Is my Ram in need of some help?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

manne_29

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:31:53 PM3/10/06
to
First thing is that,
My ram is not as fast as other systems with dual ram. My single
stick 1024mb verses dual512mb ram in utilities tests are substantualy
slower. Should I buy a additional 512mb of pc3200 400mhz in addition
to my 1gig of ram would bust my performance. I heard that dual ram
performace is much better than single ram performance. Would it
affect my video board perfomance. My 6600gt is under performing
verses other duplicate systems in the 3dmark test 01',03' and 05'.
When I benchmarked my ram and cpu, they are subpar in duplicate
sytems with dual ram dimms. At the bottom you will see my system
staticstics. If you know tell me what my problem could be.

3dmark 2001= 11278
" " " 2003= 5801
" " " 2005= 2570


These benchmarks are lower than other systems that are about even with
ours. Please help with the answers! In an benchmark , my ram has been
clocked at 166mhz. Is this right.Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 2:16:59 AM3/11/06
to
In article <ZosQf.105142$TK5....@fe06.news.easynews.com>,
n...@spam.invalid (manne_29) wrote:

From your previous posting on this topic:

   "Pentuim 4, 2.66mhz, 533fsb, 1mb cache
    Fan cooled: 2 80mm intake, 2 80mm outake, 1 40mm hdd cooler
    Corsair 1gig dimm, pc3200, 400mhz
    ECS 848P-A7 MB
    Nvidia 6600gt oc 550/975, vrs.81.83/ directx9
    160 gb Maxtor DiamondMax, 7500rpm/ 8mb cache
    cheap 450watt PSU :( "

The 848P chipset is single channel. You will get no dual channel
advantage by adding more RAM. If you add enough sticks of RAM,
you might even have to turn down the clock speed. So don't
go crazy with the RAM. A dual channel 865PE or a 875P based
motherboard from the same era would have been a better
motherboard configuration, and in that case, there would be
a speedup by using 2x512MB memory, with one stick per channel.
The 848P is single channel, so there is no speedup with
more memory.

From the manual of a motherboard similar to yours (P5P800S)

CPU_CLK CPU_FSB Memory Clock Data Rate
200 FSB800 200/160*/133 DDR400/DDR320*/DDR266
133 FSB533 166/133 DDR333/DDR266

With your FSB533 processor, the 166MHz memory clock is the
fastest option available. The only way your configuration
will go faster, is if you overclock it, and that option may
not be available in the BIOS (look for a CPU clock option).

Your processor is a Prescott, which in some tests, is not
as fast as a Northwood. If you are comparing it to Northwood
benchmarks, it might be a few percent slower.

Your best options would be:

1) Lock the AGP clock to 66MHz, if that setting is available.
If there is no setting in the BIOS to define the AGP clock,
then you will likely be limited to 75MHz AGP clock, which
you would get with a 13% overclock of the CPU clock.
2) Crank up the CPU clock, to raise the clock on the system.
Your PC3200 RAM will allow a 20% overclock, over what
you have currently. That means your CPU clock is increased
from 133MHz to 160MHz, the memory goes from 166MHz to 200MHz,
and the core goes from 2.66GHz to about 3.2GHz. If you
cannot lock the AGP, then a lesser overclock will be possible.

That will improve your performance a bit, but not enough to
really make a difference.

If your BIOS has no adjustments available at all, about
the only option you would have, is a program like this:

http://www.cpuid.com/clockgen.php

Check the list "Clock Generators (PLL)" on the left of that
web page, and see if the part number of the clock generator
chip listed, is used on your motherboard. A clock generator
is likely to be a 48 pin or 56 pin chip on the motherboard.

Sometimes a small Vcore adjustment is needed, to assist
the overclock. I'm hoping with a small clock rate change,
you won't need to change the voltage setting. Test with
memtest86+ (standalone boot floppy/cd) and then with
Prime95 in Windows, to make sure everything is stable after
your overclocking attempt.

When overclocking, it pays to do it in small increments, so
you can tell whether it is going to become unstable or not.
Just rushing to the new frequency results in a crash/freeze.
Try increments of 5Mhz for example, like 133Mhz, 138MHz ...
158Mhz, 160Mhz. Test each time with memtest86+ boot floppy,
as booting Windows while your processor is unstable, can
corrupt the registry and your Windows install.

