Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The different memtest bandwidth between fx55 and venice

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Land of Buckeye
    Posts
    2,881

    The different memtest bandwidth between fx55 and venice

    I remember some has mentioned before, why my FX55 DDR600 above , 2.5-3-3-6 bandwidth got so low bandwidth. Now with venice core , you guys can easily see this and understnad.
    Apparently, memtest86+ 1.55 can't recognize this new core of AMD CPU.

    FX55 doing DDR600 2.5-3-3-6



    Venice 3500+ doing DDR610 2.5-3-3-6

    Last edited by Onepagebook; 05-01-2005 at 09:39 AM.

  2. #2
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Athens,Hellas
    Posts
    810
    OPB on a FX53 that i tested i noticed much lower bandwidth than newcastles/winchesters, now i see the same thing on fx55s

    the IMC on almost every winchester and many newcastles (newcastles behaved better tho) seemed to crap out over 3500MB/s affecting their stabilty inside windows @ high clock freqs
    Can you test how the venice core behaves under Win. (stability @ lets say 3700MB/s)

    that would be interesting imo

    thanks
    Last edited by esdee; 05-01-2005 at 11:29 AM.
    if this is your first night in xtremesystems,
    you have to overclock.

  3. #3
    "AKA Alonso"
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    263
    no answer on this OPB?

  4. #4
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vietnam
    Posts
    283
    OPB... Bandwidth show on memtest belong to other setting in Dram configuration ( DFI ) 2.5-3-3-6 don't say ev'rything . Ex : if u relax Trc ( and other ) from 7 to 9 or 12, memtest will show lower bandwidth... But I thinks venice's mem controller better than my Winnie
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	305MTest.JPG 
Views:	64 
Size:	152.1 KB 
ID:	29695  

  5. #5
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,254

    Unhappy SD 3700 looks just like the FX55 Bandwidth-wize

    Based on a few diff chip types and a few years of painful experience (present pain included). You can have:
    1. 512K cache and great BW
    2. 1M cache and noticably less BW

    This seems to stretch back to old 754 days when I could get 2000mb/sec on my 3000+ NC w/ crappy settings @ 250 x 9 but 1750 max @ good settings on CH CG chips @ same speeds.

    Like the balance better on the 512k chips, never getting another 1M cache chip again.
    (SPI scores seem about the same though )

  6. #6
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Athens,Hellas
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by mad mikee
    Based on a few diff chip types and a few years of painful experience (present pain included). You can have:
    1. 512K cache and great BW
    2. 1M cache and noticably less BW

    This seems to stretch back to old 754 days when I could get 2000mb/sec on my 3000+ NC w/ crappy settings @ 250 x 9 but 1750 max @ good settings on CH CG chips @ same speeds.

    Like the balance better on the 512k chips, never getting another 1M cache chip again.
    (SPI scores seem about the same though )
    higher l2 cache may yield higher latency on the IMC ... i'd stick to the 1mb chips tho
    if this is your first night in xtremesystems,
    you have to overclock.

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
  •