1GB DIMMs: FAST 2GB DDR Kits from Corsair, Gigaram, and OCZ
by Wesley Fink on October 11, 2005 2:55 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Impact of Athlon 64 Memory Controllers on 1GB DIMM Performance
While there has been a lot of talk about the different capabilities of the evolving Athlon 64 on-processor memory controllers, there really hasn't been much discussion of the limitations of some of the earlier Clawhammer controllers. We ran into this issue head-on in our first efforts at testing these 1GB DIMMs.
Most are aware that the early Clawhammer controllers did not officially support 4 DIMMs of any kind at other than a 2T Command Rate. In fact, this continued on in the current Rev. E controller. Some are also aware that the Clawhammer memory controller did not officially support DDR400 with 4 DS DIMMs - official support was DDR333. However, most board makers found that the controller really had no problem with 4DS DIMMs running at DDR400 and supported that "extended feature" in BIOS.
There are not the only differences in the memory controllers that come into play with the more demanding 1GB DIMMs. Our standard test bed CPU has been the 4000+, specifically the original Clawhammer version. Today, you can also buy a 90nm Rev. E version, but we had found no reason to upgrade from the Clawhammer version - until these 1GB tests. Our first efforts with the OCZ 2GB kit saw things very much out of the ordinary in our memory testing. First, Super Pi was no longer a reliable indicator of top speed. In the past, we could run Super Pi, and if it ran, we were confident that the rest of our memory test suite would run without problems.
Now, with the 1GB DIMMs and Clawhammer controller, Super Pi could run perfectly at a CPU clock some 15 points higher than what we could get Quake3, or Return to Wolfenstein to run. With 1GB DIMMs, gaming was now the most demanding task in our suite.
The other strange behavior with our Clawhammer was overclocking. Our first efforts with the OCZ 1GB DIMMs topped out at DDR520. That seemed OK until we saw others doing 540 and even higher on simple air cooling with the same memory. What was different? We finally realized that the highest overclockers with 1GB DIMMs were using processors with Rev. E memory controllers.
Once we switched to an FX57, with a set multiplier of 12X to produce comparable results to past memory reviews, our overclocking clock frequency went up to DDR550 - 30 points higher. The Super Pi issue remained, since we could run Super Pi and Sandra Memory tests all day at DDR565, but gaming tests crashed the system at any setting over DDR550.
It is clear that 1GB DIMMs put a much greater demand on system resources than 512MB DIMMs. It is also clear that the newer Athlon 64 memory controllers are better at meeting the demands of 1GB DIMMs in overclocking. We went back and compared performance of 512MB DIMMs on Clawhammer and Rev. E just for a sanity check. There was virtually no difference in 512MB overclocking on either memory controller - pointing again to the extra demands of 1GB memory modules.
Our advice is to use a recent processor and memory controller with 1GB DIMMs if you plan to overclock the memory. If this is not possible, then expect lower overclocks from your 1GB DIMMs.
While there has been a lot of talk about the different capabilities of the evolving Athlon 64 on-processor memory controllers, there really hasn't been much discussion of the limitations of some of the earlier Clawhammer controllers. We ran into this issue head-on in our first efforts at testing these 1GB DIMMs.
Most are aware that the early Clawhammer controllers did not officially support 4 DIMMs of any kind at other than a 2T Command Rate. In fact, this continued on in the current Rev. E controller. Some are also aware that the Clawhammer memory controller did not officially support DDR400 with 4 DS DIMMs - official support was DDR333. However, most board makers found that the controller really had no problem with 4DS DIMMs running at DDR400 and supported that "extended feature" in BIOS.
There are not the only differences in the memory controllers that come into play with the more demanding 1GB DIMMs. Our standard test bed CPU has been the 4000+, specifically the original Clawhammer version. Today, you can also buy a 90nm Rev. E version, but we had found no reason to upgrade from the Clawhammer version - until these 1GB tests. Our first efforts with the OCZ 2GB kit saw things very much out of the ordinary in our memory testing. First, Super Pi was no longer a reliable indicator of top speed. In the past, we could run Super Pi, and if it ran, we were confident that the rest of our memory test suite would run without problems.
Now, with the 1GB DIMMs and Clawhammer controller, Super Pi could run perfectly at a CPU clock some 15 points higher than what we could get Quake3, or Return to Wolfenstein to run. With 1GB DIMMs, gaming was now the most demanding task in our suite.
The other strange behavior with our Clawhammer was overclocking. Our first efforts with the OCZ 1GB DIMMs topped out at DDR520. That seemed OK until we saw others doing 540 and even higher on simple air cooling with the same memory. What was different? We finally realized that the highest overclockers with 1GB DIMMs were using processors with Rev. E memory controllers.
