But I acknowledge I made an assumption so could be wrong.
#11 I get a ~1% increase in performance on 3Dmark2001 and 3dmark2003 (default settings benchmark and catalyst 9800pro drivers) when runnung [email protected] at mem. 5:4 2237 (OCZ 2x256Mb PC3200 platinum original SS) Game Accel.-auto. compared to 2.8 1:1 mem. oçlocked 2237@216MHz GA-F1(memory wont handle Street Racer). In general game play, the 1:1 feels smoother in my opinion.
"Let me tell you , it does make a speed difference. Everything benches 1-3% higher."
So it's a measurable difference, but not noticeable. :p
I'd still like to see real benchmarks on a variety of applications rather than just take someone's unsubstantiated claim that 3.2 or 3.4 GHz with PAT is best. With the system bus OC that you get, I don't think buying a 3.2 would be faster than buying even a 2.8C and OC'ing to 3.2. However, I have neither so I have no way of knowing.
Those settings you are referrring to " F1 or street racer" are not actually PAT , that is GAT, its just Abit's memory tweaks. On the I865 Abit boards, GAT can enable PAT (much to Intels displeasure) but on I875 PAT is always enabled. the GAT settings are just memory tweaks.
Turn it off and see if it makes any difference. On Abit you cant run F1 or street racer PAT settings above CAS2 or on 5:4. I dont know about Turbo but it doesnt add all that much anyway.
#4 and #5 you cant run PAT with 5:4 ratio nor with memory timed higher than CAS 2. So, Trog, your best cpu is a 3.2 or 3.4. That way you get the high speed with small overclock allowing the use of DDR433 low latency BH5 chipped memory (o'clocks to 450). Amongst the cheappies, the 2.8 is the best and use OCZ 466 gold which holds CAS2 up to 420 and then 2.5 through to DDR500. Or else use the 3500 Mushkin or OCZ low latency.
#5 I dont see why you cant get 2225 at ddr500. Those graphics cards have got 2.2ns chips and run at DDR700-1000. I'm not sure about the latency but if you lower the speed you can improve on the latency. I'm waiting and I'll buy when it comes out. All these DDR533 and 550 seem to be a rehash of the same thing and missing the low latency quality that is required for PAT to be enabled.
Condsidering its the ASUS's highest end board, they probably left the PAT on, and why you would want it off in the first place is beyond me.
Considering the limations of the current breed of DDR chips, a 2-2-2-5 or close to that at DDR500 simply isn't plausible from a manufacturing/cost point.
DDR2 aint looking much better either, it runs at 4-4-4-12 settings stock. So I think the days of low timing memory are going to be going the way of the do do.
I'd be curious to see a roundup of various benchmarks done with the varying memory speeds and timings, sort of like what you started with by comparing 3.2 GHz at 266 MHz bus to 3.2 GHz at 200 MHz bus. Here's what I'm thinking:
Get a 2.4C, 2.6C, 2.8C, 3.0C, and 3.2C. (Or use your P4 3.2ES, I suppose.) Then do a variety of benchmarks (i.e. not just Quake 3, SuperPi and Sandra) at reasonable settings and memory timings.
From what you've shown in this article, a 2.4C overclocked to 3.2 GHz will outperform a 3.2C at stock bus speeds. However, it could do this with low latency 5:4 ratio or higher latency 1:1 ratio settings. What appears to be the best choice? A 2.4C would require a 266 bus to reach 3.2 GHz, where a 2.6C would "only" require a 246 MHz bus, a 2.8C would require a 229 MHz bus, and a 3.0C would need a 213 MHz bus. At those bus speeds, the 2.4 and 2.6 overclocks would need to use either lower timings or a 5:4 ratio, but the 2.8 and 3.0 could probably get 2-2-2-6 (or 2-3-3-7 timings?) with a 1:1 ratio. Also, how does PAT affect things? Did you have it enabled on the 1:1 OC and not on the 5:4 OC? I wan't sure.
