System Configuration

Our memory benchmark system uses the following components:

Performance Test Configuration
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
(Dual core 1.86GHz 2MB Unified Cache)
RAM: 2 x 512MB Patriot DDR-400
2 x 512MB Transcend JetRam DDR2-667
Hard Drive: Seagate 320GB 7200.10 (16MB Buffer)
System Platform Drivers: VIA 5.09a
Video Card: 1 x EVGA 7600GS PCI-E - All Standard Tests
Video Drivers: NVIDIA 91.31
CPU Cooling: Stock Intel Heatsink
Power Supply: OCZ PowerStream 520W
Motherboards: ASRock 775Dual-VSTA (VIA PT880Pro)
Operating System: Windows XP Professional SP2
BIOS: AMI 1.50

Our test system represents a blend of performance and pricing requirements for a budget Core 2 Duo system. While the choice and wattage of the power supply could be varied to less expensive alternatives we believe having a high quality power supply is critical for system stability and overclocking potential. The performance of the Seagate 320GB drive is near the top of the performance charts while offering excellent capacity for a cost of around $95. If you are upgrading your hard drive with the rest of the system this drive should be at the top of your list. Our EVGA 7600GS video card choice represents a very good mid-range alternative and ensures you have respectable game performance at resolutions under 1280x1024 for less than $130.

Our board is the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA that features the VIA PT880 Pro Northbridge and VT8237A Southbridge with VRM and BIOS updates that now fully support Core 2 Duo. The ASRock 775Dual-VSTA is a very unusual board considering all of the available upgrade options and is available at a low entry price of $55.

Click to enlarge

The board is laid out nicely and certainly caters to those who value IDE and PCI devices. The VT8237A only supports two SATA 1.5Gbps drives but the board does support four IDE devices. The overall feature set of the VIA chipset is the same as the Biostar PT880 Pro board we reviewed a few months back.

Memory Specifications Memory Performance
Comments Locked

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • Calin - Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - link

    Yep, I feel stoopid :)
    Anyway, the idea is that a change in memory patterns (SDR to DDR, SDR to RDRAM, DDR to DDR2) is a battle between old very optimised technology, and new, unproven yet technology. The small difference in speed can be explained that "current" technology in processors is built for best performance with current memory - a new memory type often is not optimised for the memory access needed by the processor.

    As an example, RDRAM was (just a tad) slower on Pentium !!! (compared to high performance SDRAM). Pentium4, which was bandwidth starved with single channel SDRAM, was much faster with RDRAM (dual channel though) - as much as a P4 2000 (Willamette) with SDRAM was equal to a P4 1600 with RDRAM. As speed increased, needed bandwidth increased too - but the move to dual channel DDR was the final nail in the coffin of RDRAM on PC.
    The other example - Athlon64 is not bandwidth starved on current (dual channel DDR400) memory, so doubling memory bandwidth brought no advantage. The decrease in latency was not enough to bring extra performance.
    The situation is mostly similar with Core2Duo - more memory bandwidth brings little advantage.

    This might change for quad-core processors, as they could use twice the memory bandwidth we see now - or on the Athlon side with a more aggressive prefetching algorithm (which will eat bandwidth bringing data that seem to be useful in the near future).
  • yacoub - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    "When faced with a limited budget but a desire to have the latest and greatest technology, it is usually has to cut corners"
    should be "one usually has to cut corners"
  • yacoub - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    page 2:

    "...one of the widely used setups in use today." Maybe you like the extra words but you could drop the words "in use" and still be making the same point.


    "The memory features average latencies at DDR2-667 but was able to perform at lower latencies in our testing while costing around $70 for a 1GB kit.

    {transcend-ddr2.html}" <--- supposed to be a link or image?
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    Blame the sleepy editor. :|

    The Transcend table was present, but the supported RAM speeds table was not. I fixed the error, as well as the other two grammar issues you pointed out. Thanks!
  • yacoub - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    hehe no problem. =)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now