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
Performance Test Configuration
The three 2GB kits were tested with the DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR Athlon 64 Socket 939 motherboard. Other components remain the same as used in the memory setup found in Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules.
The A64 test bed includes components that have been proven in Socket 939 Athlon 64 benchmarking, such as the Socket 939 4000+, the OCZ Power Stream 520 Power Supply, and the NVIDIA 6800 Ultra video card. We also used an AMD FX57 set to a 12X multiplier for tests that required a Revision E type memory controller. The FX57 was adjusted to run at 2.4GHz, the same speed as the Clawhammer 4000+.
All other basic test conditions attempted to mirror those used in our earlier Athlon 64 memory reviews.
In past benchmarking, we have found performance of the nForce4 and nForce3 chipsets to be virtually identical, and we have found AGP and PCIe performance to be virtually the same in the benchmarks that we use for memory testing. Therefore, you can also generally compare these results to TCCD benchmarks in recent memory reviews.
With nForce3 motherboards, the fastest performance on AMD Athlon 64 was at a Cycle Time or tRAS of 10. However, the nForce4 behaves a bit differently with memory. We ran a complete set of Memtest86 benchmarks with only tRAS varied to determine the best tRAS setting for these memories, and found the best bandwidth at tRAS settings ranging from 5 to 8. Therefore, a tRAS setting of 7 was used for testing.
Test Settings
All AMD Athlon 64 processors are unlocked downward, and the FX CPUs are unlocked up and down. This feature allows a different approach to memory testing, which truly measures performance differences in memory speed alone. All tests were run with CPU speed as close to the specified 2.4GHz of the 4000+/FX53 as possible, with CPU speed/Memory Speed increased at lower multipliers to achieve 2.4 GHz. This approach allows the true measurement of the impact of higher memory speed and timings on performance, since CPU speed is fixed, thus removing CPU speed as a factor in memory performance.
The following settings were tested with the Mushkin Redline XP4000 on the DFI nF4 test bed:
The three 2GB kits were tested with the DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR Athlon 64 Socket 939 motherboard. Other components remain the same as used in the memory setup found in Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules.
The A64 test bed includes components that have been proven in Socket 939 Athlon 64 benchmarking, such as the Socket 939 4000+, the OCZ Power Stream 520 Power Supply, and the NVIDIA 6800 Ultra video card. We also used an AMD FX57 set to a 12X multiplier for tests that required a Revision E type memory controller. The FX57 was adjusted to run at 2.4GHz, the same speed as the Clawhammer 4000+.
All other basic test conditions attempted to mirror those used in our earlier Athlon 64 memory reviews.
| AMD nForce4 Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD FX57 Athlon 64 at 12X Ratio (2.4GHz) AMD 4000+ (FX53) Athlon 64 (2.4GHz) (2.4GHz, Socket 939, 1 MB cache, Dual Channel, 1000HT) |
| RAM: | Corsair CMX1024-3500XL PRO (DS) 2X1024MB Gigaram 2GB Dual Channel PC-4200 (DS) 2X1024MB OCZ PC4000 1024MB EB Platinum (DS) 2X1024MB Mushkin Redline XP4000 (DS) 2X512MB Kingston KVR400X64C25/512 (DS) 2X512MB Kingston KVR400X64C3AK2/1G (DS) 2X512MB Mushkin PC3200 EM (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Value Series (VX) (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Gold (BH5) (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Premier (DS) 2X512MB Transcend JM366D643A-50 (DS) 2X512MB Patriot PC3200+XLBT (DS) 2X512MB OCZ EL PC4000 VX Gold (DS) 2X512MB Corsair TwinX1024-4400C25 (DS) 2X512MB Crucial Ballistix (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev 2 (DS) 2X512MB |
| Hard Drives: | Seagate 120GB SATA 7200RPM 8MB Cache |
| PCI/AGP Speed: | Fixed at 33/66 |
| Bus Master Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce Platform Driver 6.66 |
| Video Card(s): | NVIDIA 6800 Ultra 256MB PCIe, 256MB aperture, 1024x768x32 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA Forceware 78.01Release |
| Power Supply: | OCZ Power Stream 520W |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Motherboard: | DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR |
| BIOS: | 7/04/2005 |
In past benchmarking, we have found performance of the nForce4 and nForce3 chipsets to be virtually identical, and we have found AGP and PCIe performance to be virtually the same in the benchmarks that we use for memory testing. Therefore, you can also generally compare these results to TCCD benchmarks in recent memory reviews.
