pak,
Using 4 dimms will gain you few hundred MB/s in bandwidth and a marginal performance bump.
link
nd4spdbh2 said:
amd will winn the bandwidth fight probably... because they have on die memory controler and 2000mhz link between the cpu and ram...
Hypertransport bus - if that's what you'r referring to - has nothing to do with memory bus in AMD Hammer architecture. K8 memory controller is an integral part of the CPU and that is operating at CPU frequency, but the memory controller is connected to RAM with the exact same frequency the RAM is running at.
trickson said:
C2D can beat the AM2 in most all benchmarks that require heavy bandwidth from CPU to RAM (like SuperPie and others) seems to me that they shortened up some thing to accommodate this . Why are conroes getting 13 seconds and lower scores with the same RAM used in an AM2 system ? I just don't get it.
Memory bandwidth is only one factor that affects performance. There are many, many other factors too.
Conroe is getting such low SPi times because the architecture is wider and smarter (= newer) than K8. Conroe has wider L1/2 cache pathways, instruction decoding and tons of others features not found on K8. K8 is not bandwidth bottlenecked, it's limited by clockspeed and architectural issues (instruction fetch, etc.). That's why even dual channel doesn't yield that much to system performance for K8.
Hipcrostino said:
Mem Bandwidth limitations can be outdone with a fast enough cpu, and thats what intel has. To explain better, if intel had AMD's mem controller on the C2D its would be a million times better than it already is because it would have the bandwidth to back it up.
Like AMD K8, Conroe is not bandwidth bottlenecked.
link. C2D would be better with an IMC. ..That's granted, but the gain wouldn't exactly be stellar because bandwidth isn't a problem for Core.
AMD mem system is capable of more bandwidth than the cpu's can use, hence intel can get high scores.
That doesn't make any sense.
i don't think LGA is more superior because ultimately its all just electrical connections, nothing more. And to claim it makes a difference to people who use computers is silly, neither way dose. They achieve the same task in almost identical ways.
LGA offers larger contact area and higher contact density compared to PGA, thus allows lower contact resistance yielding more efficient and stabler power distribution interface.
Ever dismantled a PGA socket? The method pins are bonded with the socket is much more complicated than LGA, PGA actually require 2 pins inside the socket to connect a single pin of the CPU. More solder contacts automatically means more signal distortion -> worse for high frequency.
This is what the insides of a PGA look like. LGA is much
simpler.