Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: dual core x2. able to provide some benchmarks between single and dual channel mem int

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    80

    dual core x2. able to provide some benchmarks between single and dual channel mem int

    searched around for dual core single channel performance numbers. as expected i couldn't find any.(who in their right mind would spend that much money on a cpu and only buy one stick or ram)

    in a seperate thread on this forum we are talking about dual core s754s and why amd will not implement them. one of the members posted was that the memory interface in single channel would kill performance numbers.(i disagree) i know the general performance loss when running a single channel comapred to dual channel.(usually 4-8 percent) what i am wondering if these number escalate due to the dual cores?

    anyone able to provide some numbers for me? not sure what benchmarks would illustrate this. maybe some photo or video editing?
    Primary: dfi ut250gb / a64 mobile 3400 62w clawhammer / 3x512mb pdp xbl tccd / WD 120Gb 7200 8Mb x2, RAID0 / 80Gb Maxtor 5400 2Mb external / Sound Blaster 2 ZS Plat. / HDTV Wonder / Pioneer dvr105 / Pioneer dvd115 / Visiontek x800xt / Mad Dog 500w Surepower (superflower rebadge) with Smart Cables / Logitech z680 / IBM p260 21" FD Trinitron x2 / Windows XP sp2, Legal Version

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by tristancarton
    in a seperate thread on this forum we are talking about dual core s754s and why amd will not implement them.
    Here's another reason why dual core S754 might not happen...

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=67471


  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    80
    yeah thanks timko. i know we have a bunch of threads on s754 dual cores and that they are not going to happen.

    i am just trying to see how much of a killer a single channel memory interface would be for dual cores. with just one cpu it isn't a big deal.
    Primary: dfi ut250gb / a64 mobile 3400 62w clawhammer / 3x512mb pdp xbl tccd / WD 120Gb 7200 8Mb x2, RAID0 / 80Gb Maxtor 5400 2Mb external / Sound Blaster 2 ZS Plat. / HDTV Wonder / Pioneer dvr105 / Pioneer dvd115 / Visiontek x800xt / Mad Dog 500w Surepower (superflower rebadge) with Smart Cables / Logitech z680 / IBM p260 21" FD Trinitron x2 / Windows XP sp2, Legal Version

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    86
    In theory the performance degradation by switching to single channel should escalate with dual vs. single cores because the dual cores are sharing the 128-bit memory bus (whereas a pair of single core opterons would each have their own full 128-bit memory bus). By further cutting the memory bus width in half (to 64-bit) by using a single channel interface, you might starve the cores at higher speeds. Here is AnandTech's explanation:

    Historically, the Athlon 64 hasn't really been memory bandwidth bound, since the move to Socket-939, which gave it a full 128-bit wide memory bus, and more bandwidth than these CPUs could use.

    With the move to dual core however, the effective memory bandwidth that each core gets is significantly reduced, as they both have to share the same 128-bit wide memory interface normally dedicated to a single processor.


    I think that explains why in real world performance, Socket 939 CPUs see little real-world gain in performance with increased memory bandwidth, and why 754 show more real-world gain in performance with a similar percentage increase in bandwidth.
    Last edited by p0tempkin; 07-13-2005 at 08:46 AM.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bancroft, ON, Canada
    Posts
    3,645
    I could test it with my 4200, but why? We already know it will degrade especially with two cores sharing a memory bus as p0tempkin said. I mean really, dual channel architectures were built for this kind of thing (two CPU's). Who wants something crippled?
    "Foldin, Foldin, Foldin...keep those benchers foldin..." (Lyrics by Angra, Music is Rawhide)

    BOYCOTT MIR's

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeywoman View Post
    aww an OC virgin! lose it tonight with Xtremesystems!!!

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    80
    ugly the reason for doing this would be to test this hypothesis. nothing more, nothing less. it has no real world value other than to see how memory bandwidth intensive dual core chips are.
    Primary: dfi ut250gb / a64 mobile 3400 62w clawhammer / 3x512mb pdp xbl tccd / WD 120Gb 7200 8Mb x2, RAID0 / 80Gb Maxtor 5400 2Mb external / Sound Blaster 2 ZS Plat. / HDTV Wonder / Pioneer dvr105 / Pioneer dvd115 / Visiontek x800xt / Mad Dog 500w Surepower (superflower rebadge) with Smart Cables / Logitech z680 / IBM p260 21" FD Trinitron x2 / Windows XP sp2, Legal Version

  7. #7
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,594
    i'll be sure to try when mine gets here. I don't think it's going to ahve that big of an impact in 32bit, becasue regardless of it being dual core, and dual channel, it is not dual memory controller. each core has to queue up if both cores are running with a decent load. In 64bit, when one request can fill the sinlgechannel controller fully, it should have a larger impact, but becasue of that pesky single mem controller issue, I cannot wait to see how it works out.
    In an intensive 64bit situation, DDR2 may not even provide the neccesary bandwidth, and with quad cores...i guess me might finally be able to see just how efficient the AMD memory controller really is..

  8. #8
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    449
    Was this test ever done? How much of a performance hit does an X2 take while running in single channel?
    BIOSTAR TP67B+ | RPP 750W
    Core i5-2500K @ 4.7 GHz | TRUE
    256GB Samsung 840 Pro | X-Fi Titanium
    16GB G.Skill Ripjaws X | Sapphire HD 7950 3L

  9. #9
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    never seen it tested.

    I would assume 10% depending on the app.

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  10. #10
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by aldamon
    Was this test ever done? How much of a performance hit does an X2 take while running in single channel?
    Only like 5% in single channel is lost to dual in my testing

  11. #11
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil
    never seen it tested.

    I would assume 10% depending on the app.
    This place is benchmark crazy so I'm sure somebody here is curious. Can somebody pop out a stick of RAM or move one stick over to disable dual channel and post some quick CPU-intensive and multi-tasking benches?

    I'd like to end an argument I'm having about whether or not Socket 754 could have run an X2 with reasonable performance.

    I think AMD is full of crap when they say S754 couldn't support the X2.
    Last edited by aldamon; 06-20-2006 at 05:50 AM.
    BIOSTAR TP67B+ | RPP 750W
    Core i5-2500K @ 4.7 GHz | TRUE
    256GB Samsung 840 Pro | X-Fi Titanium
    16GB G.Skill Ripjaws X | Sapphire HD 7950 3L

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
  •