Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 63 of 63

Thread: Phenom II ddr III speed vs timings

  1. #51
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas
    Posts
    2,133
    yes ddr3 has brought on a new wave of confusion. ddr2 was pretty straight forward and you would go for the highest clocks you could get now its just like wtf guess check and revise? well my other calculation was around 3.2ghz nb which would make sense and also agree with demonkevy's though too. but wouldnt 1800 7-7-7 always be faster than 1700 9-9-9 because the timings are lower and the clocks are higher? if you got anything else to show that would be nice. it might take time to get used to this whole ddr3 thing. but hows it on intel's side? did they ever have similar issues on core 2 or i7 with ddr3? seems kinda pointless to be making ram that can run at speeds like 2200 mhz if speeds much lower seem to perform better.

  2. #52
    Brilliant Idiot
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hell on Earth
    Posts
    11,015
    yes 1800 7-7-7 should be always faster than 1700 9-9-9 but it was not faster by a large margin as was previously seen with ddr 2.......

    .05 in PI 1m is small potatoes considering those timings and speeds. In real world we are talking about 1/10th of a FPS better in a game? not worth the effort or money
    Last edited by chew*; 05-01-2009 at 08:19 PM.
    heatware chew*
    I've got no strings to hold me down.
    To make me fret, or make me frown.
    I had strings but now I'm free.
    There are no strings on me

  3. #53
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas
    Posts
    2,133
    well how can you explain this? the ram is too fast for the imc? the ram is too fast for the cpu itself? how can this be fixed? because really i see no point in ddr4 if they cant find a way within the next few years to take advantage of all the bandwidth. unless they make a gpgpu.

  4. #54
    Brilliant Idiot
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hell on Earth
    Posts
    11,015
    Quote Originally Posted by roofsniper View Post
    well how can you explain this? the ram is too fast for the imc? the ram is too fast for the cpu itself? how can this be fixed? because really i see no point in ddr4 if they cant find a way within the next few years to take advantage of all the bandwidth. unless they make a gpgpu.
    they have either eliminated a bottleneck and or created another bottleneck........maybe something we won't be able to get around until we get a new NB or SB?

    The other possibility is they tuned it that way for a reason.......so that air/water users would get the max performance without killing themselves to get high clocking ram stable.........It not like the platform is bandwidth starved atm anyway..........
    heatware chew*
    I've got no strings to hold me down.
    To make me fret, or make me frown.
    I had strings but now I'm free.
    There are no strings on me

  5. #55
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    milwaukee
    Posts
    1,683
    Quote Originally Posted by chew* View Post
    maybe something we won't be able to get around until we get a new NB or SB?
    this is what i was thinking between imc revisions and the new chipset coming out hopefully we can start to see some nb clocks that make the ram shine
    LEO!!!!
    amd phenom II x6 1100T | gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 . .
    2x2gb g.skill 2133c8 | 128gb g.skill falcon ssd
    sapphire ati 5850 | x-fi xtrememusic. . .
    samsung f4 2tb | samsung dvdrw . .
    corsair tx850w | windows 7 64-bit.
    ddc3.25 xspc restop | ek ltx | mc-tdx | BIP . .
    lycosa-g9-z2300 | 26" 1920x1200 lcd .

  6. #56
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,209
    ok did some testing with latency dependant super pi 1m (1600 mode vs. 1333 mode) to see if there's really a slowdown with 1600 mode:



    to compare, i'll calculate the average of each of those two runs:

    run 1 (1333 mode): 18.545s
    run 2 (1600 mode): 18.565s
    run 3 (1600mode slow nb): 18.617s
    run 4 (1333mode slow nb): 18.626s

    i think not much difference at all. variability in those runs is higher then difference in mean values. differences are most likely found to be due to nb speed... ~50ms count for 200mhz nb, so 10ms can easily be due to 50mhz more or less nb speed when comparing run 1 to run 2... thus no problem with running 1600 divider i think..

    next up i'll do vantage and 3dm06 to compare 1333 cl6 with 1600 cl7 as a more bandwidth-dependent bench...
    Last edited by Oese; 05-02-2009 at 12:21 AM.
    1. ASUS Sabertooth 990fx | FX 8320 || 2. DFI DK 790FXB-M3H5 | X4 810
    8GB Samsung 30nm DDR3-2000 9-10-10-28 || 4GB PSC DDR3-1333 6-7-6-21
    Corsair TX750W | Sapphire 6970 2GB || BeQuiet PurePower 450w | HD 4850
    EK Supreme | AC aquagratix | Laing Pro | MoRa 2 || Aircooled

