• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Leaderboards Updated 10/21* Autumn Equinox AIDA64 Memory competition - Intel-AMD

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

storm-chaser

Disabled
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Location
Upstate NY
Just a friendly competition, some forum members have wanted to do this for a while, testing PC cache and memory performance with a few related AIDIA64 benchmarks. As an incentive to get more forum members involved the winner will receive an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor 3.0Ghz E8400 in good working order as well as a tube of Arctic Silver 5 Thermo Paste. Runner up will win a Seagate Barracuda 120GB 7200 rpm drive.

*Updated 10/21* The benchmark is has now branched out into two distinctive competitions: Memory Bandwidth AND Memory Latency. Since going for broke on the bandwidth aspect does not always yield the lowest latency times, two independent leaderboards are now in play. There will be prizes awarded to the top two members in each category. I've added the read, write and copy averages to the bandwidth leaderboard so members know exactly where they are in the grand scheme of things. Latency board should be easy to follow. Obviously there are a lot of metrics in play here, so I have highlighted some of the top results/components in bold and/or red, which should incentivize us all to push our systems a little harder.

Memory Bandwidth Leaderboard (r/w/c speeds divided by 3 = ranking)
memory bandwidth rev H.JPG

Memory Latency Leaderboard
mem latency rev H.JPG

The basic objective here is to achieve highest ranked memory read, write, copy and lowest latency scores.

If you have the full version you can just run the AIDA64 Cache and Memory Benchmark, accessed from the tools menu from within the program. Users running in trial mode may have to run the memory tests individually, as in trial mode some values are hidden.

Prerequisites:
CPUz screenshot of your current OC (CPU Tab and Memory Tab)
Please make sure you are running at least v3.00 of AIDA64, otherwise your scores will be invalid as older versions of AIDIA64 don't use the same scoring metrics as the latest releases.

The AIDA64 program can be downloaded here for a 30 day evaluation:
Be aware this is a trial so some functions will be blocked out, if this happens on any of the memory tests, simply re-run the test and you should get good results.

http://www.aida64.com/downloads/aida64extreme320exe

I will start a chart with the top ranking members if we get enough people interested. I'll get this started, please follow the format below for displaying your results:
I recommend using the windows snipping tool to capture your scores:

CPUz Processor Configuration:
CPUz1.JPG
CPUz Memory Configuration
CPUz2.JPG
Cache and Memory Benchmark:
Cache and memory Benchmark.JPG
 
Last edited:
4930kmem.jpg

Memory read/write/copy are the same as on cache & memory benchmark window so I think it can be enough if someone is using full version of AIDA64.
Also results are the same for any 3.00 and newer version. Now I noticed that I made screenshot before I updated AIDA64 to 3.20 ...
 
Last edited:
Man Woomack those Intels really kick the snot out of an AMD don't they? It must be the latency between the L2 anL3 that's crippling these.

Aida.JPG

I had to back down the clocks a bit I'd been pushing all morning and things are hot right now.
 
It's multithreading in AIDA64 3+. AMD is barely reaching 15GB/s in single threading memory tests but I see that on 8 cores it looks good. I sold my AMD before AIDA64 3.00 was released so I had no chance to test it.
When I disable cores on IB-E then bandwidth is lower. Generally latency on these Intels isn't so good because of quad channel controller. 1150/1155 CPUs will be best in latency.
 
For fun, I created a virtual machine on one of my Poweredge R710 servers to run some numbers, and it did a bit better than I thought it would. It isn't running fast memory, or anything special. Operating system is 2008 running inside a virtual machine under the Xen Cloud Platform hypervisor. On a bare metal install, I'd expect these numbers to be quite a bit better. Additionally, the other R710 would likely be faster as it has more memory modules installed. This one is only half full.

Since this is a virtual machine server, the other virtual machines are competing for resources at the same time, so that will lower the numbers by a little bit as well.

fullbench.png
Since I had the trial, it wouldn't show me all the results. Getting these processors to work with PC199 SDRAM was pretty hard. :cool:


memread.png
24229 MB/sec memory read


memwrite.png
13412 MB/sec memory write


memcopy.png
21911 MB/sec memory copy


r710_second_racked1.JPG
The server being benched is on the top.
 
