PC4000 versus PC3200 Results!!

[lokicat]

There's been a lot of debating on whether PC4000 with loose memory timings is better than PC3200 with tight timings. I've decided to test this myself using my rig below. To make sure I only changed the memory speed and timings I tested the system as follows:

3.25 GHz CPU
250 MHz FSB
GAT settings all set to "Auto"

For 1:1 ratio, 250 MHz 2.5-4-4-7 settings (Geil PC4000 1 GB)

PC Mark : CPU - 7996, Memory - 11148
SiSandra Memory : Buffered - 5969/5998, Unbuffered - 4755/4760
AquaMark03 - 48,261
3DMark2001 - 19,797
3DMark2003 - 6,218
MPeg2 Encoding (Premiere 6.5) - 2:03
Prime95 (2000 interations) - 1:23

For 5:4 ratio, 200 MHz 2-2-2-5 settings (Corsair XMS3500 1 GB)

PC Mark : CPU - 8000, Memory - 10483
SiSandra Memory : Buffered - 5550/5550, Unbuffered - 4383/4287
AquaMark03 - 48,402
3DMark2001 - 19,943
3DMark2003 - 6,230
MPeg2 Encoding (Premiere 6.5) - 2:02
Prime95 (2000 interations) - 1:23

So what can we conclude?

1) Synthetic memory benchmarks show a clear advantage with the PC4000 memory.

2) Graphics benchmarks show a very slight to insignificant advantage with PC3200 memory.

3) CPU intensive benchmarks show no difference.

There it is folks, basically there is no difference in "real world" applications for either memory. What's more important is your CPU speed. If I run the same benchmarks at my normal speed of 3.45 GHz, I get real gains accross the board. So my advice to you is to get the cheapest memory that will run at one of these configurations and use the left over cash to buy the absolute fastest CPU you can afford.

However since I now own both of the tested memory, I have to say that the Geil PC4000 memory is pretty damn cool! I haven't tested above 260 yet since all Abit Max3 boards currently have a problem running higher voltages than 2.8 VDimm. As soon as I get this sorted out, I plan on testing again at 266 versus 214 memory. Probably no difference again but I like the idea of having 8.4 GB of memory bandwidth!

Peace....

[Edward2]

Very interesting results. Even though running the memory at 1:1 results in higher memory bandwidth, you actually scored higher in Aquamark and both 3dmark's running the memory at 5:4 with the tighter timings. Thanks for taking the time to post these results, I'm sure a lot of people have been curious to see this type info.

[Caffinehog]

I have an older game that responds dramatically to lower cas latencies, but only slightly to fsb and cpu speeds. I don't know how much this applies to modern games or programs, but you can bet it matters somewhere.

While I've never subscribed to the theory that cas latency is more important than total bandwidth, I will not hesitate to say that it makes a difference. And I also won't hesitate to say that in SOME applications, it does outweigh total bandwidth. It's kinda like seek time versus read speed for hard drives.

You will never come up with a definitive answer to this question on the forums. The only thing to do is to try different settings with certain games or applications and see which does better, then post the results. Then we can see which is better for a particular program, and we can make our choices according to what we do most.

And something like that would be difficult to do.

[USAPGAPRO]

Thanks for sharing the results.

[flapperhead]

it would be interesting to see what the performance comparison would be at the higher speeds lets say 285-290 fsb speeds and would the pc3200 be able to keep up at 5/4 ratio and the better timings...

[Speed_Mechanic2]

Basically, if you can keep the FSB at the same level as the FSB that you are comparing, then scores will be very similar to lokicat's using 5:4 and a tRCD-tRP of 2-2 compared to using 1:1 and a tRCD-tRP of 4-4.

Say you get your DDR500 up to DDR600, and use a FSB:Memory of 1:1 at 300MHz. Then you test your rig running your memory at DDR480 (say you are pumping it with 3+V or have miracle RAM :)) with 2-2-2-6 timings and have it running 5:4 with an FSB of 300MHz. The performance comparison between the two systems (all other things being equal) would follow similar lines as lokicat's. That is the 1:1 (w/ 2.5-4-4) would have higher memory bandwidth, but performance in real-world applications/benchmarks would slightly lean towards the 5:4 (w/ 2-2-2) system.

