I tried 3.0 and 3.2 on my modded asus and it didnt do a damn thing. These sticks i have just dont respond to voltage like winbond sticks.
Printable View
I tried 3.0 and 3.2 on my modded asus and it didnt do a damn thing. These sticks i have just dont respond to voltage like winbond sticks.
Yes, it should be, as it's 10 higher FSB and 120MHz more clockspeed, but that's not what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally posted by retrospooty
Here are my earlier test results...
P4 2.4C@ 12x220 (2640mhz) 2-2-2-5 - 1:1
Sisoft mem - 5264/5298
3dm2k1 - 18373
pcmark2k1 mem - 9800
P4 2.4C@ 12x230 (2760mhz) 2.5-3-3-7 - 1:1
Sisoft mem - 5454/5455
3dm2k1 - 18667
pcmark2k1 mem - 10072
230 at 2.5-3-3-7 beats 220 at 2-2-2-5 (for me) Now, the OCZ pc4200 stuff is rated to run at 2.5-4-4-7 at 270mhz bus... This will allow me to run 1:1 at 270(or higher) :D
Take that 12x230 2.5-3-3-7, drop it to 5:4, and put the timings back to 2-2-2-5. Your 3DMark2K1 will be higher (as will Quake III, Comanche, UT2K3, Jedi Knight...almost any application). Your Sandra's and PCMark mem may be lower, but who cares if everything 'real' is faster?
Here's a review out today on the Corsair TwinX-3700 stuff:
http://www.3dxtreme.org/Corsair_xms3700_twinx_p1.shtml
It is a very good read, because he uses an unlocked processor to test it with, keeping the CPU speed out of it.
He tests at 1:1 3GHz/200 2-2-2-5 against 3GHz/233 3-4-4-8 and 3GHz/250 3-4-4-8, and gets the same conclusions I do. Better mem scores, but all the real apps just take a dump.
I see what your saying, actually , right now, and for the past week or so I have been running at 275 5:4 2-2-2-6, so I am set. One of these days when I get some time I'll play around with it some more. :toast:Quote:
Originally posted by Zroc
Yes, it should be, as it's 10 higher FSB and 120MHz more clockspeed, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Take that 12x230 2.5-3-3-7, drop it to 5:4, and put the timings back to 2-2-2-5. Your 3DMark2K1 will be higher (as will Quake III, Comanche, UT2K3, Jedi Knight...almost any application). Your Sandra's and PCMark mem may be lower, but who cares if everything 'real' is faster?
Here's a review out today on the Corsair TwinX-3700 stuff:
http://www.3dxtreme.org/Corsair_xms3700_twinx_p1.shtml
It is a very good read, because he uses an unlocked processor to test it with, keeping the CPU speed out of it.
He tests at 1:1 3GHz/200 2-2-2-5 against 3GHz/233 3-4-4-8 and 3GHz/250 3-4-4-8, and gets the same conclusions I do. Better mem scores, but all the real apps just take a dump.
I have used this board, ASUS P4C800 for months with a P4 3.0 800Mhz using Mushkin 1 Gb Dual Pack PC3200 Level 2 RAM. Combined with the Prometeia I’m able to run the CPU stable at 4032 and have reached speeds above 4200.
Mushkin's Level 2 memory jumped in price recently due to the lack of Winbond chips. Mushkin continues to use Winbond until they can find something suitable to replace it.
Only a few resellers are carrying inventory as the best has also become rare.
Quote:
Originally posted by SpicyHuevos
I tried 3.0 and 3.2 on my modded asus and it didnt do a damn thing. These sticks i have just dont respond to voltage like winbond sticks.
Just curious, what voltage would I need to feed a pair of HyperX 3500 so I can run it at 2-2-2-5 at 301fsb and 5:4 divider?
Pretty easily...maybe even 2.85v, for sure...stick it with 3.1v
C
I'm stuck in no mans land at present with my P4 3.0. It will go up to 3750 in winter which is 250FSB, and at present it goes up to 244FSB.My memory is Corsair PC3500 which will do 2-5-2-2 all day at 220Mhz but not much over 225 with any more relaxed settings, weird.
Of course I am running at 5:4 at 244 at present. If I turn it down and run 1:1 at 220 then I get 100+ more 3dmark points than at 5:4 at 220 so I want to go 1:1, however ....
When running 220 at relaxed timings of 2.5-7-3-3 I drop 200 points, so I have to make sure I get 1:1 and 2-5-2-2 and 250Mhz memory ( ie PC4000 at 2-5-2-2 ).
Of course no body does that yet, instead you get PC3200 memory 2-5-2-2 in effect. I'm tired of the memory people claiming bigger and bigger numbers for memory when they are not providing anything better than we have had for the last few months, because the chip speeds are still 5ns or 4.3ns.
I want some 4ns chips that run 250 not out of spec at 2-5-2-2 and shall sit tight until someone provides it.
Even reading this page it seems to be a lottery whether it will work well or not.
