring quad 256mb modules based on OCZ's recently developed Hyperspeed and Extended Voltage Protection (EVP) technologies.
OCZ HyperSpeed® technology denotes specific OCZ EL DDR ICs built and selected for their ability to run at the highest possible frequency. EVP protection allows the modules to tolerate higher voltage without compromising stability.
"OCZ PC3700 Gold has been a dominant product," said Steve Lee, Director of Strategic Business Development. "By offering hand-tested and matched quad 256mb modules, we have the best solution for dual channel configurations on the market."
OCZ Dual Channel Gold Quad memory will be shipping in 1GB PC-3700 Dual Channel optimized kits rated at CL 2-3-7-3 with an operating frequency of 2.75 volts. Each module is backed by OCZ's Lifetime Warranty and features a Gold layered copper heatspreader. The four matched 256MB modules are tested together on the Abit IC7-G to ensure maximum stability and performance.
OCZ Dual Channel Gold memory has been designed specifically for use with the Intel Canterwood and Springdale chipsets, and thus offers the best performance on these platforms
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - link
512MB Dimms are usually DS, but that will be changing with higher-density chips coming out. @56MB Dimms are normally SS right now, but there are exceptions like OCZ 3700 GOLD which are 256MB and Double Bank. The last page of the article has charts which give recommendations from best to worst performance based on memory configuration. The data is from our own testing and the Intel White Papers.We will include some game benches in Part 2, but ThugsRook, who regularly posts in the Anand Forums, has posted some game benches at several sites showing the performance difference in SS and DS memory modules in gaming performance.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - link
Thanks (#25) - I too have noticed that memory vendors claims and board manufacturer compatibility charts are often at odds - seems like it's left up to the builder to actually try it and see if it runs ... (ref post #19).Anonymous User - Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - link
I noticed that Asus in their P4C800 description (on their web page) says that some manufacturer's memory can only be used in certain configurations - some branda are limited to 2 sticks and some are limited in the total GB size.The reason they say is: "For optimum performance and overclocking stability". But if true it was rather surprising. For example, in the case of Kingston memory, Asus only two 512 sticks can be used.
I pointed this out to Kingston and they simply responded that four sticks can be used for a total of 2 GB. The tech ignored making any comment about the Asus statement.
So I suppose 4 sticks can be used as long as you run them at the stated settings. But I am not sure Asus means about "optimum performance".
Anonymous User - Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - link
Some real world benchmarks wure would have been nice, even if only 640x480 Quake3 numbers, just to get an idea if there really is a payoff to warrant the added cost that filling 4 banks vs 2 would entail.Anonymous User - Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - link
I'd also like to see what this means in the real world. I would be interested in some gaming benchmarks, particularly UT2003.Thanks for the excellent article!
Anonymous User - Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - link
Hey Prometheus, please check this asap:http://www.overclockers.com/tips00438/
great article btw ;)