HTH,
Paul

manne_29

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 12:33:04 PM3/11/06
to
The 848P chipset is single channel. You will get no dual channel
advantage by adding more RAM. If you add enough sticks of RAM,
you might even have to turn down the clock speed. So don't
go crazy with the RAM. A dual channel 865PE or a 875P based
motherboard from the same era would have been a better
motherboard configuration, and in that case, there would be
a speedup by using 2x512MB memory, with one stick per channel.
The 848P is single channel, so there is no speedup with
more memory.

From the manual of a motherboard similar to yours (P5P800S)

CPU_CLK CPU_FSB Memory Clock Data Rate
200 FSB800 200/160*/133 DDR400/DDR320*/DDR266
133 FSB533 166/133 DDR333/DDR266

With your FSB533 processor, the 166MHz memory clock is the
fastest option available. The only way your configuration
will go faster, is if you overclock it, and that option may
not be available in the BIOS (look for a CPU clock option).

Your processor is a Prescott, which in some tests, is not

as fast as a Northwood. If you are comparing it to Northwood
benchmarks, it might be a few percent slower.

Your best options would be:

1) Lock the AGP clock to 66MHz, if that setting is available.
If there is no setting in the BIOS to define the AGP clock,
then you will likely be limited to 75MHz AGP clock, which
you would get with a 13% overclock of the CPU clock.
2) Crank up the CPU clock, to raise the clock on the system.
Your PC3200 RAM will allow a 20% overclock, over what
you have currently. That means your CPU clock is increased
from 133MHz to 160MHz, the memory goes from 166MHz to 200MHz,
and the core goes from 2.66GHz to about 3.2GHz. If you
cannot lock the AGP, then a lesser overclock will be possible.

That will improve your performance a bit, but not enough to
really make a difference.


Well I"LL BE!!!

I was not aware of the differences in motherboard configurations. So
my performance issues may be limited to my motherboard. Which mey
mean I would have to purchase a different motherboard. And to think
that I just built this one a month ago and it's the first time I
attempted something like this. I guess I should have done more
investigating on the motherboard and cpu. I feel terrible now that I
know I can't do anything about it. Yes my bios does allow for cpu
frequency adjustment, so I guess I will try that. But if it will not
make much of a difference I don't know whether it's worth the risk of
overclocking then? My cpu temp is already 44c idle and 54c under load.
I don't know if it will accomadate the extra heat? Let me know what
you think.

look@worldnet.att.net dawg

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 10:42:52 PM3/11/06
to
One other thing.In order to use Dual Channel both sticks of ram need to be
the same size(2x256,2x512 etc.). A 1GB and a 512MB stick won't enable dual
channel.

"manne_29" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:kRDQf.68629$Gh4....@fe07.news.easynews.com...

Paul

unread,
Mar 12, 2006, 12:06:28 AM3/12/06
to
In article <kRDQf.68629$Gh4....@fe07.news.easynews.com>, n...@spam.invalid
(manne_29) wrote:

> Well I"LL BE!!!
>
> I was not aware of the differences in motherboard configurations. So
> my performance issues may be limited to my motherboard. Which mey
> mean I would have to purchase a different motherboard. And to think
> that I just built this one a month ago and it's the first time I
> attempted something like this. I guess I should have done more
> investigating on the motherboard and cpu. I feel terrible now that I
> know I can't do anything about it. Yes my bios does allow for cpu
> frequency adjustment, so I guess I will try that. But if it will not
> make much of a difference I don't know whether it's worth the risk of
> overclocking then? My cpu temp is already 44c idle and 54c under load.
> I don't know if it will accomadate the extra heat? Let me know what
> you think.

I don't bother with overclocking unless there is a real need.
It makes the computer hotter, it makes my room hotter, so I
would really need the performance to do it. (Overclocking
is a lot more fun, on processors that don't get so hot. Like
Mobile processors, or Pentium-M.)

Just to keep things in perspective here, the primary factor
determining performance, is the processor core clock speed.
So, increasing the CPU from 2.66 to 3.2GHz will make the
processor faster. While the clock is 20% faster, the tasks
will not quite finish 20% sooner. The point is, though, that
in terms of normal everyday activities, you might not notice
a significant improvement by doing it. If you were transcoding
to make a DVD, or other task with a long runtime, then yes,
the CPU core clock increase will reduce the time for the
job to finish.

The memory subsystem also makes a contribution, but the
contribution is smaller. If you increase the memory bandwidth
by 30%, you may see some applications, like say Photoshop,
are 10% faster. Buying a new motherboard just to get
less than a 10% improvement doesn't make much sense.

My upgrade advice to you, is move to a new motherboard/CPU/RAM
etc, when the new system will do double what your current
system does. Since clock rates are no longer climbing at
their old rates, you'd have to wait a long time for a single
core processor to get that fast. There are now dual core
processors, but if the software you use cannot use both
cores at the same time, there would be no speed advantage
to you. I have a lot of old software (haven't bought software
for a while now), so for me, a dual core is pretty useless.
If you are a gamer, expect the next generation of games to
make better use of dual cores. If you are an Intel fan,
and want to build a gaming box, at the current time, I would
wait for Conroe later this year, as the processor solution
to build the box with. If you don't care which company to
choose, the AMD Athlon64 processors are a better choice
for gaming boxes, and the ones with DDR available now,
will be just as good as the next ones to come out, with
DDR2.

Have a look at the charts here, and remember that the limits
of the video card, are partially responsible for the flatness
of the increase in some of the graphs. And that is why making
your computer faster will be so expensive - to make games
go faster, both the processor and the video card have to
improve - just improving one of them, makes the other one
the bottleneck.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=238&model2=212&chart=69

Paul

manne_29

unread,
Mar 12, 2006, 12:32:16 AM3/12/06
to
One other thing.In order to use Dual Channel both sticks of ram need
to be
the same size(2x256,2x512 etc.). A 1GB and a 512MB stick won't enable
dual
channel

I am getting alittle confused now. I thought that I couldn't use dual
channels since my motherboard doesn't support it. I'm already at my
max now. I was only trying to absorb some of the virtual memory that
was being used so that I could have my system working at or above the
1024mb ram capacity, since about 200mb was being used by what
applications I have in the start-up mode and in active windows. So
what I understanding by the response is that it will matter whether
or not I have dual or single ram sticks in position. If it doesn't
matter than, I could place any pc3200 ram value in available slot and
their would be no change in performance. Please explain what I may be
misunderstanding?

Paul

unread,
Mar 12, 2006, 6:05:03 PM3/12/06
to
In article <AnOQf.86354$Gh4....@fe07.news.easynews.com>, n...@spam.invalid
(manne_29) wrote:

> > One other thing.In order to use Dual Channel both sticks of ram
> > need to be the same size(2x256,2x512 etc.). A 1GB and a 512MB stick
> > won't enable dual channel
>

> I am getting a little confused now. I thought that I couldn't use dual

> channels since my motherboard doesn't support it. I'm already at my
> max now. I was only trying to absorb some of the virtual memory that
> was being used so that I could have my system working at or above the
> 1024mb ram capacity, since about 200mb was being used by what
> applications I have in the start-up mode and in active windows. So
> what I understanding by the response is that it will matter whether
> or not I have dual or single ram sticks in position. If it doesn't
> matter than, I could place any pc3200 ram value in available slot and
> their would be no change in performance. Please explain what I may be
> misunderstanding ?

This is a picture of your motherboard
http://www.clicinformatique.com/image_produit/carte%20mere/ecs/848p-a7.jpg

Both of these configurations perform the same. The second one
would give you a total of 1.5GB RAM. Some motherboards might put
three slots on the memory bus, but I see yours only has two slots.
Only single channel operation is possible here.

848P--------+-------+ 848P--------+-------+ Figure 1
| | | |
| | | |
1GB 512MB 1GB

A dual channel motherboard looks like this. It generally
has four slots. The following two examples, show how two
512MB sticks can be plugged in, to make single channel or
dual channel configurations.

512MB
| | Figure 2
| |
---------+-------+ This is a dual channel motherboard
/ with two sticks of RAM in dual
865PE channel mode. Total memory = 1GB
\--------+-------+ This gives enhanced memory bandwidth,
| | for a slight boost in application
| | performance. This is faster than 848P.
512MB


| | Figure 3
| |
---------+-------+ This is a dual channel motherboard
/ with two sticks of RAM in single
865PE channel mode. Total memory = 1GB
\--------+-------+ This performs the same as your board.
| |
| |
512MB 512MB

The memory used in the slots opposite one another must match on
this chipset, for dual channel to work. If you installed memory
as follows, this 865PE based motherboard would work in virtual
single channel mode. Virtual single channel mode has the same
memory bandwidth as the single channel mode examples drawn above
in Figure 1 and Figure 3.

1GB
| | Figure 4
| |
---------+-------+ This is a dual channel motherboard
/ with two sticks of RAM in "virtual"
865PE single channel mode. Total memory = 1.5GB
\--------+-------+ This gives the same speed as 848P.
| | It is better to match the memory, as
| | in Figure 2.
512MB

And for this generation of chipsets (865/875), the following
configuration is still a virtual single channel mode. Some more
modern Intel chipsets, do a better job with this configuration.

1GB
| | Figure 5
| |
---------+-------+ This is a dual channel motherboard
/ with three sticks of RAM in "virtual"
865PE single channel mode. Total memory = 2GB
\--------+-------+ This gives the same speed as 848P.
| | It is better to match the memory, as
| | in Figure 2.
512MB 512MB

HTH,
Paul

look@worldnet.att.net dawg

unread,
Mar 12, 2006, 11:12:04 PM3/12/06
to
Sorry,no you can't.I was just pointing out a fact that was left out.In case
you were to change motherboards.

"manne_29" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message

news:AnOQf.86354$Gh4....@fe07.news.easynews.com...

manne_29

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 3:34:40 PM3/13/06
to
I' m sorry but my knowledge isn't extensive enough to figure out the
formula's posted above. You would have show me in the english
langauge. That'a a joke!!!!! I guess what I really would like to know
is; if I add an addition 521 or 1024mb of ram and boosted my cpu
frequency from the normal 133mhz to 160mhz would it enhance my
overall performance of game play and web-surfing.

1gig
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _

512mb,1gig
_ _ _ _ _ etc.............. formulas is very confusing to me. I don't
understand any of these formula configurations

Paul

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 5:45:26 PM3/13/06
to
In article <AHkRf.84395$632....@fe05.news.easynews.com>, n...@spam.invalid
(manne_29) wrote:

View this thread on Google. It will be easier to read, as the
formatting of the information will be preserved. Some other
news reading options will ruin my pictures.

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd/browse_frm/thread/130da4eb53ba4914/e28b19cd1336ba99

To answer your question, for your existing motherboard:

1) Adding more RAM will not help. The RAM won't help it go faster.
2) Increasing the CPU clock from 133MHz to 160MHz will make it go faster.

Paul

manne_29

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 6:33:48 PM3/13/06
to
Head's up!

I was able to increase my CPU FSB from 133 to 148mhz stable, but
noticed when benchmarking in three 3Dmarks, that my scores decreased
considerably so I went back to the original settings. What is up with
that

manne_29

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 9:32:38 PM3/13/06
to
Alright, I turned my frequency back up 145 from 133mhz. On the cpu
performance benchmark I do see an improvement but on the 3dmarks my
scores still fall. I will still probably add another stick of ram so
to compensate for the virtual memory that's eaten up when I have
several windows applications open. I don't want to be below 1024mb at
any one time while surfing or playing enternet games. Do you see a
little bit of what I am saying about the virtual memory. (It eats up
about 200mb of my ram because of my anti-virus, fraps, nvidia
drivers, and what ever window applications are open. So I just want
to fight that problem with an additional 512mb of ram so that I'm not
below 1024mb at any one time).

Paul

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 5:55:32 AM3/14/06
to
In article <aXpRf.149427$5Z2....@fe03.news.easynews.com>,
n...@spam.invalid (manne_29) wrote:

Before we go any further, I should mention a small problem with
your posts. I don't know what tool you use for posting, but you
need to "Reply" to a specific person's post, in order for the
postings to be linked together properly. Also, quoting the
text from the message you are answering, such as the text above,
shows what you are responding to as well. Look at the thread
again in Google, to see how it is threaded currently. It looks
like posts #3, #6, #9, #11, #12, are all replying to posting #1.
You can see how my posting #10, is indented, and is responding
to your posting #9.