Looking at pure performance numbers, there is no real winner. But add the price differance between PC4000 (high FSB) and PC3200 (low latency), then you tend to lean towards the PC3200 (low latency). Results like this have an impact on Intel-users with P4C (800 FSB) processors, as well as (future) Athlon 64 users.

[BLOB]

woo neat

[larva]

Set the GAT to Turbo, a, a, d, d and try again, the results may be different ;)

[lokicat]

Originally posted by larva
Set the GAT to Turbo, a, a, d, d and try again, the results may be different ;)

Hangs after DMI verification.

[lokicat]

Here's more data when I ran 260 FSB:

260 Memory 1:1 Ratio 3-4-4-8 Timings
Aquamark3 - 48,677
3DMark2001 - 20,267
3DMark2003 6258

208 Memory 5:4 Ratio 2-2-2-5 Timings
Aquamark3 - 48,699
3DMark2001 - 20,340
3DMark2003 6263

The differences between the two memory speeds are much closer than the tests I ran at 250 FSB. I suspect that the 1:1 ratio with loose timings meets or exceeds 5:4 ratio with tight timings at around 270 FSB. If I can only get my Max3 board working at more than 2.8 Vdimm I could test this theory.

[gouda96]

omg...will this finally be then end of people saying "you are stupid...pc4x00 is faster...it has a higher # doesn't it?"...thank you for posting this. Nice layout...even the simplest of people will be able to read this info quite easily...many many links to be sent here...

[larva]

Originally posted by lokicat


Hangs after DMI verification.

The PC4000 won't allow GAT because it is um, less than impressive ram. The Corsair won't allow GAT because it is CH5. Put some BH5s in it and set GAT to F1 and your 5:4 configuration will extend its lead significantly.

The 1:1 configuration would win if it would tolerate GAT, even at the loose timings you have to run. But generally if ram is going to require loose timings it's going to balk at GAT also.

The real winner is to run 1:1, 2-2-2-5, and GAT on F1. You just need a higher cpu multiplier to make it come off. It's still the way to go even if your multiplier is too high, as mine is at 18. 17 would be perfect and allow you to exploit the cumulative advantages of 1:1 operation, tight timings, and a big fat load of GAT. As ram quality improves this will be possible at higher clock rates than the 400-440MHz currently achievable in DC with BH5s.

Most of the statements about bandwidth vs. latency reside at far too simplistic a level to say anything meaningful. Which is more important, latency or bandwidth? Well it all depends on the circumstances. For single channel chipsets the answer is almost always bandwidth, as they have excellent latency in any event but poor bandwidth. Obvously increasing bandwidth is more important in this application.

But 865/875 chipsets are an entirely different story. Firstly, they only achieve latency that approaches their single channel predecessor when run with tight timings. Secondly, they can match 845x's latency when run in 1:1 mode with tight timings. Thirdly, the can actually improve upon 845x's latency when they are run 1:1 at tight timings with PAT/GAT enabled. And fourthly, they don't lack for bandwidth no matter what clock speed you are running the memory, making the pursuit of better latency behavior more important.

Since our bandwidth in dual channel is sufficient to very nearly maximize system performance when running the ram at 400MHz, if it costs us latency performance to raise the bandwidth we lose, lose, lose. Since bandwidth is always in abundant supply, we need to work on optimizing latency in order to achieve overall improvements. Obvously running tight timings is the first step. If this requires going to the 5:4 ratio to achieve, do it. 1:1 is beneficial, in that it improves latency in itself, and PAT/GAT is more effective at 1:1 than any other ratio, further helping latency. But these effects are not as pronounced as getting the timings reduced, and if your ram will not tolerate GAT this further erodes the advantage of 1:1 operation.

[g0ldberg]

aj aj aj .. dang this is heavy stuff .. makes me dizzy :confused:

Still great posts all ... keep wanting more :thup:

this stuff is like icecream .. could eat it all day if it wasn't for the headaches:bang head

[markodude]

IMO The problem comes when you put all that larva has said together with the varying multipliers of P4 and the varying performance of the CPU based on the FSB.
I can get my P4C to 330FSB in single channel mode, and although I am only running the P4 on an 8x multi for 2.64ghz, the Sandra cpu results are nearer to the 3ghz reference speed becuase the CPU becomes much more efficent at such a high FSB.
Really I want to be running in the region of 350FSB. You then have to think about running the RAM at a high speed too, but getting that high on 5:4 would not be easy, at least not at agressive timings to get DDR533.
Although understandably most people dont have chips with such a low multi, its hard to generalise based on so many variables...

[Mike89]

Hmm, this is interesting. I have been comtemplating changing memory right now to get the 1/1 at 250 fsb/250 memory. Right now I'm running 5/4, 250 fsb-200 memory. It looks like now I should just stay where I'm at.

I'm running lower benchmarks though than posted above.

In 3DMark 01, I'm getting about 18,800.
3DMark 03, about the same as the starting above post.
SiSoft Sandra memory bandwidth, I'm getting about 4970
PCMark, I'm getting 9970 for the memory score.

And this is with my lower sig system compared to one above at 3.25 gig. I don't understand why I'm not getting the scores more in line with the above post. Any comments on this? Is it because of my 4 sticks?

On this topic I think to get a better 'real world performance' comparison though would be to give some comparison benchmarks running actual games.

[gouda96]

Originally posted by Mike89
Hmm, this is interesting. I have been comtemplating changing memory right now to get the 1/1 at 250 fsb/250 memory. Right now I'm running 5/4, 250 fsb-200 memory. It looks like now I should just stay where I'm at.

I'm running lower benchmarks though than posted above.

In 3DMark 01, I'm getting about 18,800.
3DMark 03, about the same as the starting above post.
SiSoft Sandra memory bandwidth, I'm getting about 9970.

And this is with my lower sig system compared to one above at 3.25 gig. I don't understand why I'm not getting the scores more in line with the above post. Any comments on this? Is it because of my 4 sticks?

On this topic I think to get a better 'real world performance' comparison though would be to give some comparison benchmarks running actual games.

wow...9970 in s-sandra...that is the highest score ever recorded.:D

For your clock those scores are fine, and there is no reason for you to switch memory. Even if you had 1:1 crap that I don't like I wouldn't suggest switching memory. The difference might be kind of big in 3dmark, but you probably won't be able to notice the difference in your computer. If you run 2-2-2-5 5:4 you are getting better "real world performance" than if you bought crap that did 1:1 3-4-4-8.

btw...is that your highest oc?

[Mike89]

wow...9970 in s-sandra...that is the highest score ever recorded

Sorry about that, I screwed up. It was 9970 in PCmark02 (memory). Sisoft was 4970. (I went back up and edited that post)

The starting post got over 10,000 in both his comparisons (pcmark memory score), both with a 3.25 gig. Here I'm running at 3.5 gig and can't even break 10,000. And he's getting over 1000 more in 3dmark01 with either comparison, again running 3.25 gig. The only one I'm about the same in was the 3dmark03 score.

Dunno why my system is so far behind those.

Oh forgot to mention, my 4 sticks are running 2-3-3-7.

[gouda96]

do you have cpc enabled, and what do you have all the other memory options set to?

[Mike89]

What is cpc?

I have Hyperthreading enabled in BIOS. Dunno which other settings you are referring to for me to show. Lemme know which ones.

CPUZ showed PAT disabled, even though I have the Game Accelerator settings to Turbo-Auto-5-Disabled-Disabled. Windows won't boot with anything higher than Turbo.


I'm at home now (I was at work before) so I can now see my scores. I'm actually a bit lower in the PCmark scores even than I first said.

PCMark
CPU - 8278
Memory - 9954

[gouda96]

can you put the disabled's to auto? 1 of those is the pat I think...someone needs to jump in here and help you out that has a max3. I am doing the best I can from the little bit I have seen from that mobo...sorry if I am not being much help.

[Mike89]

I believe all five of those options make up the PAT. If those last two are not disabled on the Max3, it won't go above 240 fsb (or something like that) (that's just for the Max3 in general, I got that tip from this forum). The first setting is "Game Accelerator" and then there are 4 more settings below that.

So what's the 'cpc' you were asking about? And what other settings do you want me to list?

[Mike89]

BTW, here is an article that says just the opposite.

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.html?i=1849&p=4

[lokicat]

Originally posted by Mike89
BTW, here is an article that says just the opposite.

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.html?i=1849&p=4

This article keeps the memory timings the same and only change the speed for all configurations. How they dedicated an entire article on this is beyond me. Come on, it's not rocket science. If you keep everything the same and only change the speed of the memory of course the faster memory wins - duh!! Although interesting, it misses the entire point of this debate. If you compare speed and timings like I did, the results would be very different (e.g. 2-2-2-5 versus 3-4-4-8).

Your low memory scores are indicative of your 2-3-3-7 timings. In my score above, the lower speed memory was running 2-2-2-5 timings which is a significant difference. Try to the lowest timings with more Vdimm. If you are going to stay at 250/200, then get some BH-5 chips and you should be able to do 2-2-2-5 with F1 GAT easily.

One side note - my graphics scores are not default 9800 pro speeds. I forgot that I had left the core running at 400. But it was the same speed for all the tests I ran. Anyway, I was only interested in relative, and not absolute scores.

[melon_stunner]

Usually for my configurations I try to max out the CPU. If I can do that with low timmings and a high memory clock even better! Right now I'm at 190 FSB (3.42 ghz) using the 4/5 ratio which pushes my ram to 475 mhz at 2-2-2-6-8. I never knew my old stick of Corsair PC3200C2 could run at these speeds. Maybe I can get another stick and try to run dual channel.

BTW Larva, my PCMARK scores are lower than yours. I scored a 8425 on the CPU and 89XX on the memory at the same speeds. I guess my P4P800 is a bit slower than the IS7. I'm runing single channel though, that is why my memory is so low.

[Mike89]

I was runnng 2-2-2-5 at 3.4 gig (5/4 194 mem) but when I went up to 3.5 gig, 3dmark01 would crash half way through. Lowered the mem to 2-3-3-7 and everything was ok. I didn't try anything in between.

[lokicat]

There's no way that your memory is the problem although changing the timings seems to have fixed the stability. Corsair XMS3500 runs 2-2-2-5 at 200 easily at stock voltage. Especially if you have Rev 1.1 like me (BH-5 chips). Max3 problems running 5:4 ratio is a common problem. You may want to try one of the beta BIOS (check Abit's forum).

Also try to up your VCore another notch and try VAGP of 1.6V or higher. Don't waste your time with Abit FAE support though. 99% of the time they'll tell you that you need a better power supply.

[Mike89]

I just went back into the BIOS and tried the 2-2-2-5 again. This time I upped the Vdimm voltage from 2.6 to 2.7. This time 3dmark01 went all the way through. I have the vcore to 1.5 volts (up from the stock 1.475 volts) and agp voltage at stock. Why would I want to up the agp voltage? What's that have to do with it? I'm running the PCI/AGP at fixed 33/66

I did get a small increase at 2-2-2-5 from 2-3-3-7:
3dm01 - 19381, up from 18882.
pcmark memory - 9994, up from 9954 (still trying to hit 10,000)
sisoft bandwidth - 5037, up from 4957 (at least I got into the 5000s)

I also still have the Game Accelerator to Turbo and cpuz still shows the Performance Mode as Disabled. I have heard that because I have 4 sticks instead of 2, that's going to prevent me from getting anything higher than Turbo. I believe all 4 of my sticks are 1.1

So you're saying that if I went to 250 memory at 3-4-4-8, that my scores would actually be lower, except for the memory scores? I assume you would also mean that my games would run slower instead of faster?

[gouda96]

Originally posted by Mike89
I just went back into the BIOS and tried the 2-2-2-5 again. This time I upped the Vdimm voltage from 2.6 to 2.7. This time 3dmark01 went all the way through. I have the vcore to 1.5 volts (up from the stock 1.475 volts) and agp voltage at stock. Why would I want to up the agp voltage? What's that have to do with it? I'm running the PCI/AGP at fixed 33/66

I did get a small increase at 2-2-2-5 from 2-3-3-7:
3dm01 - 19381, up from 18882.
pcmark memory - 9994, up from 9954 (still trying to hit 10,000)
sisoft bandwidth - 5037, up from 4957 (at least I got into the 5000s)

I also still have the Game Accelerator to Turbo and cpuz still shows the Performance Mode as Disabled. I have heard that my 4 sticks is going to prevent me from getting anything higher than Turbo. I believe all 4 of my sticks are 1.1

yeah...that is one of those "small" increases. for 500 points people spend hours and hours toiling over the smallest things, for 1 or 2 points, but because all you did was change 3 memory settings it is a small increase. Huge increase, little effort.

I love how people post that anandtech thing every now and then...

[Mike89]

Well I posted the Anantech article because I have really been struggling to understand memory bandwidth (and it's practical applications) and trying to get as much info as I can to ascertain if running 250/250 was better than running 250/200. I was almost ready to do it until I read your thread. What really got me thinking about this whole thing was an article I read about memory bandwidth talking about how when you had an asynchronous setup, 5/4 for example, that the cpu only talked to the memory 4 out of 5 clocks so the cpu had to make up for that in speed. I know I probably didn't explain that quite right but I think you get what I was referring to. This got me thinking that, "hey I need to have it communicating 5 out of 5 so I need 250 memory to go with the 250 fsb."

[gouda96]

dropping down to 5:4 you loose less than 5% bandwith. This bandwith is just complete overkill anyway. With tight timings you make a huge performance impact. If you compare 1:1 3-4-4-8 to 5:4 2-2-2-5 you will see small drop in the worthless s-sanrda bench, and a huge gain in every other bench.

I have alreay explained this in like 50 other threads. Go find them and check out all the links that I have showing this. There isn't a question, or a maybe...it is simple fact.

[Recnelis]

Well to be honest to get an exact idea you could do a series of tests with the with the high bandwith memory and relaxed 3-4-4-8 timings and the lower bandwith at sharp timings put them both on a graph and see where they intersect performance wise and at wich point your high bandwith memory starts pulling away. If that FSB speed should be unrealisticly high the sharper timings will obviously give the best performance for most people.
As far as the abit ic7 max 3 goes in this picture the higher bandwith mem and 1:1 overclock seems to be better for it because of the unstability at (and here goes my spelling again lol) asyncronous (you know what i mean ) overclocking .

[gouda96]

Originally posted by Recnelis
Well to be honest to get an exact idea you could do a series of tests with the with the high bandwith memory and relaxed 3-4-4-8 timings and the lower bandwith at sharp timings put them both on a graph and see where they intersect performance wise and at wich point your high bandwith memory starts pulling away. If that FSB speed should be unrealisticly high the sharper timings will obviously give the best performance for most people.
As far as the abit ic7 max 3 goes in this picture the higher bandwith mem and 1:1 overclock seems to be better for it because of the unstability at (and here goes my spelling again lol) asyncronous (you know what i mean ) overclocking .

yes...if you buy a pos max3 you don't want anything but crap pc4x00 to go with it. Unless you get incredibly lucky the max3 pos will have a horrible bug where the 5:4 and 3:2 dividers cause serious oc'ing problems. There is also the great vdim bug. That mobo is an overpriced pos. If you buy a crap mobo, get crap ram for it, and waste as much money as possible :D (had 3 friends loose 15% restocking this pos when they bought it before everyone knew it had these problems )

[Recnelis]

There is a difference between posting your opinion and trying to insult people.