With nForce3 motherboards, the fastest performance on AMD Athlon 64 was at a Cycle Time or tRAS of 10. However, the nForce4 behaves a bit differently with memory. We ran a complete set of Memtest86 benchmarks with only tRAS varied to determine the best tRAS setting for these memories, and found the best bandwidth at tRAS settings ranging from 5 to 8. Therefore, a tRAS setting of 7 was used for testing.
Test Settings
All AMD Athlon 64 processors are unlocked downward, and the FX CPUs are unlocked up and down. This feature allows a different approach to memory testing, which truly measures performance differences in memory speed alone. All tests were run with CPU speed as close to the specified 2.4GHz of the 4000+/FX53 as possible, with CPU speed/Memory Speed increased at lower multipliers to achieve 2.4 GHz. This approach allows the true measurement of the impact of higher memory speed and timings on performance, since CPU speed is fixed, thus removing CPU speed as a factor in memory performance.
The following settings were tested with the Mushkin Redline XP4000 on the DFI nF4 test bed:
- 2.4GHz-12x200/DDR400 - the highest stock memory speed supported on nF3-4/SiS755-FX/ATI Radeon Xpress 200/VIA 939 motherboards
- 2.4GHz-11x218/DDR436 - a ratio near the standard DDR433 speed
- 2.4GHz-10x240/DDR480 - a ratio near the standard rating of DDR466
- 2.4GHz -9x267/DDR533 - a memory speed achieved by only a few top memories on the Athlon 64
- Highest Memory Performance - the highest memory bandwidth and game performance that we could achieve with the memory being tested. This is rarely the highest memory speed that we could achieve. It is normally a lower speed with 1T Command Rate and tighter memory timings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
The published "ram guy" link is the one printed on the Corsair retail package. We also tried the link and it connects to the Corsair Help Forums.If you have another link please list it in the Comments.
Madellga - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
I am using this OCZ kit (EL, not the one in the review) since August on a San Diego / DFI combo. It goes to 230@2.5-3-2 with 2.7V and 1T.I tried also 4 sticks (a friend bought it also) and we made to 220@2.5-3-2 with 2.7V and 2T.
I didn't try above 230, as the OCZ Guy pointed the 230 to be the limit. I am using 180/200 or 166/200 to overclock the San Diego, leaving the memory between 220-230.
It is rock solid, it can Prime all night without mistakes.
I prefer to have more memory even if a bit slower - it is much worse to have Windows writting to the swap file.
ElFenix - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
just to see how much the difference is when going from 1 gig to 2 gigsWesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
We tested many applications with 1GB vs. 2GB of ram. BF2 greatly benefited, but nothing else we've tested so far really improved much with 2GB. That will likely change with the release of newer, more demanding apps and games that take advantage of the new dual-core processors.One High-Performance memory company told us that after they saw what 2GB did for BF2 they ran 1 vs 2 on every game they could get their hands on. The goal was to publish benchmarks to show the advantage of buyers using 2GB instead of 1GB - and sell more memory. They privately told us they also found no real performance improvement in anything other than BF2.
We do expect 2GB/4GB will make a difference in multithreaded and true 64-bit apps in the future. Of course multi-tasking also normally benefits from more memory.
Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
The only other game I've seen people recommending 2GB for is the FEAR demo but of course it's not final yet.Good read though, I thought the discussion on the A64 and the various ram issues was particiularly useful.
John
Margalus - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
2Gb make a good difference in WoW also.Vesperan - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Wesley,the memory combinations on the 'Why 1GB Dimms?' page could be shown as a 2x2 matrix (with 2/4 dimms on one axis and 1T/2T on other). Performance at each combination could be shown - except of course for 4 dimms at 1T. Currently the article contrasts the 2 dimms and 1T combination with 4 dimms and 2T, could it be possible for you to add 2 dimms at 2T?
I would just like see the effect of 1T to 2T, or 2 dimms to 4 dimms ceterus paribus - that is, all else being equal. While I dont think the missing combination (2 dimms at 2T) will undermine your arguments made, I would like to see how it fits into the overall picture.
Phantronius - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
I did, BF2 runs so much better as a resultPhantronius - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
1st!!! Honestly, since i've given up overclocking, I threw in 2 1gig Platnium Corsair XMS modules in my new Athlon 64 setup and it works fine and stable, couldn't give a shit if my "timings" are as *looot* as they could be.DigitalFreak - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Well good for you