New Memory Highs: Corsair and OCZ Introduce DDR550
by Wesley Fink on February 19, 2004 6:03 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Performance Test Configuration
The Memory testbed for evaluating the Corsair XMS4400v1.1 and OCZ PC4400 is the same used in our earlier reviews of DDR500 and other High-Speed Memory.OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev. 2: The Universal Soldier
OCZ 4200EL: Tops in Memory Performance
Mushkin PC4000 High Performance: DDR500 PLUS
Corsair TwinX1024-4000 PRO: Improving DDR500 Performance
Mushkin & Adata: 2 for the Fast-Timings Lane
Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2
All test conditions were as close as possible to those in our earlier memory reviews.
| INTEL 875P Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz (800MHz FSB) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Corsair XMS4400v1.1 TwinX (DS) 2 x 512MB OCZ PC4400 DC Kit (DS) 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev. 2 (DS) 2 x 512MB OCZ 4200EL(DS) 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC4000 High Performance (DS) 2 x 512MB Corsair TwinX4000 PRO (DS) 2 x 512MB Mushkin Level II PC3500 (DS) 2 x 256MB Adata DDR450 (SS) 2 x 512MB Adata PC4000 (DS) 2 x 512MB Corsair PC4000 (DS) 2 x 512MB Geil PC4000 (DS) 4 x 256MB Kingston PC4000 (SS) 2 x 256MB Kingston PC4000 (SS) 2 x 512MB OCZ PC4000 (DS) 4 x 256MB OCZ PC3700 GOLD (DS) |
| Hard Drives | 2 Western Digital Raptor Serial ATA 36.7GB 10,000 rpm drives in an Intel ICH5R RAID configuration |
| PCI/AGP Speed | Fixed at 33/66 |
| Bus Master Drivers: | 875P Intel INF Update v5.00.1012, SATA RAID drivers installed, but IAA not installed |
| Video Card(s): | ATI 9800 PRO 128MB, 128MB aperture, 1024x768x32 |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 4.1 |
| Power Supply: | Vantec Stealth 470Watt Aluminum |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | Asus P4C800-E (875) with 1015 Release BIOS |
Since both Corsair and OCZ target their DDR550 memory at the Intel 875/865 enthusiast, we only tested on our Intel test bed.
Test Settings
The following settings were tested with Corsair XMS4400v1.1 and OCZ PC4400:- 800FSB/DDR400 - the highest stock speed supported on 875/865 motherboards.
- 1000FSB/DDR500 - the specified rating of the majority of recent memory modules that we have tested.
- 1066FSB/DDR533 - the maximum speed that many current Intel 865/875 boards can achieve. This value was also tested because it provides 3.2GHz speed at 12x266, which is a useful comparison to standard Intel 3.2GHz performance.
- 1100FSB/DDR550 - the specified rating of the test memory modules.
- Highest Stable Overclock - the highest settings we could achieve with this memory and other memory we have tested.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
13 Comments
View All Comments
klah - Saturday, August 14, 2004 - link
good articlePumpkinierre - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
#9 Perhaps you're right but all the reviews I read on the IC7 associated the game accelerator with PAT eghttp://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/abit_ic7/6...
the speed increase is of the same order as PAT ie 2-5% eg:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/displa...
But I acknowledge I made an assumption so could be wrong.
#11 I get a ~1% increase in performance on 3Dmark2001 and 3dmark2003 (default settings benchmark and catalyst 9800pro drivers) when runnung P42.6c@3.2 at mem. 5:4 2237 (OCZ 2x256Mb PC3200 platinum original SS) Game Accel.-auto. compared to 2.8 1:1 mem. oçlocked 2237@216MHz GA-F1(memory wont handle Street Racer). In general game play, the 1:1 feels smoother in my opinion.
TrogdorJW - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
"Let me tell you , it does make a speed difference. Everything benches 1-3% higher."So it's a measurable difference, but not noticeable. :p
I'd still like to see real benchmarks on a variety of applications rather than just take someone's unsubstantiated claim that 3.2 or 3.4 GHz with PAT is best. With the system bus OC that you get, I don't think buying a 3.2 would be faster than buying even a 2.8C and OC'ing to 3.2. However, I have neither so I have no way of knowing.
retrospooty - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
BTW , on my Epox 4pc3a+ I can enable, or disable PAT at any speed or ram ratio.Let me tell you , it does make a speed difference. Everything benches 1-3% higher
retrospooty - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
PAT works on i875 fulltime... Even at 5:4Those settings you are referrring to " F1 or street racer" are not actually PAT , that is GAT, its just Abit's memory tweaks. On the I865 Abit boards, GAT can enable PAT (much to Intels displeasure) but on I875 PAT is always enabled. the GAT settings are just memory tweaks.