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd/browse_frm/thread/130da4eb53ba4914/e28b19cd1336ba99

Back to your question. My suggestion at this point, is for you
to get two utilities.

The first one is memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org .
The memtest86+ program will erase and format a floppy for you,
and you use the floppy to boot the computer. One of the nice
things that memtest has in it, is "bandwidth" indicators
in the upper left hand corner of the screen.

The second utility you should get, is CPUZ from
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . CPUZ is a Windows utility,
that gives you key information about the clocks and
memory timings in your computer.

OK, with those two tools at your disposal.

1) Set the computer to 133MHz. Boot the computer with the
memtest86+ prepared boot floppy. What does the bandwidth
indicator say about your memory bandwidth ? It should be
a number, like 900MB/sec or 3000MB/sec or some other number.
The result will be different at each computer speed.

2) Press the Escape key. Memtest86+ should exit, and the
computer will start to reboot. Remove the floppy diskette,
so the computer will boot from the hard drive. Now, when
Windows is booted, run CPUZ. What are the clocks and
memory timing settings ? Write them down.

This shows a CPUZ memory timing panel. Tcas, Trcd, Trp, and
Tras are four of the parameters shown (parameters three through
six). Tcas has the most effect on performance, and a lower
number is better. The appearance of this timing panel, will
differ slightly depending on the type of hardware being tested.
Record the memory clock setting as well, as it is important.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/sempron-2600/cpuz/cpuz-4.png

Now, reboot the computer, stopping in the BIOS to set the
clock to 145MHz. Insert the memtest86+ boot floppy, and
repeat steps (1) and (2) above.

I suspect what you will find, is the BIOS has made some
automatic adjustments to the memory settings. It is possible
that the memory timings have been adjusted too far down or
something. I cannot make any promises, but if you post the
results from your testing with these two programs, it may
be possible to explain the results.

Normally, your CPU clock would be 133MHz, and the memory 166Mhz.
When you attempt to increase the CPU clock to 145MHz, the
memory clock should become 181Mhz. Perhaps the BIOS has decided
to switch to the 1:1 CPU:Memory divider, so the CPU clock is
145MHz and the memory is 145MHz as well. There are many
possibilities, and you will get the answer by using CPUZ.
Have a look at the BIOS, and see what options are available
for the memory clock, when the CPU is set to 145Mhz.

Paul

manne_29

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 11:42:41 AM3/14/06
to
> that the memory timings have been adjusted too far down or
> something. I cannot make any promises, but if you post the
> results from your testing with these two programs, it may
> be possible to explain the results.
>
> Normally, your CPU clock would be 133MHz, and the memory 166Mhz.
> When you attempt to increase the CPU clock to 145MHz, the
> memory clock should become 181Mhz. Perhaps the BIOS has decided
> to switch to the 1:1 CPU:Memory divider, so the CPU clock is
> 145MHz and the memory is 145MHz as well. There are many
> possibilities, and you will get the answer by using CPUZ.
> Have a look at the BIOS, and see what options are available
> for the memory clock, when the CPU is set to 145Mhz.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> I have used these utlities already and and my results
are:(overclocked)
> Bandwidth 1 KB : 37112.32 MB/s
> Bandwidth 2 KB : 31477.7 MB/s
> Bandwidth 4 KB : 33821.05 MB/s
> Bandwidth 8 KB : 38000.17 MB/s
> Bandwidth 16 KB : 35194.91 MB/s
> Bandwidth 32 KB : 20910.58 MB/s
> Bandwidth 64 KB : 19883.92 MB/s
> Bandwidth 128 KB : 20363.44 MB/s
> Bandwidth 256 KB : 20193.8 MB/s
> Bandwidth 512 KB : 20188.97 MB/s
> Bandwidth 1 MB : 18625.13 MB/s
> Bandwidth 2 MB : 2767.13 MB/s
> Bandwidth 4 MB : 2777.7 MB/s
> Bandwidth 8 MB : 2777.93 MB/s
> Bandwidth 16 MB : 2778.19 MB/s
> Bandwidth 32 MB : 2779.45 MB/s
> Bandwidth 64 MB : 2779.59 MB/s
> Bandwidth 128 MB : 2779.06 MB/s
> Bandwidth 256 MB : 2778.9 MB/s
> Bandwidth 512 MB : 2779.18 MB/s
> Bandwidth 1024 MB : 2779.2 MB/s
> Latency : 111.4 ns (323 cycles)
>
> Also:
>
> Chipset : Intel i865P/i848P
> Chipset RAM Type : DDR-SDRAM PC2900 Single
> DIMM Type : DDR-SDRAM PC3200
> FSB Frequency : 145 MHz
> Bus Speed : 579.9 MHz (QDR)
> Memory Frequency : 181 MHz
> Chipset Bandwidth : 4640 MB/s
> Memory Bandwidth : 2899 MB/s
> Latency : CL2.5
> PAT Enabled : Yes
>
>
> My bios doesn't provide the function of voltage adjustment. Neither
ram frequency modding. The CPu is the only allowable adjustment, and
with it not even voltage. I'm very limited with this motherboard with
what I can phisically modd. It sucks! I know that I still probably
didn't respond correctly, but I hope you can tell atleast who is the
intended recipient. Is the information above telling or do you still
need my default results?

