marcus a64

I have just reduced my RAM from 2Gb down to 1Gb and have gotten quite an improvement in my benchmarks.

Aside from there being a problem with the 2 strips i removed is there any other reason why this would improve performance quite a bit 2500 - 3000 points.

The RAM is Kingston HyperX DDR400 in strips of 512Mb, a bit confused that it would increase performance i was expecting the opposite.

__________________
A64 3500+
MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum motherboard
Asus v9999 6800 Ultra on 19" Phillips 109P4
1024Mb Corsair XMS DDR400
2x250Gb WD (SATA RAID 0)
74Gb WD SATA Raptor XP Home SP2
nvidia 67.03 drivers

The_Neon_Cowboy

It'd becouse of adressing, resistance, latencys etc...
Less ram is faster but then you can't have as much open

__________________

mkk

Some boards automatically lower the memory performance settings in the BIOS when all memory slots are used. I don't know about that perticular board but it might be something to check out. Also give comparing three to four sticks a go. Even with some performance degradiation I would typically go with more RAM.

Zardon

Unless you get 1 gig x 2 sticks of OCZ DDR2 4300, which overclocks to over 700mhz at 7-2-3-4 timings

marcus a64

Is there any info available that you know of that i can have a look at to see how to overclock the RAM? I have never tried that before.

I had heard after i had bought it that the hyperX RAM wasn't that good for OC unfortunately, have you guys heard anything like that before, hyperX was the only one available here for a long time then a few shops began to get Corsair !!

__________________
A64 3500+
MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum motherboard
Asus v9999 6800 Ultra on 19" Phillips 109P4
1024Mb Corsair XMS DDR400
2x250Gb WD (SATA RAID 0)
74Gb WD SATA Raptor XP Home SP2
nvidia 67.03 drivers

refraction

no stick of ram is ever the same, its more down to trial and error, the score he has their from that memory might have been a one off, its all luck of what you get

__________________
[color=royalblue]Computer Specs[/color] := [color=royalblue]AMD Opteron 146 2.0Ghz @ 2.9Ghz[/color] = [color=royalblue]1024Mb PC4400 RAM Dual Channel[/color] = [color=royalblue]Gainward BLISS 7900GTX 512mb[/color] = [color=royalblue]SB Audigy 4 [/color]= [color=royalblue]250Gb SATA Hard Drive[/color] = [color=royalblue]Thermaltake Xaser Case [/color]= [color=royalblue]Benq FP91G+[/color][color=royalblue] 19" TFT[/color]

Geminiwave

is it advantagous to run your RAM faster than your FSB? I can run my RAM at a REALLY REALLY REALLY fast speed(we're talkin' 600mhz here. no joke) but obviously the FSB on the CPU runs nothing near that(I can push it up to 200mhz alright, but more than that is touch and go)

__________________

bug77

That would be like feeding the CPU faster than it can eat. So the answer would be NO.

Geminiwave

ok. I've seen it run faster in benchmarks this way, but never noticed anything running better in games, so I was just curious.

__________________

mkk

P4 systems can in general benefit from raising the memory bus above the FSB if the FSB can't follow. Generally no real benefit to do the same on AthlonXP/64 systems. Then in the end whether the increased pure RAM performance really adds up to a practical improvement varies in between applications.

Zardon

as Mkk said, thats not entirely true.

Geminiwave

Ok thats all I needed to know. I was considering getting some faster RAM but honestly I dont think I'll ever get the FSB much over 400 until I buy my 3200+ barton.

__________________

bug77

That only means that the benchmarks do not handle too much memory properly... Of course, that could be valid for any application (games included).

mike2h

fyi i went from 2x256 ocz 4000 to 4x256. pretty much everything speeded up.
the variables you have are brand/matched mem, clean volt supply, oc, robustness of chipset or on die mem control for new amd, & temp. when all those things are in harmony so are you. if even one is off you will get anything from slightly slower performance to no performance.
know that was no help, just wanted to rattle for a while

__________________

marcus a64

Hey your RIGHT !!!!! that was no help !

__________________
A64 3500+
MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum motherboard
Asus v9999 6800 Ultra on 19" Phillips 109P4
1024Mb Corsair XMS DDR400
2x250Gb WD (SATA RAID 0)
74Gb WD SATA Raptor XP Home SP2
nvidia 67.03 drivers

The_Neon_Cowboy

of couse a gig is optimal, add one more stick or two 1gb sicks (2gb)
and you'll likely loose some speed...

I tested before and I had less speed with 3x512 then I did with 2x512
but I could have alot more stuff open... with the more memory

but it does nock them out of sync and the system runs alot better when the FSB and ram speed are in sync, least with amd's

__________________

mike2h

& like i said in my 'no help' post your mem controller may not be up to snuff. 4 dbl density sticks is a big load.
if it is older hyper x that could be your problem. there was some issues with them when they 1st came out. do not know about now.

__________________

Son_of_Thunder

is there any truth to the "too big of a library for too few books" theory? meaning, with windows apps if you have too much ram will your system slow down trying to find the data?

__________________

Geminiwave

more ram slows things down...unless you have a ton of programs open all the time...then it speeds things up.

basically streamlining the process with fewer chips is ALWAYS best. So as I understand it...if you have a stick of 1gb ram that has 8 chips, it really wont be slower than the same speed stick of 512 with 8 chips.

but if you have 2 sticks of 512 with each having 8 chips(total 16 chips) and not taking dual channel into account, that means more memory for the OS to address. its slower in that respect.

__________________

mike2h

basically correct. except- there are mem hog prog/games out there & at this time there is no single sided 512 ddr ram out there. density just is not there. yet.
poor dual channel implematation is one of the problems for amd. their new on die mem controller is great as far as it goes. problem is it only goes with ddr. period. wich means no ddr2.(this is not a bad thing at slower ddr2 speeds)
i still believe amds biggest problem is not having the qc & chipset design abilities that intel has.

son of thunder. 'too much ram' is never an issue as long as you are talking 4 gig or less. xp can manage it very well. the biggest problems are - mem controller robustness & mem quality/design. most people really do not take these factors into account.
my asus p4p800 handles 4x256 ocz 4000 running at just above rated speed(255 w\1-1 ratio) with 3445 timings VERY well. i am not sure it could do the same with dbl density ram - 512/1gb sticks.
most people by cheaper chipsets & are surprised/ never figure out that most of the time you do get what you pay for.
now before anybody gets upset this is just a basic rule, not an absolute. intel does generally overcharge, but amd has little to no chipset qc. on amds part, this has been getting better. but overall intels chipsets tend to be better designed & more robust. jmo.

__________________

Geminiwave

by qc you mean quality control?

I have to say that AMD chipsets seem to be alot BETTER most of the time. Especially if we're talking nForce boards which blow Intel boards out of the water.

And lets not forget that besides intel boards you have the choice of *gag* ATI boards. Now I love ATI cards and wont use anything else...but I swear their boards are TERRIBLE! The memory bandwidth is discusting and the earlier ones were so buggy(I hope they fixed that)

Now no one in their right mind would debate that intel has the highest chip yeild of all and that they have great design crews...but I swear to god they are like an autistic child(and I mean that in the literal sense). They make a plan for what they are going to do...and they keep doing it...even when its not working out and they can see "OH! Its going to fail!" they KEEP DOING IT! They could probably crush AMD pretty well if they were alittle bit smarter about it, but they dont! And now it may be too late since AMD is getting a very secure foothold.

in any case...back to the point...RAM speed.

XP may handle 4gb well, but it definatly slows normal every day use down...UNLESS(as I said earlier and so dod Mike2h) you have a memory hog program. If you got photoshop or something, the extra ram will do you well.

__________________

marcus a64

so would you say that an nforce chipset would be the best choice for an A64 ??

__________________
A64 3500+
MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum motherboard
Asus v9999 6800 Ultra on 19" Phillips 109P4
1024Mb Corsair XMS DDR400
2x250Gb WD (SATA RAID 0)
74Gb WD SATA Raptor XP Home SP2
nvidia 67.03 drivers

Geminiwave

IMHO yes the nforce would be best. But make sure its not the Nforce3 150. the 250 is good but the 150 has problems.

__________________

eva2000

that's because with s939 boards 4 dimms populated forces 2T mode for memory which lowers memory bandwidth and system performance, with 2 dimms 1T can be enabled = higher bandwidth = better system performance

__________________
512MB HIS X1800XT: 43,252, 22,076, 12,111, 6,004| FEAR benchmarks
BFG 7800GTX SLI (stock heatsink air): 41,662, 33,309, 16,212, 8,949
BFG 7800GTX single card: 37,590, 21,399, 10,148, 5,740

Dyre Straits

I did a little research on this about 2 weeks ago. I'm wanting to upgrade my own system to a P4 800 MHz and PC3200 RAM. So, I was interested to see what would be my best options.

Anantech did a series of tests on different types of DDR memory and amounts of memory. The final conclusion showed that the Optimal configuration for XP-based systems is 2x512 MB DDR memory. Anything higher, or even using just one stick of 1 GB DDR memory resulted in poorer performance. I'd have to dig up the link if you're interested in seeing it yourself.

__________________

mike2h

are you referring to the test they did on different density sticks?
i came away with a slightly different conclusion. as long as you were using single sided sticks 4x256 was the way to go. if you are going dbl sided then 2x512 is the ticket.(i am going to go look again as soon as i am through)of course i am going from memory on this so do not hold me to anything

the reason i say this is i can personally attest to the difference between 2x256 & 4x256. when i installed the new sticks i thought my overall performance gain would be minimal. was i surprised. pretty much everything seems to happen a little smoother & faster. & after a few days of 'break in' i did some mem tests - aida32, pc mark 2002, & sandra 04, & all my scores were quite a bit higher. wich was good because i had some doubts about my real world observations as being objective.(trying to justify the $$ spent on additional ram).
anyway i am of to anadtech to look at that article again.

__________________

mike2h

for whatever reason i cannot edit my post above.
if you are reffering to the same article i was, then we are both wrong. 4x dbl density is the way to go with 4xsd & 2x dd being tied for 2nd.
bty for anybody reading this drivel this applies to 865/875 chipsets only.
& i just got to edit this post. hope things settle down around gere pretty soon

__________________

UDTFROG

Hey guys this is the answer to the 10,000 dollar question......

__________________
[color=red][/color]


[color=red][/color]