Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 07:40:10 04/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2003 at 01:52:41, Keith Evans wrote: >On April 27, 2003 at 01:38:15, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On April 26, 2003 at 22:52:42, Keith Evans wrote: >> >>>On April 26, 2003 at 22:25:47, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>On April 26, 2003 at 21:11:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>I checked Aaron's story with his contact at AMD. The guy said that AMD didn't >>>>>allow performance testing with the memory _overclocked_, but it certainly isn't >>>>>underclocked. This makes perfect sense to me. (If you allow overclocking memory, >>>>>why wouldn't you also overclock the processor? Then all your benchmarks are >>>>>worthless.) >>>>> >>>>>So SPEC is comparing non-overclocked Intel to non-overclocked AMD and Intel >>>>>wins. >>>>> >>>>>-Tom >>>> >>>>When I ran the tests I recalled seeing some information where the P4 was running >>>>CAS2 and the like. The settings I was told to use put me at CAS 2.5. >>>>How would this be 'fair'? Same thing happens on some review pages, but to a much >>>>larger degree. As I have proven in the past tomshardware has actually run the >>>>memory lower than the bus on the athlons tested, put the AGP to 1x, etc. >>>> >>>>Also, running CAS2 with all tweaks enabled isn't "overclocking". Especially when >>> >>>I think that the main point is that the manager basically was trying to prevent >>>memory (and maybe other components) from being run out of specification. This is >>>what I suspected. He probably felt that if AMD ran components out of spec and >>>quoted the numbers, then Intel could get nasty. >>> >>>Your argument is with him. Determining that memory is being run in spec is not >>>as simple as quoting a single parameter like "CAS 2.5." Download a memory >>>datasheet, a chipset datasheet, see how the BIOS is programming the chipset, >>>draw waveforms, and check all of the parameters. It is painful, but anything >>>else is handwaving. >> >>What I'm trying to point out is the ram was Corsair PC2400XMS CL2. Rated for >>150MHz(300DDR) at CL2.0. I was told to run 133MHz fsb stock (which I have no >>problems with) and CL2.5, bank interleaving off, other timings slower than usual >>which IS much below the rams normal speed. >> >>Nothing was overclocked, nothing would have been overclocked. Even with maximum >>timings, the ram would be still running UNDER spec. If you'd like to see for >>yourself, here is the PC2400XMS CL2 datasheet from Corsair. >> >>http://www.corsairmicro.com/main/products/specs/cm64sd256.pdf >> >>The numbers off of the dimm = CM64SD256-2400C2 >> >>If for some reason you'd like to see the DIMM, go here.. >>http://www.newageoc.com/pics2/corsair2400cl2.jpg > >Then the question remains, why did the manager apparently believe that something >would be operating out of spec? That corsair datasheet doesn't have enough >detail. See page 50 and associated diagrams in the following: > >http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/dram/128Mx4x8x16DDR_D.pdf > >Regards, >Keith Running 150MHz CL2 ram at 133MHz CL2 isn't going to put it out of spec.
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.