Interesting article on DDR 400

EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
edited December 2003 in Hardware
Just found an article about DDR 400 memory. Click here to read it.

What i would like to know is. Would the outcome of the tests be much different on AMD.

Comments

  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited December 2003
    Isn't there anyone who wants to comment on this article. Comon now 27 views and not one single comment.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    There's not a whole lot to comment on..
  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited December 2003
    Yea but as i said, would the outcome have been any different on an AMD system. If this holds true then buying low latency corsair would be little use. I might as well go with the cheaper crusial. Yet in an discussion about which ram to choose i was told to not get crusial and get corsair instead but if the speeds are similar between them then why should i. That's what i wanted an comment on.

    I must say that even if the findings in the article holds true it would have been nice to have AMD tested as well. Just for reference.
  • TechTech
    edited December 2003
    I agree with EyesOnly in that a test should have been performed on an AMD system.

    On a Sidenote - I am kicking myself for spending $300 on some xms LL

    Tech
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Lower latency memory matters on AMD rigs. 2/2/2 is significantly faster than 2.5/3/3, or 3/4/4.

    It's why we around here generally avoid recommending any memory that can't do 2/2/2 for an Athlon system.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Nothing new at all in that article. Just what most of us have said since the Icrontic days. Off course timings helps. Both on Intel and Amd.
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited December 2003
    They are indeed interesting results but I too am interested in the difference between an AMD system and an intel with lower latencies.

    So you guys out there Running the LL sticks please do some benchmarks and change the ram settings to compare. Shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes to reach your conclusions and let us know. Granted it would be on the same stick of memory but it would give an idea of what it willl do at different settings.

    Woohooo! I might up saving some cold hard cash :)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    I don't have to bench, because I remember the scores.

    NF7-S, Corsair 3200 cas2.

    2.5/3/3 = 2874 MB/s
    2/2/2 = 3104MB/s
  • fudgamfudgam Upstate New York
    edited December 2003
    So in an AMD system, im not wasting my money by buying corsair xms 3200?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    In any system in the last 20 years; and barring the laws of physics being broken, this will be true for any memory as we know it today:

    Lower timings are better. It's pure physics. It's how quickly the system can access the data matrices on the chips. The quicker the little electric signals can travel, the better.

    Forever and ever and ever and ever. Low timings are worth paying for. Low timed modules also overclock better, because they have more upwards headroom before you have to shift to looser timings.. And by that point, pure speed overcomes timings.

    2/2/2 or better (Unlikely) for the rest of time.
  • ketoketo Occupied. Or is it preoccupied? Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    I ran some benchies on P4 a while back with different latencies and posted them in the "post your sandra score here" thread
  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited December 2003
    So latencies does matter. Finally some answers. Please don't asume that everyone's been at old icrontic or for that matter know everything about computers. I'm only beginning to catch up about computers and memory timings isn't something you hear about on average.

    Anyway i've got one final question. What's more important, Timings or clockspeed? I'm not sure if i should go for a 3200 or find something with a higher clockspeed. If i'm getting it right then memories with higher clockspeed has lower timings. As i said i have a pretty clear knowledge of hardware in general but i've not read much about memories so forgive me if my questions sound stupid. But if you do give me clear answers i will have the knowledge and be able the learn others and not bother you to much.
  • ketoketo Occupied. Or is it preoccupied? Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Well...most high end/higher price PC3200 and PC3500 will run Cas 2 - the first '2' in the standard '2-2-2-5' or '2-2-3-6' or '2-2-2-11' you will commonly see. PC3700/4000/4200 is (generallizing here) more intended for Intel systems, where massive bandwidth and 1:1 fsb:RAM is somewhat better than tighter timings & lower ratio. The timings on PC3700/4000/4200 are usually 3-4-4-8, which timings are very slow on nforce2/AMD systems.

    For an AMD system (as noted above and verified many times both here and at many other enthusiast sites) tight timings (ideally, 2-2-2-11 on nforce2 mobo) ARE important. So, you want memory that will both clock high AND do it at tight timings. Depends how high you are going to run your fsb as to what most of us would recommend. Corsair PC3200XMS LL usually is good for ~210-215 fsb or higher for some, while maintaining the ideal 2-2-2-11. Mushkin Level2 PC3500 is guaranteed Winbond BH5 chips and, providing you can supply it the voltage it likes, can run upwards of 250fsb at tight timings. A specific recommendation for you is dependant on your other hardware and your desires with respect to overclocking. And budget, none of the high end stuff is going to come cheaply.
  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited December 2003
    I was planning to go with Corsair PC3200XMS LL and a athlon 2800+ or maybe a 3000 at stock speeds mostly and i think i'll do that. I've seen some 4400 memory being sold at really high prices but since i'm only interested in stock speed or mild oveclocking that would prolly be overkill. Thanks for the advice.

    Since my last post i've found some info on rams and are currently reading this article (http://www20.tomshardware.com/howto/20030701/index.html) which is explaning ram timings and stuff. I also bookmarked the page that creep linked to in the top thread but haven't read it yet. Even so it's always nice to get more opinions on this kind of stuff from actual users.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Eyesonly,

    Newer batches of Twinmos with winbond from Komplett is REALLY good.
    A friend is testing about 2 pairs right now and he gets insane results. I think that the demand for BH5 chips is so big that maybe Twinmos decided to make the CH5 chips better. I dont know. But the best deal you can do right now is Twinmos with winbond chips. Apparently the newer batches allows for more tighter timings.

    http://www.komplett.se/k/ki.asp?action=info&p=30892&t=1014&l=2&AvdID=1&CatID=17&GrpID=9&s=pl

    395 skr each ($40) is as good as it gets.
  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited December 2003
    Thanks for the advice but at the moment i can't afford an upgrade and was planning on 2 512 sticks. Perhaps i should keep my eyes on twinmos prices. BTW the corsair is now down to 2100 kronor ($288). It was at 2800 kronor ($384) a week ago. Let's hope it doesn't get anymore expensive in a few months.
  • TemplarTemplar You first.
    edited December 2003
    EyesOnly wrote:
    Thanks for the advice but at the moment i can't afford an upgrade and was planning on 2 512 sticks. Perhaps i should keep my eyes on twinmos prices. BTW the corsair is now down to 2100 kronor ($288). It was at 2800 kronor ($384) a week ago. Let's hope it doesn't get anymore expensive in a few months.

    This site has XMS3200 C2PT modules for $108 USD, and I do believe they ship internationally. Not sure how much Int'l shipping is, but it couldn't be $80 something.
  • EyesOnlyEyesOnly Sweden New
    edited December 2003
    Nope no int'l shipping.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    I couldn't read this whole thread, maybe I'll get back to it later.

    After reading that whole review, I was in utter disgust. Being a P4 Owner for a couple years, I can tell you that the memory timings are EVERYTHING. Maybe 1GBps difference.

    My PC at home isn't even running at 333MHz, yet my memorybandwidth in Sandra is 4.1GBps... I think the picture proves it in the "Post your sandra scores here" thread I created a while back when I first got my system.

    yet at 400MHz, with slower timings and all, I wasn't getting but a max of something like 3300MBps? I can't remember. When I get back home to my PC, before I work on my Athlon64 system, I will run tests to prove those idiots there wrong.(and stupid)
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    http://short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4398

    That Screenie is older, but it shows my numbers more correctly, I WAS able to hit 4.3GBps, but it wasn't very stable... right now I don't recal my numbers off hand though seeing as I was off a bit.. hrm. Need to get back to Florida.... I hate being stuck with the parents PC

    Take note of the "Pentium 4 2.4B @ 2.9GHz(162*18) 1.65v" which is 324MHz yet I achieved 4.05GBps on 2/5/2/2 or so timings, I do recall that before the timings were 2/7/3/3 and I wasn't past 3.8GBps.

    If I only had a P4C instead of P4B.... I'd have hit beyond 5GBps easy....
    So..... there.

    I can't wait to see what happens with my new Athlon 64 3000+ :D
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Expect right around 3.18 GB/s of memory bandwidth on your 3000+.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Thrax wrote:
    Expect right around 3.18 GB/s of memory bandwidth on your 3000+.

    What? Why not 4GB at least? These things are supposed to be sick arn't they?
Sign In or Register to comment.