What kind of memory to buy for Upcoming NForce 4 Ultra Mobo's

Ghaleon4Ghaleon4 South Oklahoma
edited November 2004 in Hardware
Hi guys! I've got a dollar that says NOONE here remembers me!!!
(But I can't blame you...I haven't posted in almost a year, but fear not! I've been trolling in the background! mwa-haha!)

I'm in the process of putting together a pricelist of my "dream machine" that I'll be investing towards in the next few months.

I've convinced myself that it's going to be based off the NForce 4 Ultra Motherboard, but I can't find a list of manufacturers, or possible specifications. Can anyone here answers these questions:
1. Is Asus going to be making their own version. (Surely...)
2. Approx Price?
3. What kind of memory (PCxxxx...) do I need to buy that will take FULL advantage of this board. (Yes, I'll be doing some overclocking, as well)
If any of you have brandnames that you prefer because of bang for the buck, let me know...
4. Ship date?

Thanks Guys!!!

Comments

  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    1. Presumably.
    2. Motherboards based on the nForce4 ULTRA have an MSRP of $150+
    3. Depends on the brand. But right now I would be buying Corsair XL-series PC3200 or OCZ Gold Rev. 3 PC3700. Both of these are based on Samsung's new TCCD memory chips which are the best thing since sliced bread for the memory market. These chips can be overclocked to insane speeds and gladly absorb huge quantities of voltage.

    To quote myself from another forum:
    Thrax wrote:
    Click here to see Samsung TCCD-based modules in action.

    Max-stable.png

    Memory Confirmed to be on Samsung TCCD:
    Adata PC4500 Vitesta
    Adata PC4800 Vitesta
    Apacer PC4000
    Centon Advanced DDR
    Corsair PC3200XL
    Corsair XMS PC3200C2 Rev4.1 2-3-3-6-1T
    Geil UltraX pc3200 ~ Brainpower PCB
    Gskill PC4400 (various) ~ Brainpower PCB ~ Not in UK (15/10/04)
    Kingston HyperX PC 3200ULK2 ~ Not in UK (15/10/04)
    Mushkin PC3200 Rev.2
    OCZ PC3200 Rev.2 ~ Brainpower PCB
    OCZ PC3700 Platinum
    Patriot Extreme Performance PDC5123200+XBLK ~ Brainpower PCB
    PQI 3200 Turbo 2-2-2-5 ~ Brainpower PCB
    Samsung PC4000 CL3 ~ Not in UK (15/10/04)

    4. Late November/early December or January.
  • Ghaleon4Ghaleon4 South Oklahoma
    edited October 2004
    Wow, that was FAST! Thanks!

    Last but not least...
    Of course, I could just go out, and buy the latest, and greatest AMD Processor for $900...but that's what overclocking is for! lol
    First: AMD Athlon 64, or AMD Athlon 64 FX? (I'm leaning towards FX because of the interoperability that AMD claims it has between simultaneous 32, and 64 bit operation...)although, I'll admit I'm not even entirely sure what THAT means. (Are they both the same number of pins?)
    2nd...do we know yet...which ones (When overclocking) are the best bang for the buck?
    And let me just say this: Not only is this system going to be a WICK3D gamer...but a folder, too...lol.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    1. Athlon 64. The Athlon 64 is, in virtually all respects, just as fast as the Athlon FX. They both support pretty much the same features. The only difference is in the volume of on-die cache (512k vs 1mb), and dual channel memory (FX has it, A64 doesn't). They both support 32/64 bit operation, both at the same time, or pure execution and they both benchmark pretty much the same.. Give and take on both sides.

    2. The best bang for the buck is the 90nm s939 Winchester Athlon 64 3000+. It does 2.4-2.6GHz for less than $175.
  • Ghaleon4Ghaleon4 South Oklahoma
    edited October 2004
    You say "Winchester"...is that the name of the core?
    I remember when I bought my last processor, you could go to Newegg, and tell them that you wanted a SPECIFIC serial number...(The XP 1700 that easily clocks to 2600+...those were the days, lol)
    Same situation?
    How do I make sure what I'm getting?
    (I can't tell you how informative you've been so far...don't let this thread wear out it's welcome...)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2004
    The Winchester is indeed the name of the core. It's actually listed on newegg when you go to buy that specific 3000+. It'll tell you it's 90nm, and that it's a Winchester Athlon 64.

    To date, I haven't seen any specific wundercores like we saw with the JIUHB of its day, as all the Athlon 64 chips of a certain type tend to overclock relatively similar. IE, all 90nm Winchesters get 2.4-2.6GHz. At the same time, I haven't really been looking for the wundercores. It seems, however, that the 90nm 3000+ is the first JIUHB/DLT3C 1700+ of the A64 line. The first time where we get an excellent overclock out of a cheap chip.
  • JimboraeJimborae Newbury, Berks, UK New
    edited November 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    1. Athlon 64. The Athlon 64 is, in virtually all respects, just as fast as the Athlon FX. They both support pretty much the same features. The only difference is in the volume of on-die cache (512k vs 1mb), and dual channel memory (FX has it, A64 doesn't). They both support 32/64 bit operation, both at the same time, or pure execution and they both benchmark pretty much the same.. Give and take on both sides.

    2. The best bang for the buck is the 90nm s939 Winchester Athlon 64 3000+. It does 2.4-2.6GHz for less than $175.


    Thrax, I thought the the new s939 Athlon64 Winchester cores supported dual channel memory as well? Mine certainly says dual channel memory in the bios boot up screen & I have to put the ram in slots 1 & 2 to enable this on my board. Or am I missing something?
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Socket 939 does support dual channel. Socket 754 does not :)
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited November 2004
    It took how long for those awesome 1700+ CPUs to come out though? CPU speeds were well above the 1700 by the time they were wunderchips.
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2215&p=13
    The OCZ 3700 gold rev.3 is getting a lot of good press.

    When you look for memory make sure that it was tested in a A64 mobo.
    The Crucial Balistix has been putting up nice numbers also.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    mmonnin wrote:
    It took how long for those awesome 1700+ CPUs to come out though? CPU speeds were well above the 1700 by the time they were wunderchips.

    Which is precisely why it was great to own one. The chip had dropped to $60, yet could be made to perform identically to those more expensive chips.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Basically any of the TCCD list that Thrax posted, especially those sticks with the brainpower pcb is a safe bet. As of late, a new revision of those Samsung TCCD chips have hit the market and those is actually loving voltages all of a sudden. 5,2,2,2 timings on 2X512 is now a reality again after the death of winbond BH5.
    5,2,2,2, 1T at 250 beats 8,4,3,3 at 275, 1T in all 3d apps and games. However, CAS doesn't have any impact at all on A64. Cas 2, 2,5 and 3 gives close to the same bandwidth. I have been running a set of OCZ EB 3500 and 3700 for a while now and the stuff is really good. however, it's EOL and can't be bought new anymore. The EB's do 5,2,2, cas 3 at 260 without a problem.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited November 2004
    What I was getting at was that it was awhile before they came out and were killer chips. The Athlon 64s havent been out for very long like the 1700s were. We are getting closer tho.

    Edit: There was a die shrink from .18 to .13 from the first 1700+ to the Tbreds. Now with the 64-bit AMDs we are coming across another die shrink. Hopefully it will produce similar results.
  • deicistdeicist Manchester, UK
    edited November 2004
    Mackanz wrote:
    CAS doesn't have any impact at all on A64. Cas 2, 2,5 and 3 gives close to the same bandwidth.

    Sorry to jump in on this thread, is that actually true? I've been running my Ram at a 183 divider to keep my CAS at 2.5, if I set the cas to 3 and run the RAM at the 200 divider will I get better performance?

    running a s754 A644 3200+ @ 2.4GHz
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Try it and run some benchmarks. If you run the Sandra memory score only run the unbuffered ones. You want to test memory not the controler.
    From the numbers that I have seen Anand posting (and others) I would say that if you can take the speed up by more than 10MHz and only give up 0.5 on CAS to do it.
  • deicistdeicist Manchester, UK
    edited November 2004
    Cool, I'll give it a try later on...... from what I understand the memory at the moment is running at 2400 / (2200/183) which is 199MHz (ish) and bumping the divider to the 200 option would take the speed up to 220ish so it sounds like it would be worth it...
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    deicist wrote:
    Sorry to jump in on this thread, is that actually true? I've been running my Ram at a 183 divider to keep my CAS at 2.5, if I set the cas to 3 and run the RAM at the 200 divider will I get better performance?

    running a s754 A644 3200+ @ 2.4GHz
    It's the truth allright.
    I'll post a few screenies and benchmarks as soon as i have time.
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    You may also want to make sure that you are running the memory sychronus. I don't know how much of a factor that is with A64, but in the past AMD systems have been very sensitive to it.
    What about with the new memory controler Mac? Is sync still a big factor?
  • lsevaldlsevald Norway Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    edcentric wrote:
    You may also want to make sure that you are running the memory sychronus. I don't know how much of a factor that is with A64, but in the past AMD systems have been very sensitive to it.
    What about with the new memory controler Mac? Is sync still a big factor?

    There is no such thing as async on the A64. You need a Northbridge to be able to do that. Async means you are running the NB<->RAM bus at a different frequency than the NB<->CPU bus :)
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Edcentric.

    Sync or async isn't a factor anymore as the dividers takes care of everything and that the memorycontroller is not on the board anymore.
    Async is very useful now when the cpu's are locked upwards (except for the FX).
    When the nice batches of the Winchesters comes out, you will run out of multis if you have good cooling, especially with the 2800,3000 and in many times the 3200 as well.
    There are a couple of cpu tables that explains the divider/async settings a lot better.

    Here is the difference between cas 2.5 and cas 3. As you can see, the memory bandwith is exactly the same.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Here is the divider table:
Sign In or Register to comment.