[lokicat]

Originally posted by gouda96


yes...if you buy a pos max3 you don't want anything but crap pc4x00 to go with it. Unless you get incredibly lucky the max3 pos will have a horrible bug where the 5:4 and 3:2 dividers cause serious oc'ing problems. There is also the great vdim bug. That mobo is an overpriced pos. If you buy a crap mobo, get crap ram for it, and waste as much money as possible :D (had 3 friends loose 15% restocking this pos when they bought it before everyone knew it had these problems )

When it comes to overclocking, 90% of what people say on these type of forums is just that - opinion. The only thing that can be called fact is your own personal OC'ing results with whatever system you have. I've definitely had my share of Max3 problems, but the fact is Abit RMA service is second to none and I'm confident that all issues will be resolved in due time. Afterall, OC'ing is not an exact science.

Keep in mind that most users tend to post negative experiences far more frequently than positives ones. Therefore to assume that most users are having problems with the Max3 is simply wrong. We need to give Abit a chance to respond to these reports. This is very similar to all those users that claim that the latest ATI 3.8 Catalyst drivers are somehow killing off monitors and cards. There's probably a few "legitimate" problems, but the majority are a reslult of mass hysteria.

Anyway, my opinion.

[pkrew]

Personally, I love my Max3 and wouldn't trade it. Second, Mike I would go higher on your memory voltage. Third, I find it interesting that everyone ignored what Larva had to say. His points are entirely valid. I use 3.2v and the timmings in the sig. At stock ( 378/338) the video card scores over 6800 in 3dmark 03 and over 50,000 in Aquamark. My system only runs 8mhz faster than yours so the difference must be in the memory timmings and it the GAT setting. If you could use GAT the scores for the corsair would have a clear lead over your pc4000 memory, which doesn't have a prayer of being set to these timmings.

[Mike89]

Well I think the Max3 is far from a 'POS'. It's the best mb I've ever had to date. Even with my overclock, I'm running a much cooler system than my previous A7N8X Deluxe with the 2800+. And this systems kicks the other all to hell.

I consider 3.5 for the 2.8C at 5/4 250/200 with 2-2-2-5 using 4 sticks of ram a pretty good accomplishment for any motherboard.

Using 4 sticks of double sided ram at any fsb higher than 200 automatically disables PAT which is unfortunate but this is not a Max3 issue (all motherboards will do this same thing), it's an Intel issue and because this only happens when overclocking, I doubt Intel will even address it.

This is undoubtedly why my scores might be a bit lower than comparable ones posted in this thread because I don't have the benefit of PAT going.

So the question still remains for me.

Stay at 250/200 with 2-2-2-5 timings (PAT disabled).

Get rid of two sticks and losing 512 megs just to get the PAT back.

Or go with 250/250 @ 3-4-4-8 (which means to lose some big time memory timings to gain some memory bandwidth, what's more important, that's still debated isn't it?) and spend over $300 for the ram to do that.

I have a rock stable system right now, contrary to the claim of the Max3 being a 'POS', so the logical decision would be to stay where I'm at. (of course us tweakers are not always logical are we?) Heh heh.

[pkrew]

I think you have a very nice overclock Mike. I wish I could get to 3.5G with my system. While your memory scores are lower I think you can see from what has been said here that your gaming scores dont seem to be suffering. Is your video card overclocked and is 3.2v stable on your max3. If it is have you tried that memory voltage to see if you can run 1/1 ratio with the memory that you have.

[Mike89]

When you say 3.2, I am assuming you are talking about vdimm voltage? Dunno what the Max3 goes up to on that but I don't think it goes that high. I did try 250 with my 4 sticks at 3-4-4-8 and raising the vdimm to 2.9. No go, beeps all over the place. Even if it would have done it, I would be kind of scared of that prolonged voltage on the ram. I believe the ram guy has said that 2.9 volts could ruin the PC 3500 ram if ran too long with it. You were suggesting turning it up to 3.2 volts? Whoa, that's a bit over the top isn't it? I think 250 would be a stretch even for 2 sticks, let alone trying it with 4 sticks (and I'm not going to get rid of two sticks and going from 1 gig to 512, no way, especially with the money I got tied up in it).

Dunno man, losing my 2-2-2-5 is kinda hard to accept. Know what I mean?