Regards
Andy
ZROC:
look at corsairs results:)
http://www.dvhardware.net/article.php?sid=1643
And?Quote:
Originally posted by SpicyHuevos
ZROC:
look at corsairs results:)
http://www.dvhardware.net/article.php?sid=1643
None of that has any relevance to what I'm talking about...it is simply an overclocking chart...in each case, they're simply raising the FSB and clockspeed to go with it. Of course it will be faster.
None of this changes the fact that 250FSB 5:4 DDR400 2/2/2/6 will beat 250 FSB 1:1 DDR500 3/4/4/8 in 3DMark2K1, Comanche, Quake III, Jedi Knight II, UT2K3...basically any gaming benchmark or real application.
It all stems from the simple fact that the hit from 1:1 to 5:4 has always been around 2%, and the hit 2/2/2/6 to 3/4/4/8 is greater than 2%...it's more like 6%.
sorry zroc.
After many times trying to understand and after multiple experiments with settings . Im failing to see how less bandwidth = better performance .
Maybe its just me.
But i will take on any contest you want at 250 1:1 vs 200 5:4
Cause every test i do indicates the 1:1 is bettter.
on my system.
Thats both being at equal 250 fsb
I think his point , in testing only the memory, is that testing equal CPU and FSB by lowering the ratio to 5:4 and improving the timings to 2-2-2 will yield better results in most games.
However, in most systems (depending on your CPU's multiplier and top speed) you can get more performance out of the overall system (not just the memory) by raising the CPU speed and FSB.
Im my test above 230 at 2.5-3-3-7 beats 220 at 2-2-2-5, but its due mostly to the faster CPU and FSB, not ram. While I do agree with that, if my CPU couldnt do better than that I would stick with 230 2.5-3-3-7, even though its not the best memory performance, its the best overall performance.
Less bandwidth doesn't = better performance. Less bandwidth with better timings CAN = better performance. Significantly.Quote:
Originally posted by SpicyHuevos
sorry zroc.
After many times trying to understand and after multiple experiments with settings . Im failing to see how less bandwidth = better performance .
Maybe its just me.
But i will take on any contest you want at 250 1:1 vs 200 5:4
Cause every test i do indicates the 1:1 is bettter.
on my system.
Thats both being at equal 250 fsb
Sure...here:
200.5 FSB/200.5 Mem (DDR401) 2.5/7/3/3
Sandra- 4681/4683
QIII- 363.3
Comanche- 49.35
3DMark- 16031
200.5 FSB/160.4 Mem (DDR320.8) 2/6/2/2
Sandra- 4392/4398
QIII- 363.9
Comanche- 49.43
3DMark- 16123
Anybody in here can repeat those results.
At the same clockspeed and FSB, 5:4 2/2/2/6 will match or beat 1:1 2.5/3/3/7, and slaughter 1:1 3/4/4/8. Not in Sandra or mem benches, naturally, but in real apps.
You use a stopwatch for real apps?
ALl i do with this rig is play games and bench man its the only apps i got;)
I have a normal computer or 2 for everyday use!
DJ, got some questions for you with the IC7.Quote:
Originally posted by SpicyHuevos
You use a stopwatch for real apps?
ALl i do with this rig is play games and bench man its the only apps i got;)
I have a normal computer or 2 for everyday use!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...112#post188112
OPP
okay I just linked here from the [H] and thought I'd add my 2 cents.
In another thread there, someone asked also if they should buy pc3500 or pc4000.
I responded saying the pc4000 is a waste of money, and my pc3500 rocks with 2/2/2/5 timings at 272 fsb at 5:4 with turbo mode enabled on the IS7.
Then someone jumped in and told me they had a 275 fsb 1:1 overclock and that of course it was better... He didn't mention ram timings but I will assume they were not real tight.
so I asked him to lower his fsb to 272 and do some benchmarks.
Amazingly, our Sandra scores were nearly identical, both just over 5.9 gb/sec of bandwidth, yet my cpu score was about 100 MIPS higher than his.
He is using an IC7-G so there are some variables, but my point is that using the pc3500 at tighter timings and 5:4 can pretty much equal the benchmark results of the pc4000 running 1:1 at lesser timings, given equal cpu speed.
I have no real app benchmarks available at the moment, but I would bet money that my system would rock his to death considering I outscore him in 3dmark 2k1 by like 2000 points, using a 9500pro over his ti4200, and tighter ram timings at the same cpu speed.
seems to me, save the money on the ram which gains you nothing, and spend it on a video card, which generally means EVERYTHING when gaming.
I can testify to what Zroc explained in this thread, he was right.
now I run at 280 5:4 2-2-2-5 , it Does beat 280 at 1:1 3-4-4-8.
BTW thanks Zroc. :toast:
first of all, if you guys would run 2:2:2:7 instead of 2:2:2:5 which potentially kills the burst right in the middle of transfers, the differences between the low latency and the high latency settings would be quite a bit bigger.
Second, with the P4 on a "dual channel platform", the processor bus interface is the biggest bottleneck. That is, if you are overclocking, it actually pays to stay at a memory frequency that the memory can handle at acceptable latencies and running in asynchronous mode.
FYI, here are some interesting scores that need to be beat:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/memory/ddr400/10.shtml