Athlon 64, nForce4 and Hypertransport

[congo]

My RAM just doesn't perform at low CAS settings at all, which I thought was a sign of bad quality, and apparently my mainboard defaults to 2T timings and doesn't like 1T, one of the links you posted states there isn't really any performance gain to be had on my board with 1T timings and to just leave it at 2T, which is what I found out anyway.

I used 3dMark2001 SE with the same CPU speed but different ram settings, one series of tests done at 1:1 ratio with 2T timings and the other tests done with a divider and 1T , the results were exactly identical.......

I chose 3dmark 2001 because it was supposed to rely more on cpu than graphics card, which I assumed might be fair for the tests since I was trying to determine how the command rate would affect an application (if you can call 3DMark an application).

Next time I'll buy some "real" overclocking ram ..... maybe, I'm still not sure about this PC4000.

I'm starting to suspect that my PSU isn't up to the task either, I recently got this one out of the closet because it had more amps on the 12v rail than anything else I had in the house, it's still only got a total of 21A on the 12v though. Also, This PSU shows more voltage fluctuations than the others I have, but the others just haven't got the power required for this rig.

Another thing, I'm testing with everything enabled and hooked up that I normally use, I really don't see the point in going through the exercise unless I can actually run the system at the optimum speed and full functionality.

[NicksFXHouse]

My RAM just doesn't perform at low CAS settings at all, which I thought was a sign of bad quality, and apparently my mainboard defaults to 2T timings and doesn't like 1T, one of the links you posted states there isn't really any performance gain to be had on my board with 1T timings and to just leave it at 2T, which is what I found out anyway.

I used 3dMark2001 SE with the same CPU speed but different ram settings, one series of tests done at 1:1 ratio with 2T timings and the other tests done with a divider and 1T , the results were exactly identical.......

I chose 3dmark 2001 because it was supposed to rely more on cpu than graphics card, which I assumed might be fair for the tests since I was trying to determine how the command rate would affect an application (if you can call 3DMark an application).

Next time I'll buy some "real" overclocking ram ..... maybe, I'm still not sure about this PC4000.

I'm starting to suspect that my PSU isn't up to the task either, I recently got this one out of the closet because it had more amps on the 12v rail than anything else I had in the house, it's still only got a total of 21A on the 12v though. Also, This PSU shows more voltage fluctuations than the others I have, but the others just haven't got the power required for this rig.

Another thing, I'm testing with everything enabled and hooked up that I normally use, I really don't see the point in going through the exercise unless I can actually run the system at the optimum speed and full functionality.

ahhhhhhhh.... Yep, you should be using a PSU with a 12v rated at 28A minimum. The higher the overhead current rating (over what your system needs) for the PSU, the cooler a CPU will run and a higher stable overclock is much more possible to achieve.

As for 1T.... As an electrical engineer I disagree with that site in that conclusion. Although I understand the logic being applied, the real world performance is not the same as the benchmark and 1TCMD will always provide better performance IF the memory can run it. I would say from your posted timings/settings and being the memory you are using is PC4000 rated, that PC4000 rating comes from 2T, loose (high) timing, not from a true high performance curve... and in that you are correct that if you were to purchase TRUE PC4000 memory designed for overclocking, 1TCMD would smoke the memory you are using at lower FSB with tighter memory timing.

As I posted earlier... the memory purchase is the key to the entire overclock and system stability

What you achieved was the best with the quality of memory purchased and that may be why someone told you your 7000 memory benchmarks were considered low, which could be true because you cannot run 1T-2.5 or 1T-2.0 to test. If my 2x1gig PC32000 sticks can hit close to 7000 I would think your system would provide a 7500-8000 score or better with the right memory product, but I am not experienced with your motherboard so what I am saying here is based strictly on education and not specifics.

[GunnerMan]

Yeah I have some PC-3200 that many people claim will hit DDR600 and over. Unfortunatly my cpus mem controller seems to be shot all it could hit was 250 FSB now it cant even do 220 fsb. So that pisses me off but what can I do.

[NicksFXHouse]

Yeah I have some PC-3200 that many people claim will hit DDR600 and over. Unfortunatly my cpus mem controller seems to be shot all it could hit was 250 FSB now it cant even do 220 fsb. So that pisses me off but what can I do.

What you are describing sounds very much like over-voltage damage. Progressive reduction of performance usually indicates damaged components from heat and/or voltage spikes. It may be the memory itself and not the memory controller or CPU.

PC3200 running @ true DDR600 (300FSB) sounds a bit far fetched to me. Assuming the motherboard would be stable for that speed, the memory would need to be run at very high timing with high voltage and very high efficency heat transfer in place.

[GunnerMan]

Nope my ram is OCZ Plat Rev 2 with TCCD chips. Warrantee is certified up to 2.9 volts and default timings are 2-2-2-5 people have attained ddr600 at or around 3-4-4-8 timings and 2.8V. Don't drop the big bucks on ram for nothing. I am going to test ram in another sysem soon(when im not lazy) to verrify its not the ram but ppl say even the worst of these chips do DDR530.

[congo]

What you achieved was the best with the quality of memory purchased and that may be why someone told you your 7000 memory benchmarks were considered low, which could be true because you cannot run 1T-2.5 or 1T-2.0 to test. If my 2x1gig PC32000 sticks can hit close to 7000 I would think your system would provide a 7500-8000 score or better with the right memory product....

I guess I'd better clear up what I tried to say about the 7000mbs/sec memory bandwidth I achieved.