manne_29

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 11:42:41 AM3/14/06
to
> Paulwrote:

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd/browse_frm/thread/130da4eb53ba4914/e28b19cd1336ba99

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/sempron-2600/cpuz/cpuz-4.png

that the memory timings have been adjusted too far down or
something. I cannot make any promises, but if you post the
results from your testing with these two programs, it may
be possible to explain the results.

Normally, your CPU clock would be 133MHz, and the memory 166Mhz.
When you attempt to increase the CPU clock to 145MHz, the
memory clock should become 181Mhz. Perhaps the BIOS has decided
to switch to the 1:1 CPU:Memory divider, so the CPU clock is
145MHz and the memory is 145MHz as well. There are many
possibilities, and you will get the answer by using CPUZ.
Have a look at the BIOS, and see what options are available
for the memory clock, when the CPU is set to 145Mhz.

Paul[/quote:ef00588e11]

manne_29

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 2:53:20 PM3/14/06
to
>
> The first one is memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org .
> The memtest86+ program will erase and format a floppy for you,
> and you use the floppy to boot the computer. One of the nice
> things that memtest has in it, is "bandwidth" indicators
> in the upper left hand corner of the screen.
>
> The second utility you should get, is CPUZ from
> http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . CPUZ is a Windows utility,
> that gives you key information about the clocks and
> memory timings in your computer.
>
> OK, with those two tools at your disposal.
>
> 1) Set the computer to 133MHz. Boot the computer with the
> memtest86+ prepared boot floppy. What does the bandwidth
> indicator say about your memory bandwidth ? It should be
> a number, like 900MB/sec or 3000MB/sec or some other number.
> The result will be different at each computer speed.
>
> 2) Press the Escape key. Memtest86+ should exit, and the
> computer will start to reboot. Remove the floppy diskette,
> so the computer will boot from the hard drive. Now, when
> Windows is booted, run CPUZ. What are the clocks and
> memory timing settings ? Write them down.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here are my default Cpu and Ram results: (Default)
>
> Chipset : Intel i865P/i848P
> Chipset RAM Type : DDR-SDRAM PC2700 Single
> DIMM Type : DDR-SDRAM PC3200
> FSB Frequency : 133 MHz
> Bus Speed : 532.2 MHz (QDR)
> Memory Frequency : 166 MHz
> Chipset Bandwidth : 4256 MB/s
> Memory Bandwidth : 2660 MB/s
> Latency : CL2.5
> PAT Enabled : Yes
>
> Also:
> Bandwidth 1 KB : 34449.6 MB/s
> Bandwidth 2 KB : 29362.49 MB/s
> Bandwidth 4 KB : 31095.55 MB/s
> Bandwidth 8 KB : 35044.99 MB/s
> Bandwidth 16 KB : 32203.85 MB/s
> Bandwidth 32 KB : 16985.61 MB/s
> Bandwidth 64 KB : 19087.19 MB/s
> Bandwidth 128 KB : 19303.26 MB/s
> Bandwidth 256 KB : 18487.95 MB/s
> Bandwidth 512 KB : 18399.95 MB/s
> Bandwidth 1 MB : 16375.4 MB/s
> Bandwidth 2 MB : 2543.72 MB/s
> Bandwidth 4 MB : 2544.67 MB/s
> Bandwidth 8 MB : 2547.75 MB/s
> Bandwidth 16 MB : 2549.58 MB/s
> Bandwidth 32 MB : 2548.66 MB/s
> Bandwidth 64 MB : 2550.17 MB/s
> Bandwidth 128 MB : 2550.27 MB/s
> Bandwidth 256 MB : 2550.45 MB/s
> Bandwidth 512 MB : 2550.26 MB/s
> Bandwidth 1024 MB : 2550.53 MB/s
> Latency : 122.14 ns (325 cycles)
>
>
> These numbers on default seem to be higher. Is it suppose to be that
way?

