PC eye

Performance
This should be reasonably easy to determine, data flow at 800MHz should be faster than data flow at 266MHz, right? Well, it isn't all that simple. Because EDO DRAM, SDRAM, and RDRAM are based on the same core-memory technology, their internal device timings are nearly identical. Thus, the differences among memory subsystems that affect the latency include the rate at which the system can move the address and control information to the DRAM and the rate at which the DRAM can move data from the DRAM to the memory controller. We know what you're thinking .. huh? The simplest and easiest explanation is that the speed is entirely dependent upon how the systems, consisting of the motherboard components such as the memory controller etcetera, are designed and constructed.
In a DDR or SDRAM system, each DIMM is connected, individually and in parallel, to the data bus. So whether you have a single DIMM or multiple DIMMs, the amount of time it takes to initiate a data transfer is effectively unchanged.
In a Rambus system, RIMM modules are connected to the bus in a series. The first data item transferred must pass through each RIMM module (and/or CRIMM module) before it reaches the bus. This makes for a much longer distance for the signal to travel, but remember it is also traveling 3+ times faster. Again, which memory you choose is entirely dependent upon how you intend to use the system. All too often people purchaser computers without first determining whether their choice will meet their needs. http://www.dewassoc.com/performance/.../ddr_sdram.htm

SirKenin

Ummm.. Again, that is pretty much irrelevant, except it further goes to show that memory holes don't matter because the DIMMs are connected in parallel, not in series.

PC eye

Spectacular gaming
A new graphics card is nice, but it isn't enough for today's cutting edge gaming. Revolutionize your 3D gaming experience by adding more memory. Added RAM supports color at higher resolutions and gives you the power for enhanced 3D rendering, with amazing character realism and texture versatility. Enjoy crisper, brighter images and excitingly fast 3D video and animation for a powerful, virtually real gaming experience.

Enhanced multimedia presentations
Intense graphics use and memory-laden programs, such as multimedia, publishing and graphics arts, demand more RAM for the optimal computing experience. Flash and ROM take up a lot of space. You're going to need at least 128MB, with 256MB or more needed for best performance. Once again, more is better. The applications respond much quicker with faster image drawing. http://www.computermemoryupgrade.net...is-better.html

The thing you seem to miss is how the article illustrated what happens when XP and the system board chew an average of 196mb of ram on a system with two 512mb dimms when running a program needing 512mb. On the first dimm regarding at that time single channel boards only 316mb of ram was available for the program when that saw the first dimm filled with data. The remaining 196mb of the required was then taken from the next dimm. When two 1gb dimms were installed as the article described the system performance improved greatly. This can be said for having larger dimms on each channel on a newer dual channel board where larger apps are given priority on the primary while the background services and other apps are then pushed to the secondary channel according to the theory there.

SirKenin

lol Ummm. It doesn't matter if all the info is stored on DIMM 4. How can I stress enough what it means that the DIMMS are hooked up in PARALLEL? Your little pet theory that information is retrieved off the first DIMM faster would only be applicable if the DIMMS were hooked up in series, and the only DIMMS that are like that are RDRAM. Even then you are looking at times in the tiniest of fractions of a second.

Your "theory" is not applicable at all to DDR and the benchmarks prove you wrong.

PC eye

First of all it "wasn't" my theory. It was a well written explaination with illustrations by a pro at technical writing. The article was seen sometime early in '05 well after XP with an improved memory management came out. In fact if I'm not mistaken SP2 was already out then. What you are getting confused on is that this factor doesn't effect every app and game. But outlined what can be seen when you have problems running a specific program. From having run muliple dimms of one size and then going with larger sized dimms there has been a noticable performance gain seen especially on a dual channel board.

SirKenin

Then you're going to have to provide your benchmarks to substantiate your claims, because it is very clear that benchmarks available on the internet completely annihilates them. Not to mention the theory you presented is absurd considering the circumstances, considering we are talking nano and micro seconds. No offence meant.

PC eye

[ Memory Modules / A0 ]

Memory Module Properties:
Socket Designation A0
Type DIMM
Installed Size 1024 MB
Enabled Size 1024 MB

[ Memory Modules / A2 ]

Memory Module Properties:
Socket Designation A2
Type DIMM
Speed 50 ns
Installed Size 1024 MB
Enabled Size 1024 MB

[ Memory Modules / A3 ]

Memory Module Properties:
Socket Designation A3
Type DIMM
Speed 50 ns
Installed Size Not Installed
Enabled Size Not Installed

[ Memory Devices / A0 ]

Memory Device Properties:
Form Factor DIMM
Size 1024 MB
Speed 400 MHz
Total Width 64-bit
Data Width 64-bit
Device Locator A0
Bank Locator Bank0/1
Manufacturer None
Serial Number None
Asset Tag None
Part Number None

[ Memory Devices / A2 ]

Memory Device Properties:
Form Factor DIMM
Size 1024 MB
Speed 400 MHz
Total Width 64-bit
Data Width 64-bit
Device Locator A2
Bank Locator Bank4/5
Manufacturer None
Serial Number None
Asset Tag None
Part Number None
Memory Timings:
CAS Latency (CL) 3T
RAS To CAS Delay (tRCD) 3T
RAS Precharge (tRP) 3T
RAS Active Time (tRAS) 8T
Row Cycle Time (tRC) 11T
Row Refresh Cycle Time (tRFC) 14T
Command Rate (CR) 2T
RAS To RAS Delay (tRRD) 2T
Write Recovery Time (tWR) 3T
Read To Write Delay (tRTW) 5T
Write To Read Delay (tWTR) 2T
Write CAS Latency (tWCL) 1T
Refresh Period (tREF) 200 MHz 7.8 us
DQS Skew Control Disabled
DRAM Drive Strength Normal
DRAM Data Drive Strength 4 (No Reduction)
Max Async Latency 7 ns
Read Preamble Time 5.5 ns
Idle Cycle Limit 16
Dynamic Idle Cycle Counter Enabled
Read/Write Queue Bypass 8
Bypass Max 4
32-byte Granularity Disabled

seen with Everest Ultimate Edition trial version

SirKenin

Not that. Actual benchmarks. Get SiSoftSandra and bench all your different combinations that we have talked about and post your results here for examination.

PC eye

I am all too familiar with SiSoftware's Sandra already. But when downloads and installs of both Sandra Lite 2005 and 2007 there is always one driver missing in it. The last one that worked here was the 2003. With that in mind the benchmarks results are PF=2706 as you can see at <a href="<A href="http://imageshack.us"><img">http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1...lexinfoqr8.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

SirKenin

Ok, but that's not what I asked of you. I asked you to take the different combinations... 2 sticks of 1GB... 2 sticks of 512MB... 4 sticks of 512MB and run benchmarks for all the combinations. Then compare them.

Do a search on http://www.dogpile.com/ for a newer shareware version of SiSoft that will work. I've never had any problems, so you should be able to find one that will install. That one you have won't give us the information we need.