Playing with this has just probed what I already thought . That I know Nothing about memory timings or how to make them help.

Went from stock timings @ 11-11-30-11 1T to 10-11-30-10 with little to no change . the Read test was the only one where it even helped but with tighter timings my latency is higher ? what am I doing wrong
7nhf.jpg


z862.jpg


here is the write
6rib.jpg


f0zx.jpg
 
Thanks guys. I will start charting results later this afternoon. Obviously, Intel seems to be winning the battle with Quad channel memory controllers and superior cache bandwidth. But the war is not over :) ||Console||, would you add your AIDA64 Cache and Memory benchmark screenshot to your results?

I am going to fire up the Intel Core 2 Quad rig later on and post those numbers up. Performance wise I think it will be close to a late generation Phenom II, despite its lack of level 3 cache.
 
i5 3570K @ 5.4GHz/1.65v/-55c/single stage

read: 28383 MB/s
write: 28546 MB/s
copy: 27211 MB/s
latency: 49.3 ns
 

Attachments

  • aida.jpg
    aida.jpg
    136.8 KB · Views: 638
  • write.jpg
    write.jpg
    149.1 KB · Views: 638
  • copy.jpg
    copy.jpg
    148.5 KB · Views: 638
  • latency.jpg
    latency.jpg
    144.1 KB · Views: 632
  • read.jpg
    read.jpg
    148.6 KB · Views: 639
Last edited:
Thanks guys. I will start charting results later this afternoon. Obviously, Intel seems to be winning the battle with Quad channel memory controllers and superior cache bandwidth. But the war is not over :) ||Console||, would you add your AIDA64 Cache and Memory benchmark screenshot to your results?

I am going to fire up the Intel Core 2 Quad rig later on and post those numbers up. Performance wise I think it will be close to a late generation Phenom II, despite its lack of level 3 cache.


I only just started thats not my final score =)
 
Last edited:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad running @ 3.468Ghz
Memory: 8GB Corsair XMS3 7-8-7-20 @ 1633Mhz
(FSB tops out at 408Mhz with this memory, so its at the limit)
 

Attachments

  • Intel-Aida64 cache and memory benchmark.JPG
    Intel-Aida64 cache and memory benchmark.JPG
    51.5 KB · Views: 599
  • cpuz-quad-memory.JPG
    cpuz-quad-memory.JPG
    40.9 KB · Views: 585
  • cpuz-quad.JPG
    cpuz-quad.JPG
    47.2 KB · Views: 579
i5 3570K @ 5400Mhz/x54/SS/-56c
2x4 GB RipjawsX DDR3 1600 @ 2400Mhz

Am I wrong or is that a crazy OC on the RAM?!

Better run. No way I can best Woomack.....:(
 

Attachments

  • aida.jpg
    aida.jpg
    140.9 KB · Views: 620
  • adia1.jpg
    adia1.jpg
    141.3 KB · Views: 603
  • adia2.jpg
    adia2.jpg
    130.7 KB · Views: 992
Last edited:
I hear the memory controllers on SR-2s are one of its weakpoints (along with PCI-E based SSD's... and a few other things)

I guess we'll see won't we.

In addition, what the hell is L4 cache and why does nobody seem to have any?

weee_zps9ac05bc9.png
 
Thanks. And Console, we need your Copy and Latency results to add to the leaderboard. And I forgot to mention. The person with the worst results will win an AMD Athlon XP 3000, 2.1Ghz Barton Core :)
 
I managed to do a little better on the latency end of things, There is no chance for me being able to keep up with anything else tho :D

Edit:

If someone were to chime in with a 939 system, and some cas2 ram they should be able to post something in the high 20s-low 30s for latency :cool:
 

Attachments

  • cas7.PNG
    cas7.PNG
    180.4 KB · Views: 595
4930kwrt.jpg

Memory switch for higher writes and lower latency.
RAM can probably go higher but my board not. CL7 is not working above 2133 and it doesn't like higher clocks on PSC so can't boot with 2666 even though this memory can make stable 2800+.
 
I have a crappy IMC on this cpu, over 1000mhz is very difficult. For running mems hard, my old 970 was great, 1200mhz was no problem, but cpu oc was a turd. Those new hexacores really haul buttocks :cool:
 
Back