Once we switched to an FX57, with a set multiplier of 12X to produce comparable results to past memory reviews, our overclocking clock frequency went up to DDR550 - 30 points higher. The Super Pi issue remained, since we could run Super Pi and Sandra Memory tests all day at DDR565, but gaming tests crashed the system at any setting over DDR550.
It is clear that 1GB DIMMs put a much greater demand on system resources than 512MB DIMMs. It is also clear that the newer Athlon 64 memory controllers are better at meeting the demands of 1GB DIMMs in overclocking. We went back and compared performance of 512MB DIMMs on Clawhammer and Rev. E just for a sanity check. There was virtually no difference in 512MB overclocking on either memory controller - pointing again to the extra demands of 1GB memory modules.
Our advice is to use a recent processor and memory controller with 1GB DIMMs if you plan to overclock the memory. If this is not possible, then expect lower overclocks from your 1GB DIMMs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
walmartshopper - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Thanks for the review. I've been toying around with 4 sticks of Ballistix pc3200, only to get them running at 480mhz with 2.5-3-3-8 2T timings (I got 530mhz with 2 sticks at 1T). It's not too bad, but after reading this, I decided to replace them with the 2x1024 OCZ pc4000. I actually have 5 sticks of Ballistix, and I'm hoping to sell them for 50$ each. Anyone interested?AkumaX - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
I think on Page 2 when you were comparing 2T vs 1T you also meant 2x1024mb vs 4x512mb, rather than 2x512mb vs 4x512mb right?cryptonomicon - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
no, he's comparing the same ram to show how the memory controller goes to crap after you load up more than two dimms. the sticks were both 512x2 plat rev IITheInvincibleMustard - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Nice, well-written article, Wesley. It seems slightly ironic to me, though, that this review comes out just as I'm expecting a 2GB kit from G.Skill via NewEgg to arrive tomorrow to replace my el-cheapo 2x512 (3-3-3-7 at DDR400? ick)Minor nit: pg 8
"The performance differences will be that the NVIDIA 71.84 driver is a bit faster than the 61.77 and 71.84 drivers used in earlier memory reviews."
Umm ... unless the driver is somehow faster than itself, I'm hoping that's a typo of sorts.
-TIM
n7 - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
I'm glad to see a review on 2x1024 MB; it was past due.I realize there aren't many DDR433 & up 2x1024MB RAM manufacturers, but i would have liked to have seen Crucial, Mushkin, Patriot, Geil, since they all make good DDR400 kits, & at least in Mushkin & Crucial's case, they also make DDR433 & up kits.
To make it simple, i'd like to see a review with a few more companies involved :)
rqle - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Isnt it a little unfair to say one brand highest speed obtain @ 2-3-2-7 is lower then some other brand higest speed obtain is higher cause of 3-4-3-7? I mean, if you set corsair at a more lax timing AND higher voltage wouldnt it do better? Some one fill me in. Cause i remember back in the old days, memory i bought that can do 2-2-3-6 at 2.5v that was rated at 400DDR would overclock and do much better the same timing and voltage of some-old brand 533DDR+.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
From p. 5 of the review:"Increasing voltage beyond 2.7V did not allow us to go any higher in overclocking, nor did more relaxed timings allow us to push higher. The limit is DDR492 - very close to DDR500."
We tried to go higher but DDR492 is the limit with the 1GB Corsair dimms we tested. As we stated in the review it is likely Corsair is using a different Infineon chip than OCZ and Gigaram, or they are binning for best performance in the DDR400 to DDR500 range. Gigaram and OCZ are probably also using different Inineon memory chips - or they are at the least using different binning methodologies.
ozzimark - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
wow.. wesley, long needed article. however, some silly mistakes that i think i see :Dfirst.. the gigaram oc'ing chart. max speed is put at 2-4-3-7.. are you sure it's not 3-4-3-7?
also, the second speed is curiously 2-2.5-2.. where 2.5-3-2 is exepcted
second, i know the difficulties of getting review samples, but where is the biggest name in 1gb sticks right now, crucial ballistix? i have seen many of these sticks do 280-300mhz.
last, i remember the value ram overclocking article you guys had a while back. plan on going the same for 1gb sticks?
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
I went back to my test logs and corrected the misplaced values. DD436 is 2-3-2-7 and DDR556 is 3-4-3-7. The second value in all reported strings is RAS to CAS Delay in case anyone is confused by the notation.We hope to do a review of the Crucial Ballistix 1GB dimms in the near future. We haven't decided whether to do a Value 1GB roundup yet, but we will consider your suggestion.
Ender17 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
;)