Paul

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 12:40:12 AM3/15/06
to
In article <QaFRf.114330$Fj7....@fe09.news.easynews.com>,
n...@spam.invalid (manne_29) wrote:

> > In article <nospam-1403...@192.168.1.178>, nos...@needed.com (Paul)


> > wrote:
> > The memtest86+ program will erase and format a floppy for you,
> > and you use the floppy to boot the computer. One of the nice
> > things that memtest has in it, is "bandwidth" indicators
> > in the upper left hand corner of the screen.
> >
> > The second utility you should get, is CPUZ from
> > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . CPUZ is a Windows utility,
> > that gives you key information about the clocks and
> > memory timings in your computer.
> >
> > OK, with those two tools at your disposal.
> >
> > 1) Set the computer to 133MHz. Boot the computer with the
> > memtest86+ prepared boot floppy. What does the bandwidth
> > indicator say about your memory bandwidth ? It should be
> > a number, like 900MB/sec or 3000MB/sec or some other number.
> > The result will be different at each computer speed.
> >
> > 2) Press the Escape key. Memtest86+ should exit, and the
> > computer will start to reboot. Remove the floppy diskette,
> > so the computer will boot from the hard drive. Now, when
> > Windows is booted, run CPUZ. What are the clocks and
> > memory timing settings ? Write them down.

******

And what are the results at 145MHz ? What I was hoping
to see, was the memory bandwidth (2660MB/sec), but at
145MHz. The value of the memory clock frequency and
the timing parameters, like Tcas (CL2.5), Trcd, Trp, and
Tras, help to explain why the memory bandwidth went up or
down.

If you find the memory bandwidth is lower, when the
clock is set to 145MHz, then that would explain your
benchmark results. If the CPU is faster, but the
memory is slower, things that are heavily memory
dependent, will perform slower. Things that don't
depend on memory as much, will benefit from the
faster CPU.

If I download the manual here, on PDF page 39 I see
"Memory Frequency for (Auto)". Are you sure that
changing that setting, does not give you some options ?

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWeb/Downloads/ProductsDetail_Download.aspx?CategoryID=1&Typeid=32&detailid=475&DetailName=MANUAL&DetailDesc=848P-A7%20(1.0)&MenuID=35&LanID=9

http://64.124.27.138/ecs/manual/mb/eng/p4/848P-A7.zip

Paul

manne_29

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 2:33:38 PM3/15/06
to
>
> And what are the results at 145MHz ? What I was hoping
> to see, was the memory bandwidth (2660MB/sec), but at
> 145MHz. The value of the memory clock frequency and
> the timing parameters, like Tcas (CL2.5), Trcd, Trp, and
> Tras, help to explain why the memory bandwidth went up or
> down.
>
> If you find the memory bandwidth is lower, when the
> clock is set to 145MHz, then that would explain your
> benchmark results. If the CPU is faster, but the
> memory is slower, things that are heavily memory
> dependent, will perform slower. Things that don't
> depend on memory as much, will benefit from the
> faster CPU.
>
> If I download the manual here, on PDF page 39 I see
> "Memory Frequency for (Auto)". Are you sure that
> changing that setting, does not give you some options ?
>
>
>
> Response:
>
> It is already posted on the previous page. It is the last post on
the last page. Take a look.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages