1GB DIMMs: FAST 2GB DDR Kits from Corsair, Gigaram, and OCZ
by Wesley Fink on October 11, 2005 2:55 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Performance Test Configuration
The three 2GB kits were tested with the DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR Athlon 64 Socket 939 motherboard. Other components remain the same as used in the memory setup found in Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules.
The A64 test bed includes components that have been proven in Socket 939 Athlon 64 benchmarking, such as the Socket 939 4000+, the OCZ Power Stream 520 Power Supply, and the NVIDIA 6800 Ultra video card. We also used an AMD FX57 set to a 12X multiplier for tests that required a Revision E type memory controller. The FX57 was adjusted to run at 2.4GHz, the same speed as the Clawhammer 4000+.
All other basic test conditions attempted to mirror those used in our earlier Athlon 64 memory reviews.
In past benchmarking, we have found performance of the nForce4 and nForce3 chipsets to be virtually identical, and we have found AGP and PCIe performance to be virtually the same in the benchmarks that we use for memory testing. Therefore, you can also generally compare these results to TCCD benchmarks in recent memory reviews.
With nForce3 motherboards, the fastest performance on AMD Athlon 64 was at a Cycle Time or tRAS of 10. However, the nForce4 behaves a bit differently with memory. We ran a complete set of Memtest86 benchmarks with only tRAS varied to determine the best tRAS setting for these memories, and found the best bandwidth at tRAS settings ranging from 5 to 8. Therefore, a tRAS setting of 7 was used for testing.
Test Settings
All AMD Athlon 64 processors are unlocked downward, and the FX CPUs are unlocked up and down. This feature allows 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 4000+/FX53 as possible, with CPU speed/Memory Speed increased at lower multipliers to achieve 2.4 GHz. This approach allows the true measurement of the impact of higher memory speed and timings on performance, since CPU speed is fixed, thus removing CPU speed as a factor in memory performance.
The following settings were tested with the Mushkin Redline XP4000 on the DFI nF4 test bed:
The three 2GB kits were tested with the DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR Athlon 64 Socket 939 motherboard. Other components remain the same as used in the memory setup found in Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules.
The A64 test bed includes components that have been proven in Socket 939 Athlon 64 benchmarking, such as the Socket 939 4000+, the OCZ Power Stream 520 Power Supply, and the NVIDIA 6800 Ultra video card. We also used an AMD FX57 set to a 12X multiplier for tests that required a Revision E type memory controller. The FX57 was adjusted to run at 2.4GHz, the same speed as the Clawhammer 4000+.
All other basic test conditions attempted to mirror those used in our earlier Athlon 64 memory reviews.
| AMD nForce4 Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD FX57 Athlon 64 at 12X Ratio (2.4GHz) AMD 4000+ (FX53) Athlon 64 (2.4GHz) (2.4GHz, Socket 939, 1 MB cache, Dual Channel, 1000HT) |
| RAM: | Corsair CMX1024-3500XL PRO (DS) 2X1024MB Gigaram 2GB Dual Channel PC-4200 (DS) 2X1024MB OCZ PC4000 1024MB EB Platinum (DS) 2X1024MB Mushkin Redline XP4000 (DS) 2X512MB Kingston KVR400X64C25/512 (DS) 2X512MB Kingston KVR400X64C3AK2/1G (DS) 2X512MB Mushkin PC3200 EM (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Value Series (VX) (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Gold (BH5) (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Premier (DS) 2X512MB Transcend JM366D643A-50 (DS) 2X512MB Patriot PC3200+XLBT (DS) 2X512MB OCZ EL PC4000 VX Gold (DS) 2X512MB Corsair TwinX1024-4400C25 (DS) 2X512MB Crucial Ballistix (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev 2 (DS) 2X512MB |
| Hard Drives: | Seagate 120GB SATA 7200RPM 8MB Cache |
| PCI/AGP Speed: | Fixed at 33/66 |
| Bus Master Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce Platform Driver 6.66 |
| Video Card(s): | NVIDIA 6800 Ultra 256MB PCIe, 256MB aperture, 1024x768x32 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA Forceware 78.01Release |
| Power Supply: | OCZ Power Stream 520W |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Motherboard: | DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR |
| BIOS: | 7/04/2005 |
In past benchmarking, we have found performance of the nForce4 and nForce3 chipsets to be virtually identical, and we have found AGP and PCIe performance to be virtually the same in the benchmarks that we use for memory testing. Therefore, you can also generally compare these results to TCCD benchmarks in recent memory reviews.
With nForce3 motherboards, the fastest performance on AMD Athlon 64 was at a Cycle Time or tRAS of 10. However, the nForce4 behaves a bit differently with memory. We ran a complete set of Memtest86 benchmarks with only tRAS varied to determine the best tRAS setting for these memories, and found the best bandwidth at tRAS settings ranging from 5 to 8. Therefore, a tRAS setting of 7 was used for testing.