What I meant was, here I am testing after a few minutes with my new stuff, and I reached that amazingly high memory score with my inexperience, using the default 2T Command Rate and loose ram timings. I wasn't complaining about the score, I was questioning why someone commented on how I should go about it when I probably have a considerably faster system than they do, despite their professed superior settings.

Now, what I really wanted, was for them to justify to me, in evidence or anecdote, the reason why I should change to 1T and dividers and blah blah when I clearly provided graphic descriptions of my success complete with screenshots showing my various settings and achievements.

I want to know what's wrong with doing it my way if it provides results.

As it turned out, I think I've found the answers since then. For one thing, there is a different concept applied with the type of RAM I bought, it runs at lower voltages on the overclock, loose timings and a very high speed as standard.

I did manage to run and test the RAM at CAS 2 and 1T (as I flew dogfights online for 4 hrs tonight straight, the PC locked up as I left the game!) This was at 2.9Vram 2-3-3-6 1T , memory set to 5:6 divider, memory 220mhz (DDR440), 2886mhz on the CPU and HTT at 272mhz x 10.5

I managed to get a tiny improvement in my 3D MArk '05 score, a matter of a few dozen points. I'll retest using the other settings soon.

What does seem apparent, is that the CPU speed has a lot more influence than the memory bandwidth on performance in these new systems. I theorise that system bandwidth is more than adequate on this type of rig, so the only thing slowing it down is the CPU. This was reflected tonight in my 3D Mark score, slightly up and in proportion to the slightly higher overclock I managed to get stable on my CPU with lower memory speeds. I doubt very much that the 1T command rate and tighter timings at a lower memory speed had anything to do with it.

[NicksFXHouse]

I guess I'd better clear up what I tried to say about the 7000mbs/sec memory bandwidth I achieved.

What I meant was, here I am testing after a few minutes with my new stuff, and I reached that amazingly high memory score with my inexperience, using the default 2T Command Rate and loose ram timings. I wasn't complaining about the score, I was questioning why someone commented on how I should go about it when I probably have a considerably faster system than they do, despite their professed superior settings.

Now, what I really wanted, was for them to justify to me, in evidence or anecdote, the reason why I should change to 1T and dividers and blah blah when I clearly provided graphic descriptions of my success complete with screenshots showing my various settings and achievements.

I want to know what's wrong with doing it my way if it provides results.

As it turned out, I think I've found the answers since then. For one thing, there is a different concept applied with the type of RAM I bought, it runs at lower voltages on the overclock, loose timings and a very high speed as standard.

I did manage to run and test the RAM at CAS 2 and 1T (as I flew dogfights online for 4 hrs tonight straight, the PC locked up as I left the game!) This was at 2.9Vram 2-3-3-6 1T , memory set to 5:6 divider, memory 220mhz (DDR440), 2886mhz on the CPU and HTT at 272mhz x 10.5

I managed to get a tiny improvement in my 3D MArk '05 score, a matter of a few dozen points. I'll retest using the other settings soon.

What does seem apparent, is that the CPU speed has a lot more influence than the memory bandwidth on performance in these new systems. I theorise that system bandwidth is more than adequate on this type of rig, so the only thing slowing it down is the CPU. This was reflected tonight in my 3D Mark score, slightly up and in proportion to the slightly higher overclock I managed to get stable on my CPU with lower memory speeds. I doubt very much that the 1T command rate and tighter timings at a lower memory speed had anything to do with it.

I understand now... Thank you for clairifying  ;)

Yes, the A64 CPU plays a larger part in comprehensive performance. There is no right way or wrong way to overclock. Since there are so many variables involved with motherboards/memory products and cards it is impossible to say what is correct or incorrect about the process to accomplish the goal, which is the end result that works best for individual system use.

It is best to find the CPU high note and try and maintain that. Wether the memory will provide a substantial performance increase at 1T and lower FSB is undefined and stricly system dependant. Typically, the norm has been tighter timing and 1T. My systems, including my Dual Xeon-Intels, are very sensitive to that but I do not have any experience with NF4. I have an older NF2 system that also responds better to 1T and tighter timing.

I think allot is said about the direction 3D games are going with the release of the recent XBox. The GPU is a 500mhz ATI but the CPU system is 3 - 3.2gig water cooled processors. Games are becoming more and more CPU dependant. 3D benchmark software (in example 3DMark 05) is being geared more and more toward the system CPU performance than the GPU.

[GunnerMan]

Well yes but at least on the NF4 where I am very familiar. I have yet to see a system on tight timings low fsp outperform high fspand loose tmings(on NF4) can't speak for any other systems. I cant belive the xbox360 is water cooled, wow I wonder how they pulled that off.

[NicksFXHouse]

Well yes but at least on the NF4 where I am very familiar. I have yet to see a system on tight timings low fsp outperform high fspand loose tmings(on NF4) can't speak for any other systems. I cant belive the xbox360 is water cooled, wow I wonder how they pulled that off.

Now that you mention it... I recall there were issues with the NF2 memory controllers. Althought still better @ 1T, it was discovered that memory performance was significantly enhanced by raising the t-RAS to 10 or 11 and the CAS to 2.5 or 3.0, even with CAS 2.0-2-2-5 memory. I had completely forgotten about that because it has been several years since I have tinkered with my K7N2 Delta2-P. I suppose the nVIDIA systems may have an inherent memory controller difference as compared to other chipsets.

As for liquid cooling