I know, it's a lot of work and may not be that useful to many. Still, it's something I would enjoy seeing when/if you get the time. Anyway, with 2.4C, 2.6C, and 2.8C all costing about the same amount right now, I'm not really sure where the best buy is. 2.4C would probably be fastest if you could get really expensive RAM to handle the high OC and the processor worked at 3.2 GHz, but do 2.6C or 2.8C overclock higher on average, due to the higher multipliers?
Great article, though. Nice to see that low timings can still match higher clock speeds. Also, any chance of seeing a similar roundup using Athlon XP? (I would also say Athlon 64, but they don't seem to have enough OC headroom.) Athlon XP might not be able to make use of anything over DDR533 - or maybe even DDR500 - but I haven't seen any good comparisons on it.
Nice results at 5:4 vs 1:1 ... See, I told you so, after reading one of your older Ram articles from a few months back... 5:4 2-2-2 beats 1:1 2.5-4-4-8 anyday =)
Very good memory article once again Wesley. I dont know where this 'low latency memory doesnt make any difference' argument started but from my observations, it is false. OCZ usually test on an ABIT IC7 so I wonder why it did't make the grade on the DDR550?
Any hints as to when DDR500@ 2-2-2-5 is going to become reality. It seems like the old BH5s are still the lowest latency mem. chips and they've been around for a year now. 1:1 at low latencies and PAT aggressive is the way to go. That's why I run my 2.6c at 2.8 even though it goes stable to 3.3 but then I got to run the mem. at 5:4 (no PAT) and performance improvement is barely noticeable.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
13 Comments
Back to Article
klah - Saturday, August 14, 2004 - link
good articlePumpkinierre - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
#9 Perhaps you're right but all the reviews I read on the IC7 associated the game accelerator with PAT eghttp://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/abit_ic7/6...
the speed increase is of the same order as PAT ie 2-5% eg:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/displa...
But I acknowledge I made an assumption so could be wrong.
#11 I get a ~1% increase in performance on 3Dmark2001 and 3dmark2003 (default settings benchmark and catalyst 9800pro drivers) when runnung [email protected] at mem. 5:4 2237 (OCZ 2x256Mb PC3200 platinum original SS) Game Accel.-auto. compared to 2.8 1:1 mem. oçlocked 2237@216MHz GA-F1(memory wont handle Street Racer). In general game play, the 1:1 feels smoother in my opinion.
TrogdorJW - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
"Let me tell you , it does make a speed difference. Everything benches 1-3% higher."So it's a measurable difference, but not noticeable. :p
I'd still like to see real benchmarks on a variety of applications rather than just take someone's unsubstantiated claim that 3.2 or 3.4 GHz with PAT is best. With the system bus OC that you get, I don't think buying a 3.2 would be faster than buying even a 2.8C and OC'ing to 3.2. However, I have neither so I have no way of knowing.
retrospooty - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
BTW , on my Epox 4pc3a+ I can enable, or disable PAT at any speed or ram ratio.Let me tell you , it does make a speed difference. Everything benches 1-3% higher
retrospooty - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
PAT works on i875 fulltime... Even at 5:4Those settings you are referrring to " F1 or street racer" are not actually PAT , that is GAT, its just Abit's memory tweaks. On the I865 Abit boards, GAT can enable PAT (much to Intels displeasure) but on I875 PAT is always enabled. the GAT settings are just memory tweaks.
Pumpkinierre - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Turn it off and see if it makes any difference. On Abit you cant run F1 or street racer PAT settings above CAS2 or on 5:4. I dont know about Turbo but it doesnt add all that much anyway.Icewind - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Uhhh, you wanna bet? Im running PAT at 5:4 ratio with my Corsair 3700XMS on my P4C800-E Deluxe bud at 3-4-4-8.Pumpkinierre - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
#4 and #5 you cant run PAT with 5:4 ratio nor with memory timed higher than CAS 2. So, Trog, your best cpu is a 3.2 or 3.4. That way you get the high speed with small overclock allowing the use of DDR433 low latency BH5 chipped memory (o'clocks to 450). Amongst the cheappies, the 2.8 is the best and use OCZ 466 gold which holds CAS2 up to 420 and then 2.5 through to DDR500. Or else use the 3500 Mushkin or OCZ low latency.#5 I dont see why you cant get 2225 at ddr500. Those graphics cards have got 2.2ns chips and run at DDR700-1000. I'm not sure about the latency but if you lower the speed you can improve on the latency. I'm waiting and I'll buy when it comes out. All these DDR533 and 550 seem to be a rehash of the same thing and missing the low latency quality that is required for PAT to be enabled.