  7. #57
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6,421
    1M is not memory intensive as the large cache of the cpu is mainly used for 1M calculation instead of the ram, hence the faster 1M calculation time when raising NB-CPU frequency. (=faster acces to the cpu cache)

    If you want to test memory performance 32M is best but it will take ages to test.
    Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z | FX 8350 | 2x4GB Trident-X 2600 C10 | 2x ATI HD5870 Crossfire | Enermax Revo 1050watt | OCZ Vertex 3 60GB | Samsung F1 1TB

    Watercooling: XSPC Raystorm | EK 5870 Delrin fullcover | TFC X-changer 480 w/ 4x Gentle Typhoon | DDC2+ Delrin top | EK 200mm res | Primochill LRT 3/8 tubing

    Case: Murdermodded TJ-07

    sub 9 sec. SPi1M 940BE 955BE 965BE 1090T

  8. #58
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,209
    agree, thats why there's no difference between 1333 cl6 and 1600 cl7. bandwidth does not count here. latency is a factor though. one can prove that by comparing ddr3-1333 cl7 to ddr3-1333 cl6.



    thus, slower overall latency settings in the imc when 1600 mode is chosen should have an effect when doing a latency-dependent bench. Thats what i tested, and i didnt find such....

    here you can see the effect of latency/bandwidth as well:



    1333: 6-5-5-18: 3dm06 21265, cpu 5510, sm2 8480, sm3 10337; vantage 13742, cpu 13654, graphics 13771
    1333: 6-6-6-18: 3dm06 21217, cpu 5548, sm2 8378, sm3 10346; vantage 13703, cpu 13715, graphics 13700
    1600: 7-6-6-20: 3dm06 21285, cpu 5514, sm2 8481, sm3 10355; vantage 13620, cpu 13690, graphics 13596
    1600: 7-7-7-20: 3dm06 21236, cpu 5482, sm2 8441, sm3 10372; vantage 13722, cpu 13638, graphics 13750

    mmh not really consistent findings here... seems all is within range of variability..
    Last edited by Oese; 05-02-2009 at 04:50 AM.
    1. ASUS Sabertooth 990fx | FX 8320 || 2. DFI DK 790FXB-M3H5 | X4 810
    8GB Samsung 30nm DDR3-2000 9-10-10-28 || 4GB PSC DDR3-1333 6-7-6-21
    Corsair TX750W | Sapphire 6970 2GB || BeQuiet PurePower 450w | HD 4850
    EK Supreme | AC aquagratix | Laing Pro | MoRa 2 || Aircooled

  9. #59
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    1,124
    Have found that 1700Mhz 6-6-6-15-18 is the fastest for me without a doubt! Bit of both high bandwidth and low latency!

  10. #60
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,209
    haha lucky one
    1. ASUS Sabertooth 990fx | FX 8320 || 2. DFI DK 790FXB-M3H5 | X4 810
    8GB Samsung 30nm DDR3-2000 9-10-10-28 || 4GB PSC DDR3-1333 6-7-6-21
    Corsair TX750W | Sapphire 6970 2GB || BeQuiet PurePower 450w | HD 4850
    EK Supreme | AC aquagratix | Laing Pro | MoRa 2 || Aircooled

  11. #61
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    1,124
    Sorry about that it meat to say 1600Mhz 6-6-6-15-18
    Need 2.0v for 1700Mhz 6-6-6-15-18 and am not happy using that voltage 24/7! Prefer using 1.65v for 1600Mhz 6-6-6-15-18
    Last edited by bro20000; 05-02-2009 at 02:38 AM.

  12. #62
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,209
    hehe sure
    1. ASUS Sabertooth 990fx | FX 8320 || 2. DFI DK 790FXB-M3H5 | X4 810
    8GB Samsung 30nm DDR3-2000 9-10-10-28 || 4GB PSC DDR3-1333 6-7-6-21
    Corsair TX750W | Sapphire 6970 2GB || BeQuiet PurePower 450w | HD 4850
    EK Supreme | AC aquagratix | Laing Pro | MoRa 2 || Aircooled

  13. #63
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,714
    Oh, good thread. I already had some thoughts regarding the need for high frequency DDR3 memory when comparing the AM3 with AM2+ motherboards.

    http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...58&articID=926

    Check out the Lavalys Everest results in the overclocked test setting: 750MHz 7-6-6-18 performs pretty much the same as 600MHz 4-5-5-16 :-)
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •