ASRock 775Dual-VSTA: Does DDR2 matter?
by Gary Key on August 8, 2006 6:35 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Memory Performance
Our VIA based ASRock motherboard provides two DDR2 and three DDR memory ratios. The majority of end-users will select the memory ratio that matches their memory speed. We are testing four ratios at the fastest stable timings we can achieve and still pass our benchmark test suite. With these set ratios, CPU speed remains the same at 1.86GHz in our test platform with memory speed being varied by selecting the different ratios.
There are some downsides to this approach. With the memory controller in the chipset, instead of part of the processor as in AMD Athlon 64 systems, there is a small performance penalty for speeds other than a 1:1 ratio (DDR2-533 in this case). However, the penalty is in reality very small, though the performance between various chipset designs can vary a great deal as we will see in a future article.
Due to performance reasons we did not test the DDR266 setting as we believe most people will not need this setting. Although the BIOS offers a 1T Command Rate, we never could get this setting absolutely stable without drastically raising the memory latency settings. We even tried our more expensive memory modules with the same results. Our memory settings were derived from extensive stress testing with a variety of applications. While certain settings that allowed lower latencies worked well with certain applications, the final settings we arrived at had to work with all applications.
The memory performance result at DDR2-533 (1:1 ratio) leads the other memory speeds in all cases. This particular setting delivered the best raw performance although we will see in our application and game benchmarks that this advantage is negated by other platform components.
Normally memory bandwidth improves with increases in memory speed and reductions in memory timings. To evaluate memory bandwidth SiSoft Sandra 2007 Professional was used to provide a closer look at scaling. As we have been saying for years, however, the Buffered benchmark usually does not correlate well with real performance in applications on the same computer. For that reason, our memory bandwidth tests have always included an UnBuffered Sandra memory score. The UnBuffered result turns off the buffering schemes, and we have found the results correlate better with real-world performance.
In this case, we find the combination of our memory settings at DDR2-667 and the VIA memory controller generates Sandra results that are up 32% lower than the DDR2-533 settings. The DDR2-533 results are up to 48% better than the DDR-333 scores with the DDR2-667 and DDR-400 scores being comparable. The Sandra memory score is really made up of both read and write operations. It is also a synthetic benchmark that does not always reflect real world performance.
To provide more detail on the impact of memory performance, we also compared pure number crunching with Version 1.5 of Super Pi, using the time to calculate 2 million places of Pi at the different memory speeds. Our other memory test is the latency measurement from the latest version of Everest. The results are interesting as the DDR2-667 ties DDR2-533 in Super Pi while DDR-400 trails slightly and DDR-333 brings up the rear. Looking at the latency figures, DDR2-667 is almost equal to DDR2-533 and DDR-400 trails slightly, while the results for DDR-333 are terrible and follow the Sandra bandwidth figures when compared to our DDR2-533 scores.
Our VIA based ASRock motherboard provides two DDR2 and three DDR memory ratios. The majority of end-users will select the memory ratio that matches their memory speed. We are testing four ratios at the fastest stable timings we can achieve and still pass our benchmark test suite. With these set ratios, CPU speed remains the same at 1.86GHz in our test platform with memory speed being varied by selecting the different ratios.
There are some downsides to this approach. With the memory controller in the chipset, instead of part of the processor as in AMD Athlon 64 systems, there is a small performance penalty for speeds other than a 1:1 ratio (DDR2-533 in this case). However, the penalty is in reality very small, though the performance between various chipset designs can vary a great deal as we will see in a future article.
Due to performance reasons we did not test the DDR266 setting as we believe most people will not need this setting. Although the BIOS offers a 1T Command Rate, we never could get this setting absolutely stable without drastically raising the memory latency settings. We even tried our more expensive memory modules with the same results. Our memory settings were derived from extensive stress testing with a variety of applications. While certain settings that allowed lower latencies worked well with certain applications, the final settings we arrived at had to work with all applications.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
The memory performance result at DDR2-533 (1:1 ratio) leads the other memory speeds in all cases. This particular setting delivered the best raw performance although we will see in our application and game benchmarks that this advantage is negated by other platform components.
Normally memory bandwidth improves with increases in memory speed and reductions in memory timings. To evaluate memory bandwidth SiSoft Sandra 2007 Professional was used to provide a closer look at scaling. As we have been saying for years, however, the Buffered benchmark usually does not correlate well with real performance in applications on the same computer. For that reason, our memory bandwidth tests have always included an UnBuffered Sandra memory score. The UnBuffered result turns off the buffering schemes, and we have found the results correlate better with real-world performance.