[Recnelis]

Alot of people using the BH-5 sticks say they are running it at 3.2 Volt since thats when it really shines. Personaly I'm not willing to run it over 2.8 It just seems a bit pointless to risk throwing away money burning a mem bar to be aroudn the same result in the end.

[Mike89]

Yeah I hear ya. 3.2 is where it really shines? I would be afraid it would be more like, "3.2 is where it really burns up". I see now that the Max3 does go up to 3.2 volts (I didn't even know that until I just looked)

That's a trip running ram at that voltage, I would be scared sh_tless! I don't have that kind of bread to take a chance like that. (hell I don't even have the kind of bread to have a system like I do, but you know how that goes).

[Clevor]

Geez, hasn't anybody noticed Loki's unbuffered memory scores are anamolous? Hmmm, you guys actually looked at the data? :)

Loki, if you are actually getting 4700 unbuffered than that is some monster rig there. You must have unchecked the boxes in Sandra wrong. But the relative marks should be the same anyway.

[lokicat]

Originally posted by Clevor
Geez, hasn't anybody noticed Loki's unbuffered memory scores are anamolous? Hmmm, you guys actually looked at the data? :)

Loki, if you are actually getting 4700 unbuffered than that is some monster rig there. You must have unchecked the boxes in Sandra wrong. But the relative marks should be the same anyway.

I missed a couple buffered options in the test, but made the same mistake across all test conditions. I also had my 9800 card clocked at 400 core. Remember, I was not testing for absolute numbers, but purely relative performance.

Anyway, as soon as my Vdimm issues get resolved (Abit RMA), I plan on re-testing at 266-270 FSB and see how the results compare.

[gouda96]

I have never heard of bh-5 or bh-6 dying of overvolting. I have heard of people running them as high as 3.6v 24/7 for the last year, so I am pretty sure it is safe. My bh-5 doesn't even put off heat until 3.32v, and the only reason there is any heat at all it because I have 0 airflow over the mem...well until I fealt it getting warm that is...I have enough money to replace them if they do break, so if they last me atleast a year, which they will without any question then I won't even care about them after that.

[larva]

Originally posted by Mike89
Using 4 sticks of double sided ram automatically disables PAT which is unfortunate but this is not a Max3 issue (all motherboards will do this same thing), it's an Intel issue and Intel hasn't fixed it yet and dunno if they even can.
As far as I know all the 256MB DDR on the market is single sided in architecture even though the chips are located on both sides. One does not imply the other.

[Mike89]

Well all I can say about that is my PAT is disabled at any fsb higher than 200 with my 4 sticks. If I pull two of them out, PAT is enabled.

[Clevor]

I thought there was a discussion on one of the forums that PAT is always enabled on 875P chipsets. Intel feels software programs are incorrectly showing it as off. Of course, Intel would want to say it's always on.

Did you compare bandwidth and 3DMark scores between 2 and 4 sticks? That should not affect 3DMark but might possibly affect bandwidth.

So Larva, you have seen SS sticks with chips on both sides???

[larva]

As I stated, as far as I know all 256MB sticks currently produced are single sided in organization even if they have chips on both sides. All my 256MB DDR is that way.

[Clevor]

Actually the OCZ PC3700 Golds are (were) double-sided with 8 chips per side. They were 256 MB sticks. I think they did this to cut the density down to allow high overclocks (DDR500+), while the DS nature allowed good bandwidth at 2-3-3-6 and slower. They've been discontinued though.

[eva2000]

Don't forget ICs for 2-2-2-5 tight timings are drying up... hence why other high fsb high latency memory was brought in as an alternative

[larva]

Originally posted by Clevor
Actually the OCZ PC3700 Golds are (were) double-sided with 8 chips per side. They were 256 MB sticks. I think they did this to cut the density down to allow high overclocks (DDR500+), while the DS nature allowed good bandwidth at 2-3-3-6 and slower. They've been discontinued though.

Yes, anything with 8 chips per side has to be double sided. They would be the exception to the rule, as all 256MB DDR I have used in recent years has 4 chips per side and is of the single sided configuration.