Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules
by Wesley Fink on October 1, 2004 12:45 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Performance Test Configuration
The first tests with the new Athlon 64 test bed were in the recent OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev. 3 review. In this round, we extend the Athlon 64 memory tests to some of the fastest memory that we have tested and the newest memory in our labs. Since we have found DDR memory to perform very differently on the memory controller with Athlon 64 chips, we will be including Athlon 64 benchmarks in all future memory reviews.The A64 test bed includes components that have been proven in Socket 939 Athlon 64 benchmarking, such as the Gold Editors Choice MSI K8N Neo2, the completely unlocked Socket 939 FX53, and the OCZ Power Stream 520 Power Supply. Since the Athlon 64 tests represent a new series of DDR testing, we have chosen the current generation nVidia 6800 Ultra video card for benchmarking. We have found the 6800 Ultra to be a particularly good match to nVidia nForce3 Ultra motherboards.
All other basic test conditions attempted to mirror those used in our earlier Intel memory reviews. However, test results are not directly comparable to tests performed on the Intel test bed.
| AMD nForce3 Ultra Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD FX53 Athlon 64 (2.4GHz, Socket 939, Dual Channel, 1000HT) |
| RAM: | 2 X 512MB Crucial Ballistix (DS) 2 X 512MB Geil PC3200 Ultra X (DS) 2 X 512MB G. Skill TCCD (DS) 2 X 512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev 2 (DS) 2 X 512MB OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev 3 (DS) 2 X 512MB PQI 3200 Turbo (DS) |
| Hard Drives | Seagate 120GB PATA (IDE) 7200RPM 8MB Cache |
| PCI/AGP Speed | Fixed at 33/66 |
| Bus Master Drivers: | nVidia nForce Platform Driver 4.24 (5-10-2004) |
| Video Card(s): | nVidia 6800 Ultra 256MB, 256MB aperture, 1024x768x32 |
| Video Drivers: | nVidia Forceware 61.77 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ Power Stream 520W |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | MSI K8N Neo2 |
We have found the fastest performance on AMD Athlon 64 chipsets (nForce3, VIA K8T800 PRO) to be achieved at Cycle Time or tRAS of 10. Athlon 64 platform benchmarks were, therefore, run with the tRAS timing of 10 for all A64 benchmarks.
Test Settings
The FX53 is completely unlocked, something not currently available with Intel processors. This allowed a different approach to memory testing, which truly measures performance differences in memory speed alone. All tests were run with CPU speed as close to the specified 2.4GHz of the FX53 as possible, with CPU speed/Memory Speed increased at lower multipliers to achieve 2.4Ghz. This approach allows the true measurement of the impact of higher memory speed and timings on performance, since CPU speed is fixed, removing CPU speed as a factor in memory performance.The following settings were tested with the six memories on the Athlon 64 test bed:
- 12x200/DDR400 - the highest stock memory speed supported on K8T800/nF3/SiS755 motherboards.
- 11x218/DDR436 - a ratio near the standard DDR433 speed.
- 10x240/DDR480 - a ratio near the standard rating of DDR466.
- 9x267/DDR533 - a standard memory speed used in testing other high-speed memory.
- Highest Memory Speed - the highest memory speed that we could achieve regardless of the multiplier. This setting was generally achieved at a 2T command rate and performance is often poorer than slower memory timings at a 1T Command Rate.
- Highest Performance - the highest memory performance settings that we could achieve. This setting is normally the highest stable speed using a 1T Command Rate.
Command Rate is not normally a factor in Intel 478 tests, but it is a major concern in Athlon 64 performance. A Command Rate of 1T is considerably faster on Athlon 64 than a 2T Command Rate. For this reason, we had added the Command Rate to the timings and voltage reported for each memory speed setting.
We ran our standard suite of memory performance benchmarks - Quake 3, Super Pi 2M, and Sandra 2004 UnBuffered. Since the results for Athlon 64 tests are new, we are now including Sandra Buffered (Standard) test results as well as Sandra UnBuffered test results. Return to Castle Wolfenstein-Enemy Territory has also been added as a standard memory benchmark.
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...