Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules
by Wesley Fink on October 1, 2004 12:45 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Test Results: G. Skill TCCD
To be considered stable for test purposes, Quake3 benchmark, UT2003 Demo, Super PI, Aquamark 3, and Comanche 4 had to complete without incident. Any of these, and in particular Super PI, will crash a less-than stable memory configuration. We have also included results for RCW-ET using the Radar benchmark.| G. Skill TCCD - 2 x 512Mb Double-Bank | |||||||
| CPU Ratio at 2.4GHz | Memory Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage |
Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
Wolfenstein - Radar - Enemy Territory fps |
| 12x200 | 400 DDR | 2-2-2-10 2.6V 1T |
512.7 | INT 2636 FLT 2767 |
INT 6117 FLT 6046 |
81 | 110.4 |
| 11x218 | 438 DDR | 2-3-2-10 2.8V 1T |
513.4 | INT 2791 FLT 2928 |
INT 6486 FLT 6415 |
80 | 110.7 |
| 10x240 | 480 DDR | 2.5-3-3-10 2.85V 1T |
520.4 | INT 2794 FLT 3035 |
INT 6707 FLT 6609 |
80 | 111.5 |
| 9x267 | 533 DDR | 2.5-4-3-10 2.85V 1T |
525.5 | INT 3032 FLT 3226 |
INT 6956 FLT 6875 |
79 | 112.5 |
| 8x292(2.34GHz) | Highest Mem Speed 584 DDR |
3-4-4-10 2.85V 2T |
503.9 | INT 2779 FLT 2969 |
INT 6595 FLT 6514 |
81 | 108.2 |
| 9x285(2.57GHz) | HIGHEST Performance 570 DDR |
2.5-4-3-10 2.85V 1T |
557.8 | INT 3321 FLT 3429 |
INT 7408 FLT 7287 |
74 | 119.8 |
When we first tested memory based on the Samsung TCCD chips, none of the modules performed as well on the Athlon 64 as they did on the Intel test bed. At that time, TCCD topped out at a bit over 500 on Intel and about 466 on the Athlon 64. The lone exception to this was the newest OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2, which reached much higher on the Intel and to at least DDR500 on the A64 platform.
It is now clear with the G. Skill and other later TCCD memory in the roundup that the OCZ performance was not a fluke. All of the recent TCCD is now doing even better on the A64 than they do on Intel.
In the course of testing for this review, we also stumbled upon another mild surprise. We had been using a major brand 465 watt Power Supply in one of the A64 test beds with the FX53 and an nVidia 6800 Ultra video card. We were experiencing serious problems with video corruption and we were also seeing lower overclocks on memory in the 465 watt machine. We switched to the 520 watt OCZ PowerStream power supply in the problem test bed and found that video corruption disappeared and memory overclocks reached higher levels. Out of curiosity, we switched to the ATI 9800 PRO in the same test bed. We did not experience video corruption with the ATI and the 465W power supply, but memory overclocks were still lower with the 465 than what we could achieve with the PowerStream 520W.
Based on our experience, we would recommend a quality 500 watt+ power supply if you plan to seriously overclock memory on the Socket 939 platform. The difference in performance is substantial, with higher overclocks possible with the larger quality power supply. For that reason, we have updated the specifications of our A64 memory test bed to the 520W OCZ PowerStream.
The G. Skill reached DDR582 at 2T and achieved the best performance at 1T at DDR570. Both of these overclocks are substantially higher than what we could achieve on the Intel test bed with the same memory.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
#22, #25 and others -The 465W power supply that was not up to the job had the following specifications:
+3.3V - 38A
+5V - 44A
+12V - 20A
-5V - 2A
-12V - 1A
+5Vsb - 2.2A
I would never have had any reason to suspect issues with this expensive major brand PS based on those specs, but in fact it turned out to be the limiting factor in overclocking the memory.
This issue requires more investigation as there are many possible reasons for my experience, but I felt an obligation to let readers know what we found in our testing. However, it is not fair to name brands without much more evidence.
Blappo - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Hopefully the value memory roundup will also contain some generic memory as well. Knowing which premium memory is the faster is good, but I want to know how much of a difference memory makes on system performance. I don't want to spend 50% more for only 5% more performance. That money could be better spent somewhere else.I'm glad that AnandTech did this article since everywhere else they only benchmark memory on Intel systems.
Blappo - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
PrinceXizor - I agree completely. However, with higher wattage PSU most of the extra power comes on the 12V rail. I think that is why nVidia is recommending "monster" PSU for their high-end graphics cards because it is easier to tell people to buy a 480W PSU rather than a PSU that can deliver 22A (or whatever) on the 12V rail.Spearhawk - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
15: 20A? You're kiding right? My oven are at 20A.decptt - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
My Ballistix performance=============================================
"Dec" copyright since Duron600@1000
=============================================
Athlon64 Mobile 3200+ Rev.SH7-CG
AMA3200BEX5AR-ClawHammer L2:1MB
10x250 vid:1.5v+113%(~1.70v)
Idle@36C Load(Prime95)@43C
[10x255 worked @~1.97v Loaded(Prime95)@55C]
Crucial Ballistix PC3200 512MBx2 vcore:2.70v
Ratio = 1:1 ; TCl:2.5-Trcd:3-Tras:5-Trp:3 1T
ATI AIW 9600XT 128MB BUS:75 vcore:1.6v
DFI Lanparty UT NF3-250 Rev.A00 Bios.9/14(Beta)
LDT/FSB@ 4X
Thermalright XP-90 +Panaflo-H1B-92(FBA09A12H)
Seagate ST3120026A
DVD model DD0401
TruePower480
Scroll(Tested@2.50GHz on Sep 30, 2004)
SiSoft2004.10.9.133
CPU::ALU 11513 FPU 3954 iSSE2 5156
Media:: Int 23895 Float 2562
Ram:: Int 3780 MB/s Float 3779 MB/s
3DMark03V3.4.0--1751 :(
PCMark2004v1.2.0--3688
Super PI 1M 35s
Super PI 2M 1M23s
=============================================
quanta - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Speaking of robust 12V rails, Enermax seems to be the only one make power supplies that can provide more +12V juice than most enthusists ever need, even for models without splitting +12V lines.AlphaFox - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
where did the power supply talk come from??PrinceXizor - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Just a further comment on the PSU "recommendation". I really think that the major tech sites are doing a disservice to the community when they keep recommending higher and higher total wattage PSU's. That is NOT the issue! As has already been pointed out, the key component is to analyze what voltage rail is is not providing enough juice. Just as clock speed is a poor indicator of processor performance, total wattage is a poor indicator of PSU performance. Considering that a major computer rig will rarely if EVER draw more than 250W of actual power, the key metrics for a PSU are the actual amperages on the various rails, particularly the robustness of the 12V rails. (Some newer PSU's are providing dual 12V rails for just this reason). So, does an enthusiast overclocking their rig need a 500 Watt "monster" or do they need a robust 12V line and tight voltage variance on those lines (as you drive stuff out of spec, the transients in those lines become more critical).I guess the point of my long-winded post is this...tossing off a "recommendation" like was done in this article (well-intentioned I'm sure) without addressing the actual issues involved seems to me to be habit that should be avoided.
P-X
rjm55 - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
As you pointed out, you can't do the kind of tests you did here with an Intel rig with a locked multiplier. It was good to see all the different memory speeds at the same CPU speed, which proved once and for all that higher memory speeds DO improve performance - even with slower timings at higher speed. Makes my mouth water thinking about how good DDR550 at 2.5-2-2 would be.I realize the performance differences weren't huge with just the memory overclocked, but most people will overclock the CPU AND the RAM and that will make a huge combined difference in performance. Tweaking is about squeezing the most from your gear, and you CAN get more out of memory at higher speeds.
eetnoyer - Friday, October 1, 2004 - link
Try newegg.comhttp://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?desc...