AMD Will Officially Launch Improved HT Next Month Hopefully

[Quailane]

Well, I heard that low latency ram is better than high latency high speed ram, to a point.

 

[mjw21a]

Is anybody listening to what is being said here. As mentioned by Zac42 and DanIdentity, HyperTransport links have no impact what-so-ever on memory bandwidth/performance.

The memory interfaced directly with the integrated memory controller on the CPU, there are no additional links involved. The only area where HyperTransport links affect RAM performance in in a multi processor system where the memory controller of one Opteron requests some data which is held in a memory bank belonging to another Opteron processor. Hence it requests the data from the memory controller on the other Opteron via a HT link and recieves the data back in the same way.

 

[CandymanCan]

To a point, yes, but running LL @ like 240MHZ wont beat anyone running 270+ with high Latency's like i am running.

Is anybody listening to what is being said here. As mentioned by Zac42 and DanIdentity, HyperTransport links have no impact what-so-ever on memory bandwidth/performance.

The memory interfaced directly with the integrated memory controller on the CPU, there are no additional links involved. The only area where HyperTransport links affect RAM performance in in a multi processor system where the memory controller of one Opteron requests some data which is held in a memory bank belonging to another Opteron processor. Hence it requests the data from the memory controller on the other Opteron via a HT link and recieves the data back in the same way.

I already knew this, HTT doesnt affect anything, thats why i dont use ratios other then 1:1 cuss i dont care about running my HTT @ like 300 or something as it doesnt affect anything

 

[deception``]

TCCD wasnt even out when i got my A64 4-5 months ago, everyone or most people said to buy some BH5 ram or something that can run with goo timmings cuss 1:1 ratios didnt matter anymore. I didnt listen and got some pc4200 cuss it was dirt cheap only $120 from KOMUSA with ADATA ram and it paid off.


I know what you mean tho

I understand completely. But chances are you will most likely look to the lower latency TCCD whenever you do decide to upgrade. But yes it is true that such ram was not available at the time of your purchase so I understand your position.

deception``

 

[mjw21a]

To a point, yes, but running LL @ like 240MHZ wont beat anyone running 270+ with high Latency's like i am running.





I already knew this, HTT doesnt affect anything

I don't post everything just for your benefit though Candy. I already know that you have a good knowledge base.

Obviously the topic needs some clarification for some people else the thread would never have been opened in the first place.

As a matter of fact I wasn't even replying to your post, you just posted whilst I was entering my post is all.

 

[Gautam]

Is anybody listening to what is being said here. As mentioned by Zac42 and DanIdentity, HyperTransport links have no impact what-so-ever on memory bandwidth/performance.

The memory interfaced directly with the integrated memory controller on the CPU, there are no additional links involved. The only area where HyperTransport links affect RAM performance in in a multi processor system where the memory controller of one Opteron requests some data which is held in a memory bank belonging to another Opteron processor. Hence it requests the data from the memory controller on the other Opteron via a HT link and recieves the data back in the same way.

X-actly

HTT != FSB

If you have BH5 or BH6, do not part with it. It needs to be volted well to perform well, but once you put BH past 230MHz with optimized timings, there's very little stopping it. Put it past 250, and there's nothing stopping it.

Sidetrack, but IMHO, BH5 still is and always will be king. TCCD is nice stuff, but it just doesn't respond well enough to voltage. Until someone can top 280 2-2-2, there's no substitute for BH5.

 

[CandymanCan]

I don't post everything just for your benefit though Candy. I already know that you have a good knowledge base.

Obviously the topic needs some clarification for some people else the thread would never have been opened in the first place.

As a matter of fact I wasn't even replying to your post, you just posted whilst I was entering my post is all.

Never said you posted that or me anyway, i was just letting you know i already knew that

 

[mjw21a]

Never said you posted that or me anyway, i was just letting you know i already knew that

My misunderstanding then

 

[CandymanCan]

I tend to say things like "i already knew that" alot tho, my fault

 

[oc_byagi]

Sooo.... what this thread was trying to say is invalid right??? I was just getting confused.

 

[deception``]

Sooo.... what this thread was trying to say is invalid right??? I was just getting confused.

OC-Master is complaining that a) reviews are never done using the 1000/5xHTT and b) are still benchmarking using DDR400. I, on the other hand, argued that these were a necessity as to provide a level playing field in terms of comparison.

deception``

 

[oc_byagi]

OC-Master is complaining that a) reviews are never done using the 1000/5xHTT and b) are still benchmarking using DDR400. I, on the other hand, argued that these were a necessity as to provide a level playing field in terms of comparison.

deception``

Ah, I see. Point A was explained by those others who have already explained for us, that it has no effect in performance
For the point B, why would reviews use DDR 500 when all the other reviews for other systems are using DDR 400 as well??? Only place that may require reviews to use DDR 500 is when they test overclocking. Potenial in performance boost is similar for all the platforms, it is not necessary for the reviewers to show the full potential of the component they're testing, even though it would be much helpful.

