Intel Performance Comparisons
Performance of the OCZ PC3700EB was compared to all of the memory recently tested on the Intel 875 memory test bed in:OCZ 3500EB: The Importance of Balanced Memory Timings
Mushkin PC3200 2-2-2 Special: Last of a Legend
PMI DDR533: A New Name in High-Performance Memory
Samsung PC3700: DDR466 Memory for the Masses
Kingmax Hardcore Memory: Tiny BGA Reaches For Top Speed
New Memory Highs: Corsair and OCZ Introduce DDR550
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
Memory performance was compared at DDR400, DDR500 and the highest stable overclock we could achieve that would run Quake 3, UT2003, and Super PI to 2MM places. Where the data was available, comparisons were also made at DDR433 and DDR466.
We have included memory based on Winbond BH5 chips, Mushkin 3500 Level II and OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd for reference in these comparisons, but none are available for purchase in the marketplace. All discontinued products will be removed from future benchmark comparisons. Since Mushkin claims availability of Mushkin 3200 2-2-2 Special for the next 2 to 3 months, it will be included in memory benchmark comparisons until it is no longer available for purchase.
Results are compared for Quake 3, Sandra UNBufferred Memory Test, and Super PI. SiSoft Sandra 2004 reports 2 results for each memory test - an Integer value and a Float value. Results reported in our charts are the result of averaging the INT and FLOAT scores, which are normally close in value. In other words, INT and FLOAT scores were added and divided by 2 for our reported score.
We have also included additional Memory Benchmarks for Athlon 64 to these standard tests on the Intel 875. Please refer to the Athlon 64 test data for comparisons of memory performance at the same CPU clock and different memory speeds. This can be found starting on Page 11.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
12 Comments
View All Comments
nycxandy - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
"OCZ is breaking new ground with their latest Enhanced Bandwidth series, and 3700EB extends the EB performance envelope. While rated at DDR466, we were able to reach a stable DDR524 on our Intel test bed and an even more remarkable DDR550 on our AMD nForce3-250 test platform."Does the 3500EB reach a speed higher than 510 (on the Intel platform) when paired with a nF3 or K8T chipset?
rustybx - Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - link
OCZ 4200EL was ~8% better than OCZ 3700EB on the Intel platform. Should the same be true for AMD?4200EL and 3700EB are nearly identical in price. Which will be faster on an MSI K8N (nForce3-250GB)?
Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
Good review and good to see the a64 well featured. Your o'clock/FSB results have two that are at the same HT and latency settings. So tentatively a comparison can be made. An increase of 30MHz (at the same CPU speed)on the A64 FSB shows a 262pt (12%) sandra fp (unbuffered) improvement. Unfortunately, this doesnt translate to the games (Q3 the best at 3%- 13.3fps) but your 1024x32bit setting may have been a bit harsh (I know...you get criticised if you run it at 640x480 but it is a memory test not a gpu). Intel shows better: For a 16MHz increase (DDR466 to DDR500) they get Sandra unbuf. fp increase of 258pt (8%) and a Q3 increase of 25.6 fps (7%) although this last result is also affected by cpu speed increase because the P4 is multiplier locked. You failed to include the UT and aquamark results for the Intel tests.So it is not as good as I hoped for the a64 but the memory bandwidth % increase is hopeful. If this doubles with dual bank memory and your tests are gpu restricted then this tweaking avenue may still be worth pursuing.
TrogdorJW - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
I would really like to see what sort of performance you were able to get from the Athlon 64 when using two sticks of RAM. I know that it's not a dual-channel motherboard, but in my experience, it is much more difficult to get the RAM to run at DDR400 with two DIMMs in an Athlon 64 board. If that's the case, it is imperative that we hear about it. No sense in considering OCZ or any other high-end (expensive) RAM if we're still going to be forced into running DDR333 by the motherboard.The flip side is also true: if OCZ EB RAM runs flawlessly with current Athlon 64 boards at DDR400 and even overclocked settings, I would love to hear it. I am looking at building an A64 3000+ system for a friend in the near future, and I want to know the best memory to get for A64 compatibility. Any advice would be appreciated!
ska - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
could you guys color differently the benchmarks of the curently reviewed piece of hardware? it's really great that there's so many benchmarks to compare from but after like 5 or 6 it's hard to figure out where the current motherboard/processor/RAM/video card stacks up to the rest of the benchmarks.bigtoe33 - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
If you are looking for the beta bios have a look here, http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=...Wesley Fink - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
#5 -As specified in the Atlon 64 Test Configuration on p. 11, Chaintech supplied a Beta BIOS dated 5/07/04 with multipliers in the BIOS. We will provide more information on ratios in our review of the Chaintech which will appear next week. We are working on an nF3-250 roundup of Epox, Chaintech, Gigabyte, and MSI which should post next week.
Rich5 - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
How were you able to adjust the multiplier on the Chaintech VNF3-250 motherboard? I know that it's not (yet) adjustible in the bios - did you use the Clock Gen utility from wcpuid.com? From what I could see at their website, it only appeared that they had versions for motherboards with the nforce 3 150 chipset (and nothing specifically for Chaintech boards).Wesley Fink - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
#1 -When the dust settles we will upgrade our standard test video card, but it is too early to make that decision. We use a standard video card so results are comparable to past reviews. We do not change our test hardware just because soemthing new is out this week.
We have an X800 PRO in the motherboard test lab, but we are not ready to decide which card is our future standard yet.
Illissius - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
I've seen such benchmarks, can't remember where though (possibly xbitlabs). IIRC it was in the context of a K8T800 Pro review. At any rate, performance is equivalent at 5x (1GHz) and 4x (800MHz), takes a (small) hit in some applications at 3x (600MHz), and only really starts becoming a major bottleneck at 2x (400MHz).