Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 18:37:37 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 12:16:30, Aaron Gordon wrote: >Sisoft sandra is fairly accurate when it comes to memory bandwidth. It's >basically a souped up STREAM benchmark. Also, I notice a very large difference >between 2.0gb/s and 2.4gb/s. This is 20%. In many applications that are memory >intensive this gives a MUCH needed boost. My argument was that the Sandra memory bandwidth test doesn't reflect any kind of real-world performance. I'm sure it's accurate as far as raw bandwidth, under specific conditions. It comes very close to the theoretical peak bandwidth, in fact - which is why I don't think it's completely realistic; very few applications will saturate the bus like that. >Also, about running 166/200fsb synchronous. Like I said.. the 8k3a+ and other >similar boards have 1/5, 1/6 PCI multipliers and similar AGP multipliers to keep >everything within spec while keeping the bus and ram at 166 or 200MHz(333 & I was talking about running the CPU bus at the normal 133MHz and running the memory at 166MHz (333 DDR) - _a_synchronous operation - it usually doesn't produce much speedup, because the processor bus (still at 133MHz) is already saturated, no matter if the memory bus is putting out 20GB/s. >400DDR). Thats why I said you can just grab the board & slap in the appropriate >memory and you're good to go. If you are at 133fsb(DDR) then ~2.0gb/s is about >all you're going to get, the theoretical max would be 2.1gb/s. Yep. >About the Quake3 benchmark, yes, optimization can overcome that gap quite >easily. Get Quake3 and run the tests (even at 133fsb w/ the tweaks you have >now). I guarantee with a similar video card you will get (easily) %20 more fps >than the AthlonXP on the page of a similar clock speed. No if's and's or but's >about it. Use my DLL's and get ANOTHER 20% :) As I said, I'm not completely interested in Quake3 benchmarks, but maybe I'll give it a try sometime. It's not like it matters once you're over about 100FPS anyway, because the monitor doesn't refresh so fast. >Most of the speed increases come from increasing memory bandwidth. With the >right board & memory you can get some ridiculous scores without having to modify >anything on the board (just a few settings in the bios, nothing more). Dual >channel DDR (2x faster than current DDR) is right around the corner.. hopefully Of course there has been an nForce chipset with dual-channel DDR support for months. :) >VIA puts out a decent chipset (like the KT266a & KT333) so we can take advantage >of such insanity. :) Via is trying to push DDR400 on us, but I haven't heard much about them doing any kind of dual-channel thing, which sucks. IMO, AMD should make their processors use a 200MHz bus, instead of the 133 they currently use. Even without increasing the speed of the processor, the performance would increase quite a bit, especially with respect to the P4 on bandwidth-intensive applications. It's a mystery why they keep everything on the old 133MHz bus - it has to artificially hold the Athlon's performance down.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.