Test Settings
All AMD Athlon 64 processors are unlocked downward, and the FX CPUs are unlocked up and down. This feature allows 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 4000+/FX53 as possible, with CPU speed/Memory Speed increased at lower multipliers to achieve 2.4 GHz. This approach allows the true measurement of the impact of higher memory speed and timings on performance, since CPU speed is fixed, thus removing CPU speed as a factor in memory performance.
The following settings were tested with the Mushkin Redline XP4000 on the DFI nF4 test bed:
- 2.4GHz-12x200/DDR400 - the highest stock memory speed supported on nF3-4/SiS755-FX/ATI Radeon Xpress 200/VIA 939 motherboards
- 2.4GHz-11x218/DDR436 - a ratio near the standard DDR433 speed
- 2.4GHz-10x240/DDR480 - a ratio near the standard rating of DDR466
- 2.4GHz -9x267/DDR533 - a memory speed achieved by only a few top memories on the Athlon 64
- Highest Memory Performance - the highest memory bandwidth and game performance that we could achieve with the memory being tested. This is rarely the highest memory speed that we could achieve. It is normally a lower speed with 1T Command Rate and tighter memory timings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
walmartshopper - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Thanks for the review. I've been toying around with 4 sticks of Ballistix pc3200, only to get them running at 480mhz with 2.5-3-3-8 2T timings (I got 530mhz with 2 sticks at 1T). It's not too bad, but after reading this, I decided to replace them with the 2x1024 OCZ pc4000. I actually have 5 sticks of Ballistix, and I'm hoping to sell them for 50$ each. Anyone interested?AkumaX - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
I think on Page 2 when you were comparing 2T vs 1T you also meant 2x1024mb vs 4x512mb, rather than 2x512mb vs 4x512mb right?cryptonomicon - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
no, he's comparing the same ram to show how the memory controller goes to crap after you load up more than two dimms. the sticks were both 512x2 plat rev IITheInvincibleMustard - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Nice, well-written article, Wesley. It seems slightly ironic to me, though, that this review comes out just as I'm expecting a 2GB kit from G.Skill via NewEgg to arrive tomorrow to replace my el-cheapo 2x512 (3-3-3-7 at DDR400? ick)Minor nit: pg 8
"The performance differences will be that the NVIDIA 71.84 driver is a bit faster than the 61.77 and 71.84 drivers used in earlier memory reviews."
Umm ... unless the driver is somehow faster than itself, I'm hoping that's a typo of sorts.
-TIM
n7 - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
I'm glad to see a review on 2x1024 MB; it was past due.I realize there aren't many DDR433 & up 2x1024MB RAM manufacturers, but i would have liked to have seen Crucial, Mushkin, Patriot, Geil, since they all make good DDR400 kits, & at least in Mushkin & Crucial's case, they also make DDR433 & up kits.
To make it simple, i'd like to see a review with a few more companies involved :)
rqle - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Isnt it a little unfair to say one brand highest speed obtain @ 2-3-2-7 is lower then some other brand higest speed obtain is higher cause of 3-4-3-7? I mean, if you set corsair at a more lax timing AND higher voltage wouldnt it do better? Some one fill me in. Cause i remember back in the old days, memory i bought that can do 2-2-3-6 at 2.5v that was rated at 400DDR would overclock and do much better the same timing and voltage of some-old brand 533DDR+.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
From p. 5 of the review:"Increasing voltage beyond 2.7V did not allow us to go any higher in overclocking, nor did more relaxed timings allow us to push higher. The limit is DDR492 - very close to DDR500."
We tried to go higher but DDR492 is the limit with the 1GB Corsair dimms we tested. As we stated in the review it is likely Corsair is using a different Infineon chip than OCZ and Gigaram, or they are binning for best performance in the DDR400 to DDR500 range. Gigaram and OCZ are probably also using different Inineon memory chips - or they are at the least using different binning methodologies.
ozzimark - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
wow.. wesley, long needed article. however, some silly mistakes that i think i see :Dfirst.. the gigaram oc'ing chart. max speed is put at 2-4-3-7.. are you sure it's not 3-4-3-7?
also, the second speed is curiously 2-2.5-2.. where 2.5-3-2 is exepcted
second, i know the difficulties of getting review samples, but where is the biggest name in 1gb sticks right now, crucial ballistix? i have seen many of these sticks do 280-300mhz.
last, i remember the value ram overclocking article you guys had a while back. plan on going the same for 1gb sticks?
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
I went back to my test logs and corrected the misplaced values. DD436 is 2-3-2-7 and DDR556 is 3-4-3-7. The second value in all reported strings is RAS to CAS Delay in case anyone is confused by the notation.We hope to do a review of the Crucial Ballistix 1GB dimms in the near future. We haven't decided whether to do a Value 1GB roundup yet, but we will consider your suggestion.
Ender17 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
;)