 

[mjw21a]

I tend to say things like "i already knew that" alot tho, my fault

Sorry mate, I tend to take offense too easily sometimes. I thought you were indicating that the post was pointless, as it contained no new info for you.....

Ah, I see. Point A was explained by those others who have already explained for us, that it has no effect in performance
For the point B, why would reviews use DDR 500 when all the other reviews for other systems are using DDR 400 as well??? Only place that may require reviews to use DDR 500 is when they test overclocking. Potenial in performance boost is similar for all the platforms, it is not necessary for the reviewers to show the full potential of the component they're testing, even though it would be much helpful.

I do believe that AMD should state support for DDR500 though as often times sites will simply benchmark the top of the range Intel platform vs the top of the range AMD platform. Offering DDR500 would obviously give AMD the upper hand, although they already have that don't they?

 

[deception``]

Sorry mate, I tend to take offense too easily sometimes. I thought you were indicating that the post was pointless, as it contained no new info for you.....



I do believe that AMD should state support for DDR500 though as often times sites will simply benchmark the top of the range Intel platform vs the top of the range AMD platform. Offering DDR500 would obviously give AMD the upper hand, although they already have that don't they?

Maybe so, but DDR400 should be compared to DDR400, period. Granted this dilemma is only colluded when it comes to DDR2 systems, but we are all WELL aware that DDR2 is so bogged down by it's terribly high latencies to the point that it nets no gains, whatsoever.

deception``

 

[OC Detective]

Did AMD ever publically come out as say they would make DDR500 an official standard when they first talked about 939's? Not saying they didnt - just dont recall?

 

[deception``]

Did AMD ever publically come out as say they would make DDR500 an official standard when they first talked about 939's? Not saying they didnt - just dont recall?

No. As far as I know, no such discussion has ever taken place.

deception``

 

[mjw21a]

Maybe so, but DDR400 should be compared to DDR400, period. Granted this dilemma is only colluded when it comes to DDR2 systems, but we are all WELL aware that DDR2 is so bogged down by it's terribly high latencies to the point that it nets no gains, whatsoever.

deception``

I agree that the same memory types should always be compared, but there are many people (the majority I'd say) who simply buy, and keep their systems stock. There are also a number of people in this category who wan't the fastest system available regardless of cost. Going DDR500 would allow AMD to cut down their cache size a little and probably increase their overall PR rating. Good for sales and better margins per CPU sold.

The situation will change either when lower latency DDR2 becomes available or simply when higher frequency DDR2 becomes available. Personally, I'm not a big believer in DDR2 tech. The industry would be better served by moving to QBM or XDR memory....

 

[deception``]

I agree that the same memory types should always be compared, but there are many people (the majority I'd say) who simply buy, and keep their systems stock. There are also a number of people in this category who wan't the fastest system available regardless of cost. Going DDR500 would allow AMD to cut down their cache size a little and probably increase their overall PR rating. Good for sales and better margins per CPU sold.

The situation will change either when lower latency DDR2 becomes available or simply when higher frequency DDR2 becomes available. Personally, I'm not a big believer in DDR2 tech. The industry would be better served by moving to QBM or XDR memory....

DDR2 is no different from RDRam to me; both possess extraordinary bandwidth potential but ridiculously high latencies. Intel tried to make Rambus work, but to no avail. So you could understand just why I am not enthusiastic about it whatsoever.

deception``

 

[mjw21a]

DDR2 is no different from RDRam to me; both possess extraordinary bandwidth potential but ridiculously high latencies. Intel tried to make Rambus work, but to no avail. So you could understand just why I am not enthusiastic about it whatsoever.

deception``

If you read my above statement you'll find that I've essentially said the same thing. I personally don't like DDR2. Until lower latency modules become available, the technology won't offer the best performance benefit. Likewise, I believe QBM and then Rambus XDR are the true successors to DDR.

QBM simply uses regular DDR modules and adds a controller chip to the RAM module, turning the signal 45 degrees or so so that it is equivalent to 4x datarate memory. The additional cost is 1x extra chip per memory module with the same kind of latencies currently in DDR chips.....

XDR would be the successor to QBM as no X86 platform can currently make use of bandwidth offered by it's modules.

 

[mjw21a]

Woohoo, my Opteron 246, 2GB RAM and MSI K8D Master 3 Mobo just showed up!!!!