DDR2 Sandra Problem.

[quicksilverXP]

I've managed to get my DDR2 up to 373Mhz (FSB at 270_ at 4-2-2-10. Problem is, I'm only getting scores of 6700 MB/s in Sandra, and I know I should be getting well over 7,000 MB/s.. if not.. even near 8,000MB/s. I'm running on the 14 multi right now. Anyone experience this? I know someone else experience the same problem... and I remember undergoing this problem several years ago with my P4C800...

any help woul dbe appreciated..

[agenda2005]

6700MB/s is good enough at those timings. Is that not an Intel rig? Don't even dream about 8000MB/s :D . DDR2 timing sucks and only on A64 that those insane bandwith can be obtain because of their direct connect architecture (On-die memory controller). For Intel, the highest you can get with tighter timings is probably 7000+MB/s. Good luck as you try further.

[Xassius]

I'm getting like 7300mb/s on DDR2 with a Galatin, I'm sure 8000mb/s would be pretty easy if I had a prescott.

DDR2 > DDR

Everyone knows that. It's just the price.

[Xassius]

I've managed to get my DDR2 up to 373Mhz (FSB at 270_ at 4-2-2-10. Problem is, I'm only getting scores of 6700 MB/s in Sandra, and I know I should be getting well over 7,000 MB/s.. if not.. even near 8,000MB/s. I'm running on the 14 multi right now. Anyone experience this? I know someone else experience the same problem... and I remember undergoing this problem several years ago with my P4C800...

any help woul dbe appreciated..

http://www.ocprices.com/index.php?rev_id=258&page=5&action=reviews
Read. Try using the 1:1 divider and tighter timings. I remember that you had some Centon DDR2 (if I am not mistaken).

Also, what motherboard is this? I experienced these issues too on my old Abit AA8.

[agenda2005]

I'm getting like 7300mb/s on DDR2 with a Galatin, I'm sure 8000mb/s would be pretty easy if I had a prescott.

DDR2 > DDR

Everyone knows that. It's just the price.

Xassius,
Shows us an 8000MB/s Sandra score on an Intel rig with your DDR2 if it's that easy. Your link only show 7000+ MB/s and that's not upto the 7300MB/s that you claimed. If you don't have proof, don't come here making bogus claims. 8000MB/s is easy.VERY VERY EASY!

[agenda2005]

I'm getting like 7300mb/s on DDR2 with a Galatin, I'm sure 8000mb/s would be pretty easy if I had a prescott.

DDR2 > DDR

Everyone knows that. It's just the price.

Okay! I don't agree with that. Watch this http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50407. Go and bring a screen shot of DDR2 with that bandwith 9391MB/s! Don't even think about it :p:

[enzoR]

could be possible if you use the OCZ 3-2-2-10 ddr2

[agenda2005]

could be possible if you use the OCZ 3-2-2-10 ddr2

Yeah! I agree with that! It's going to be possible with time, but to say it's easy is a different thing.

[enzoR]

well i dunno.. if it does 300mhz 3-2-2-10 how much higher do you have to make it go?

[agenda2005]

well i dunno.. if it does 300mhz 3-2-2-10 how much higher do you have to make it go?

Well 280MHZ 3-2-2 with 1:1 timing gives 6338MB/s here http://www.ocprices.com/index.php?rev_id=258&page=5&action=reviews.
At 434MHz (DDR2-869) and 3-2-2 timing with 3:4 divider they got 7017MB/s. The 3:4 divider makes it 325MHz 1:1 (DDR2-650). So what is your take?
The dude who think prescott will do better than Gallatin is even shooting himself in the leg. Prescott scores will be worst off. You need to get some clue abvout how this number comes out and you will understand why I'm telling you 8000MB/s is difficult for current Intel CPU's.

[Xassius]

The dude who think prescott will do better than Gallatin is even shooting himself in the leg. Prescott scores will be worst off. You need to get some clue abvout how this number comes out and you will understand why I'm telling you 8000MB/s is difficult for current Intel CPU's.

umm...no :p:

Prescott = about 10-12% higher sandra scores than Northwood/Gallatin.

[Xassius]

Okay! I don't agree with that. Watch this http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50407. Go and bring a screen shot of DDR2 with that bandwith 9391MB/s! Don't even think about it :p:

Ok, go do screenshots of a DDR2 AMD setup - it will beat a DDR AMD system easily. pWned.

Notice this
" XtremeSystems Forums > Hardware > Intel "
Intel forum. You can't compare AMD DDR results with Intel DDR2 results. We are discussing about DDR and DDR2 now (slightly off topic), and so far, the only platform that offers both is Intel.

[Xassius]

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=340589&P=3

[Xassius]

Xassius,
Shows us an 8000MB/s Sandra score on an Intel rig with your DDR2 if it's that easy. Your link only show 7000+ MB/s and that's not upto the 7300MB/s that you claimed. If you don't have proof, don't come here making bogus claims. 8000MB/s is easy.VERY VERY EASY!

Go send me a 3.73Ghz 2mb L2 Cache 1066FSB prescott.

[agenda2005]

[QUOTE=Xassius]Ok, go do screenshots of a DDR2 AMD setup - it will beat a DDR AMD system easily. pWned.

At the same frequency? NO and DID I SAY CAPITAL NO. Simple. Bad latency. Until we can get stable DDR2-800, forget it. DDR600 2.5-3-3-7 at 1:1 timing is a now common. You will need DDR2-800 or even more at 1:1 to compete with DDR at 600MHz.

[agenda2005]

Ok, go do screenshots of a DDR2 AMD setup - it will beat a DDR AMD system easily. pWned.

Notice this
" XtremeSystems Forums > Hardware > Intel "
Intel forum. You can't compare AMD DDR results with Intel DDR2 results. We are discussing about DDR and DDR2 now (slightly off topic), and so far, the only platform that offers both is Intel.

Haven't you heard about prscott crapping out over 300MHz when using DDR2? I don't give a damn whether it's all about DDR1 vs DDR2. We all know it boils down to AMD vs Intel whenever you are disscussing about that technology. Intel said DDR2 is the new thing and AMD stood its ground with DDR and even at the lowly DDR400 A64 are still doing pretty well compare to Intel DDR2-533.

[agenda2005]

Go send me a 3.73Ghz 2mb L2 Cache 1066FSB prescott.

Now you are showing your true color.I thought you wanted to hide under DDR2 vs DDR1 before. 3.73Ghz 2mb L2 Cache 1066FSB prescott will be a nice CPU but I would buy an Athlon 64 FX a thousand time before I try it once.

[Xassius]

Haven't you heard about prscott crapping out over 300MHz when using DDR2? I don't give a damn whether it's all about DDR1 vs DDR2. We all know it boils down to AMD vs Intel whenever you are disscussing about that technology. Intel said DDR2 is the new thing and AMD stood its ground with DDR and even at the lowly DDR400 A64 are still doing pretty well compare to Intel DDR2-533.

No I have not. I have solved that issue - FSB termination voltage.

Analogy
If DDR2 does so well against DDR on Intel, who knows what will happen to DDR2 on AMD?

[Xassius]

Now you are showing your true color.I thought you wanted to hide under DDR2 vs DDR1 before. 3.73Ghz 2mb L2 Cache 1066FSB prescott will be a nice CPU but I would buy an Athlon 64 FX a thousand time before I try it once.

yeah... :confused:

You wanted to see 8Gb/s scores on an Intel system, I just need a Prescott capable of a low multi and high clocks (so I can actually scale the fsb without more than what my watercooling is capable of).

[Xassius]

[QUOTE=Xassius]Ok, go do screenshots of a DDR2 AMD setup - it will beat a DDR AMD system easily. pWned.

At the same frequency? NO and DID I SAY CAPITAL NO. Simple. Bad latency. Until we can get stable DDR2-800, forget it. DDR600 2.5-3-3-7 at 1:1 timing is a now common. You will need DDR2-800 or even more at 1:1 to compete with DDR at 600MHz.

We can already get stable DDR2-800 on intel systems. *me wonders what AMD will be capable of..with DDR2*

[LardArse]

I tried a 290+FSB/396 memory sandra bench with 4.7G prescott at Cas 4, 4, 4, 14. It gave me 7000+ on AA8XE, which I was really surprised as I had thought that it'd hit 8K easily. Sandra's kinda weird program, if you clockgen up, it will still bench at your boot up speed, or maybe if guesstimates the score from your bootup speed.

[Kunaak]

the reason why you can't use clockgen and change the speed of the CPU in windows, and see changes in programs, is cause you installed the OS with hyperthreading on.

wipe out the OS, disable hyper threading, never turn it on...

then use clockgen and try sisoft sandra, then you will see the results change from the boot up speed.

[LardArse]

I see kunaak. :) Thx for the info, I know cpuz suffers from the same problem last time. Well, I guess not for the moment, I can live without sandra :D

[Xassius]

I tried a 290+FSB/396 memory sandra bench with 4.7G prescott at Cas 4, 4, 4, 14. It gave me 7000+ on AA8XE, which I was really surprised as I had thought that it'd hit 8K easily. Sandra's kinda weird program, if you clockgen up, it will still bench at your boot up speed, or maybe if guesstimates the score from your bootup speed.

Try using the 1:1 divider. 3:4 is a waste of time :p:

At DDR2-720 3-2-2-4 timings, I was only getting like 6000mb/s (on a prescott) whereas others were getting 600-700mb/s above me. Abit boards are weird.

[quicksilverXP]

Hey... can someone post benchmarks using Everest read and write for their DDR2 benchmarks. That would help me a lot. Perhaps it might be a Sandra bug...