Icewind - Thursday, February 19, 2004 - link
Condsidering its the ASUS's highest end board, they probably left the PAT on, and why you would want it off in the first place is beyond me.Considering the limations of the current breed of DDR chips, a 2-2-2-5 or close to that at DDR500 simply isn't plausible from a manufacturing/cost point.
DDR2 aint looking much better either, it runs at 4-4-4-12 settings stock. So I think the days of low timing memory are going to be going the way of the do do.
TrogdorJW - Thursday, February 19, 2004 - link
I'd be curious to see a roundup of various benchmarks done with the varying memory speeds and timings, sort of like what you started with by comparing 3.2 GHz at 266 MHz bus to 3.2 GHz at 200 MHz bus. Here's what I'm thinking:Get a 2.4C, 2.6C, 2.8C, 3.0C, and 3.2C. (Or use your P4 3.2ES, I suppose.) Then do a variety of benchmarks (i.e. not just Quake 3, SuperPi and Sandra) at reasonable settings and memory timings.
From what you've shown in this article, a 2.4C overclocked to 3.2 GHz will outperform a 3.2C at stock bus speeds. However, it could do this with low latency 5:4 ratio or higher latency 1:1 ratio settings. What appears to be the best choice? A 2.4C would require a 266 bus to reach 3.2 GHz, where a 2.6C would "only" require a 246 MHz bus, a 2.8C would require a 229 MHz bus, and a 3.0C would need a 213 MHz bus. At those bus speeds, the 2.4 and 2.6 overclocks would need to use either lower timings or a 5:4 ratio, but the 2.8 and 3.0 could probably get 2-2-2-6 (or 2-3-3-7 timings?) with a 1:1 ratio. Also, how does PAT affect things? Did you have it enabled on the 1:1 OC and not on the 5:4 OC? I wan't sure.
I know, it's a lot of work and may not be that useful to many. Still, it's something I would enjoy seeing when/if you get the time. Anyway, with 2.4C, 2.6C, and 2.8C all costing about the same amount right now, I'm not really sure where the best buy is. 2.4C would probably be fastest if you could get really expensive RAM to handle the high OC and the processor worked at 3.2 GHz, but do 2.6C or 2.8C overclock higher on average, due to the higher multipliers?
Great article, though. Nice to see that low timings can still match higher clock speeds. Also, any chance of seeing a similar roundup using Athlon XP? (I would also say Athlon 64, but they don't seem to have enough OC headroom.) Athlon XP might not be able to make use of anything over DDR533 - or maybe even DDR500 - but I haven't seen any good comparisons on it.
retrospooty - Thursday, February 19, 2004 - link
Nice results at 5:4 vs 1:1 ... See, I told you so, after reading one of your older Ram articles from a few months back... 5:4 2-2-2 beats 1:1 2.5-4-4-8 anyday =)I'm glad you tested it !
kamper - Thursday, February 19, 2004 - link
holy tiny target market, batman!how many people require memory to run at 275fsb default?
Pumpkinierre - Thursday, February 19, 2004 - link
Very good memory article once again Wesley. I dont know where this 'low latency memory doesnt make any difference' argument started but from my observations, it is false. OCZ usually test on an ABIT IC7 so I wonder why it did't make the grade on the DDR550?Any hints as to when DDR500@ 2-2-2-5 is going to become reality. It seems like the old BH5s are still the lowest latency mem. chips and they've been around for a year now. 1:1 at low latencies and PAT aggressive is the way to go. That's why I run my 2.6c at 2.8 even though it goes stable to 3.3 but then I got to run the mem. at 5:4 (no PAT) and performance improvement is barely noticeable.