In this case, we find the combination of our memory settings at DDR2-667 and the VIA memory controller generates Sandra results that are up 32% lower than the DDR2-533 settings. The DDR2-533 results are up to 48% better than the DDR-333 scores with the DDR2-667 and DDR-400 scores being comparable. The Sandra memory score is really made up of both read and write operations. It is also a synthetic benchmark that does not always reflect real world performance.
To provide more detail on the impact of memory performance, we also compared pure number crunching with Version 1.5 of Super Pi, using the time to calculate 2 million places of Pi at the different memory speeds. Our other memory test is the latency measurement from the latest version of Everest. The results are interesting as the DDR2-667 ties DDR2-533 in Super Pi while DDR-400 trails slightly and DDR-333 brings up the rear. Looking at the latency figures, DDR2-667 is almost equal to DDR2-533 and DDR-400 trails slightly, while the results for DDR-333 are terrible and follow the Sandra bandwidth figures when compared to our DDR2-533 scores.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - link
That was overboard after reading through it again. ;-) Let's say in the future we use a different phrase. :)
johnsonx - Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - link
I looked at the charts in that review. 'Dismal' was the right word. It would be one thing if ALL value boards scored 10% lower than high-end boards; then it would be wrong to call such performance 'dismal'; that would be 'value' or some other word that respects the bargain price of the board. However, when many value boards come within a percentage or two of high-end boards (at least when considering stock performance), then 'dismal' is a great word for the perfomance that board exhibited.johnsonx - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
or maybe even an NForce 4 DDR2 board:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
johnsonx - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
oh, nevermind that NForce4 board, it doesn't support Conroe anyway.Nevertheless, my general point stands.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
We've looked at this board with high-end components, and users expressed interest in knowing more. As stated in the article, this is part one of three where we look at some interesting budget options. We've now established that DDR-400 and DDR2-533 perform acceptably on this system, for a budget configuration. Next up is a look at how the AGP and PCIe options fare, followed by a final article with comparisons to other similar boards (including an 865 and 915 model - not sure about the 945 though). 945 will require DDR2, of course, so it's in a bit different category.johnsonx - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
Oh, here's one, and same price too:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
Kougar - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
I never asked for it, but I sure as heck was wanting this EXACT article! Thank you! I already have purchased a E6300 and this same ASrock motherboard and received both, except the corner is bady bent from shipment so I haven't dared try to power the mainboard up and am awaiting a NewEgg claim to run through. Grrrr.The only thing this article didn't cover was my curiosity if the different types or RAM and the AGP vs PCIe graphics could possibly have any affect on the ~300FSB OC this board was able to attain in your previous article? Considering it OCs on the heels of any nForce chipset out there I think $57 is a exceptional value right now as I use a Northwood based system. My 9600XT won't handle games, but I'll at least get some serious folding@home work done... ;)
artifex - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
I think the question for someone looking to upgrade on a budget isn't "will I efficiently use the new motherboard and CPU with my old peripherals," but "will I see a real performance increase by keeping all my old gear except the motherboard and CPU?"You could be using the new board efficiently when compared to DDR2, but still not see enough difference to make upgrading worth the cost. Or, alternatively, your memory could be wildly inefficent in the new architecture compared to DDR2, but the new gear still brings you a huge performance increase. It all depends on the existing gear.
Right now, I have a Socket A TBred 2600+, 1GB of Mushkin DDR-333, and a Geforce 550 8x AGP card w/256MB, all on an Asus a7n8x deluxe 2.0 (I think). So in my world, the question is, if I have only $200-250 to spend to upgrade, is it better to get the cheap mobo and a cheap CPU, or invest in more memory, or what? It's quite possible that I won't see a real performance increase with the new board and CPU for that price, so it would be pointless to upgrade. In fact, it might even make sense to go buy an eMachines or something like it offered for $200-300, with some Celeron D processor in it, instead.
Of course, this is a lot harder to gauge, not least of which because it's a lot more subjective :)
Kougar - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
You should probably read through the rest of their Conroe articles then, especially the Feeding the Monster article where they have some hard numbers on this motherboard with a Core 2 Duo you were looking for. ;)AkumaX - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
Did you try any overclocking (heaven forbid!)If you did, how high did you get :D