Pumpkinierre - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Turn it off and see if it makes any difference. On Abit you cant run F1 or street racer PAT settings above CAS2 or on 5:4. I dont know about Turbo but it doesnt add all that much anyway.Icewind - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Uhhh, you wanna bet? Im running PAT at 5:4 ratio with my Corsair 3700XMS on my P4C800-E Deluxe bud at 3-4-4-8.Pumpkinierre - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
#4 and #5 you cant run PAT with 5:4 ratio nor with memory timed higher than CAS 2. So, Trog, your best cpu is a 3.2 or 3.4. That way you get the high speed with small overclock allowing the use of DDR433 low latency BH5 chipped memory (o'clocks to 450). Amongst the cheappies, the 2.8 is the best and use OCZ 466 gold which holds CAS2 up to 420 and then 2.5 through to DDR500. Or else use the 3500 Mushkin or OCZ low latency.#5 I dont see why you cant get 2225 at ddr500. Those graphics cards have got 2.2ns chips and run at DDR700-1000. I'm not sure about the latency but if you lower the speed you can improve on the latency. I'm waiting and I'll buy when it comes out. All these DDR533 and 550 seem to be a rehash of the same thing and missing the low latency quality that is required for PAT to be enabled.
Icewind - Thursday, February 19, 2004 - link
Condsidering its the ASUS's highest end board, they probably left the PAT on, and why you would want it off in the first place is beyond me.Considering the limations of the current breed of DDR chips, a 2-2-2-5 or close to that at DDR500 simply isn't plausible from a manufacturing/cost point.
DDR2 aint looking much better either, it runs at 4-4-4-12 settings stock. So I think the days of low timing memory are going to be going the way of the do do.
TrogdorJW - Thursday, February 19, 2004 - link
I'd be curious to see a roundup of various benchmarks done with the varying memory speeds and timings, sort of like what you started with by comparing 3.2 GHz at 266 MHz bus to 3.2 GHz at 200 MHz bus. Here's what I'm thinking:Get a 2.4C, 2.6C, 2.8C, 3.0C, and 3.2C. (Or use your P4 3.2ES, I suppose.) Then do a variety of benchmarks (i.e. not just Quake 3, SuperPi and Sandra) at reasonable settings and memory timings.
From what you've shown in this article, a 2.4C overclocked to 3.2 GHz will outperform a 3.2C at stock bus speeds. However, it could do this with low latency 5:4 ratio or higher latency 1:1 ratio settings. What appears to be the best choice? A 2.4C would require a 266 bus to reach 3.2 GHz, where a 2.6C would "only" require a 246 MHz bus, a 2.8C would require a 229 MHz bus, and a 3.0C would need a 213 MHz bus. At those bus speeds, the 2.4 and 2.6 overclocks would need to use either lower timings or a 5:4 ratio, but the 2.8 and 3.0 could probably get 2-2-2-6 (or 2-3-3-7 timings?) with a 1:1 ratio. Also, how does PAT affect things? Did you have it enabled on the 1:1 OC and not on the 5:4 OC? I wan't sure.
I know, it's a lot of work and may not be that useful to many. Still, it's something I would enjoy seeing when/if you get the time. Anyway, with 2.4C, 2.6C, and 2.8C all costing about the same amount right now, I'm not really sure where the best buy is. 2.4C would probably be fastest if you could get really expensive RAM to handle the high OC and the processor worked at 3.2 GHz, but do 2.6C or 2.8C overclock higher on average, due to the higher multipliers?
Great article, though. Nice to see that low timings can still match higher clock speeds. Also, any chance of seeing a similar roundup using Athlon XP? (I would also say Athlon 64, but they don't seem to have enough OC headroom.) Athlon XP might not be able to make use of anything over DDR533 - or maybe even DDR500 - but I haven't seen any good comparisons on it.