ASRock 775Dual-VSTA: Does DDR2 matter?
by Gary Key on August 8, 2006 6:35 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Application Performance
We decided to test some real world applications that typically stress the CPU, memory, and storage systems to see if the results from our synthetic memory tests carry over to the desktop. Based upon those results, our DDR2-533 memory settings should outperform both the DDR2-667 and DDR-400 configurations, with all three outperforming DDR-333.
Our tasks include three activities that are common on the desktop. Our first test was to measure the time it takes to shrink the entire Office Space DVD that was extracted with AnyDVD into a single 4.5GB DVD image utilizing Nero Recode 2. Our second test utilizes WinRAR 3.6 and measures the time it takes to compress our test folder that contains 444 files, 10 folders, and 602MB of data.
Our third test consists of utilizing Exact Audio Copy as the front end for our version 3.98a3 of LAME. We set up EAC for variable bit rate encoding, burst mode for extraction, use external program for compression, and to start the external compressor upon extraction. (EAC will read the next track while LAME is working on the previous track, thus removing a potential bottleneck with the drive). Our test CD is INXS Greatest Hits, a one time '80s glory masterpiece containing 16 tracks totaling 606MB of songs. The results of our tests are presented in minutes/seconds with lower numbers being better.
We see that our DDR2-533 memory setting places first in all applications but the largest margin of victory is a 16 second advantage in the Nero Recode 2 test over the DDR-333 setting (a 3.9% performance advantage). Our DDR-400 results are impressive as they finish slightly ahead of the DDR2-667 settings, though both come close to the DDR2-533 configuration. The effects of the other platform components have basically negated the pure performance advantage of our DDR2-533 setting in the synthetic memory tests. While this particular ratio still offers the best overall performance, it would be difficult to tell the actual performance difference between it and our other memory without a benchmark.
We decided to test some real world applications that typically stress the CPU, memory, and storage systems to see if the results from our synthetic memory tests carry over to the desktop. Based upon those results, our DDR2-533 memory settings should outperform both the DDR2-667 and DDR-400 configurations, with all three outperforming DDR-333.
Our tasks include three activities that are common on the desktop. Our first test was to measure the time it takes to shrink the entire Office Space DVD that was extracted with AnyDVD into a single 4.5GB DVD image utilizing Nero Recode 2. Our second test utilizes WinRAR 3.6 and measures the time it takes to compress our test folder that contains 444 files, 10 folders, and 602MB of data.
Our third test consists of utilizing Exact Audio Copy as the front end for our version 3.98a3 of LAME. We set up EAC for variable bit rate encoding, burst mode for extraction, use external program for compression, and to start the external compressor upon extraction. (EAC will read the next track while LAME is working on the previous track, thus removing a potential bottleneck with the drive). Our test CD is INXS Greatest Hits, a one time '80s glory masterpiece containing 16 tracks totaling 606MB of songs. The results of our tests are presented in minutes/seconds with lower numbers being better.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
We see that our DDR2-533 memory setting places first in all applications but the largest margin of victory is a 16 second advantage in the Nero Recode 2 test over the DDR-333 setting (a 3.9% performance advantage). Our DDR-400 results are impressive as they finish slightly ahead of the DDR2-667 settings, though both come close to the DDR2-533 configuration. The effects of the other platform components have basically negated the pure performance advantage of our DDR2-533 setting in the synthetic memory tests. While this particular ratio still offers the best overall performance, it would be difficult to tell the actual performance difference between it and our other memory without a benchmark.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
preacherman - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
What would be intresting would be a maybe running at least the synth benchmarks on another C2D mobo.. with the same CPU,HDD;DDR2 etc etc.This would show us if the mobo as a whole runs at a performance handicap to others mobo or.. as I would hope.. basicly its up or near there in performance with most other C2D mobos with or without DDR2.
If that is the case then the mobo is truly very good for those of us not wanting to shell out 250e+ for 2x1Gb DDR2 when we already have 2x512Mb DDR sat in our current rigs so we could spend that money on CPU/GPU as you wrote in your atricle and maybe get DDR2 later as and when funds become available.
thanks.
Gary Key - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
You will see this in the final comparison article. The general performance of the board is about the same as we reported in our Conroe Buying Guide. However, the 1.5 bios has improved performance in some areas.
yacoub - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
I am surprised how little advantage DDR2 has over DDR memory. Very interesting. Was the difference greater from SDR to DDR? I forget.Locutus465 - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
I'm guessing a higher end board with a better memory controller might show DD2 in a better light.retrospooty - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
The same can be said for DDR.MY DFI Lanparty NF4 runs my Corsair BH-5 chips at 260mhz@ 2-2-2-7 timings. DDR2@ 1000mhz@5-5-5 cant even beat that.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
We did a top-end DDR vs DDR2 on the AM2 at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?.... Of course, DDR2 bandwidth on the AM2 is huge, even though it doesn't always translate into real-world performance gains. Conroe is not nearly as efficient as AM2 on memory but still outperforms by a wide margin. In the AM2 article we found fast DDR400 and DDR2-533 roughly equivalent, with faster DDR2 speeds providing a bit more performance.It appears with Conroe on a VIA chipset DDR2-533 gains more, but real-world is still in the ball park with DDR400. That may be a commentary on the VIA chipset and may not apply to Intel or nVidia or ATI. However, this VIA board is the first to allow a DDR/DDR2 comparison with Conroe.
There are other boards for Dore 2 Duo coming that will support DDR on Core 2 Duo. For the value builder, it will be interesting to see how this board compares to some of those.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
In some instances DDR was quite a bit faster than SDR. I think it gave about a 10% performance boost on average, and up to 20% in a few special cases. It's also worth noting that the ASRock does offer lower performance than other high-end DDR2 boards, but the price tradeoff makes it justifiable.yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
Well, if you go by pure synthetic benchmarks, DDR is 5x faster than SDRAM most of the time. Actual application performance, may be different.Calin - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
DDR was quite a bit faster than DDR - just the way it is now with DDR2 and SDR. However, in the budget side of the equation, the processors weren't starved enough for bandwidth, so the difference was very small.I wonder what the results would have been if a faster processor would have been used.
Oh, and maybe the chipset/BIOS isn't optimized for DDR2 performance (as for DDR, all the performance that could have been squeezed in about three-four years of building chipsets was already there).
Jedi2155 - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
Did you mean DDR was quite a bit faster than SDR and now with DDR2 with DDR?