DDR2 memory dividers and AMD X2 cpu speeds

jpmpaj

Distinguished
May 9, 2007
5
0
18,510
0
I'm going to get an AMD X2 5600+ with 2Gb RAM (preferably 667MHz due to the price). Following THG's latest CPU article showing the memory timing on AMD X2s I wanted to run this by you all, to see if I've understood the implications correctly.

Is this logic correct for at 2800MHz CPU?
800MHz RAM runs at 800MHz (as memory divider = 7.0)
667MHz RAM runs at 622MHz (as memory divider = 8.4, so system uses 9.0)
so the slower 667MHz RAM actually runs slower the 667MHz performance rating suggests

slightly overclocking 667MHz RAM to 700MHz+ runs it at 700MHz (as memory divider = 8.0), so significantly closing the gap for a minimal RAM overclock and risk. Further RAM overclocks will give no advantage as the divider won't change down to 7 until 800MHz.

is this correct?
is the difference worthwhile?

thanks
 

Track

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2006
1,520
0
19,790
1
Why are u going to get an Athlon 64 X2?

Im all for supporting AMD now that its dying and all, but are u willing to sacrifice ur performance and ur frame rates just to help them out?

If so, i salute! Taking a bullet for the rest of us who get to live happy lives with their Core 2 Duo's. You're a real hero!
 

jpmpaj

Distinguished
May 9, 2007
5
0
18,510
0
Cost. DX10 gaming on a budget.

The X2 5600+/motherboard/memory works out about £100 cheaper than an E6600 system with DDR2-800 RAM. AMD are dropping their prices to compete, and AM2 m/boards are also a little cheaper than their 775 equivalents.

That means I can put money into an 8800GTS graphics card instead of an X1950 to get the frame rates and a little futureproofing. The CPU should cope anyway, s recent THG mid-range CPU review suggested it was essentially between a E6400 and E6600, depending on what you do with it, but costs 30% less.

The query relates to the way AMD's onchip memory controller assigns a memory speed to work at. Essentially, is the difference between DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 noticeable? DDR2-800 is about about twice the price of DDR2-667. Plus, would the minor overclock produce a noticeable difference if it improves the memory rating by 80MHz?
 

Track

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2006
1,520
0
19,790
1
Cost. DX10 gaming on a budget.

The X2 5600+/motherboard/memory works out about £100 cheaper than an E6600
What the heck?
Since when is the E6600 the only Core 2 Duo u can buy??

The E4300 has identical performance and gives u twice the performance of any Athlon 64 X2.
 

jpmpaj

Distinguished
May 9, 2007
5
0
18,510
0
I know it's a bit off topic, but the 1.8GHz E4300 really has identical performance to the 2.4GHz E6600 at half the price? I've only used THG's CPU charts and articles, so I've not seen any other data sources, can you point me to the review? (Water cooling overclock maybe?)

The very latest price adjustments have brought the E6400 to a shade over the X2 5600+, but the data I've seen still suggests the 5600+ is still closer to the E6600 (again very much depending on the benchmark used).

I've no objection to Itel, and so might consider overclocking an E6400. A an aside, I also remember back to the early 90s when when Intel was the only chip in town, and they kept prices very high as a result, so I hope AMD's not dead yet - we need the competitive market!

cheers,
 

jpmpaj

Distinguished
May 9, 2007
5
0
18,510
0
Chart does help, many thanks - looks like I'll have to check MBoard multipliers and BIOS versions though,

ta
 

Track

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2006
1,520
0
19,790
1
I know it's a bit off topic, but the 1.8GHz E4300 really has identical performance to the 2.4GHz E6600 at half the price?
The E6600 is about 1-4% more powerfull. They both have a 9x multiplier, so they can overclock identically.
The only difference is 2MB of L2 cache.
 

little_scrapper

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2006
621
0
18,980
0
I know it's a bit off topic, but the 1.8GHz E4300 really has identical performance to the 2.4GHz E6600 at half the price?
The E6600 is about 1-4% more powerfull. They both have a 9x multiplier, so they can overclock identically.
The only difference is 2MB of L2 cache.

Yea at stock setting the 6600 runs about 30% faster, but overall system performance is lower due to the rest of system components being GENERALLY equal. In overclocking the E4300 will OC almost as well as the 6600's. 6600's can mostly get about 3.5-3.6ghz (but I hear of terrible OC's with the later runs) where as the E4300's mostly dont go over 3.2ghz. 3.2 is my max with this settup and I run mine at 3.0 for perfect stablility.

For all those people with E4300's at 3.6Ghz spare me the rhetoric....your the minority. Most E4300's dont clock much over 3.2.

Bottome line is....unless your are doing something work related or serious video encoding/editing....your wont "feel" any difference between a E4300 at 2.8-3.2GHz and a E6600 at 3.4-3.6GHz. So is it worth the extra $150 for an extra 6fps? Not for me. I recently have turn my setting all back to stock (1.8Ghz) and I still can tell any difference., make little to no difference in my FPS on online FEAR.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY