Jam wrote: >If you have PC2100/DDR266 RAM (133MHz freq), >you will be forced to run the CPU & RAM out of sync >(CPU at 166MHz, RAM at 133MHz) & >performance will suffer. When you say performance will suffer does it mean the 1.9Ghz cpu will be running at a lower clock speed ? or do you mean that I am just loosing the advantage on the fsb only by using a slower ram ?

0

1.9GHz? The AXP 2800+ should run at 2.083GHz (Barton) or 2.25GHz (Tbred). Are you sure you don't have a 2600+? If you run the CPU & RAM out of sync, one or the other is always playing "catch up". In your case, the memory will be running at a slower bus speed that the CPU, so the CPU will have to wait on the slower RAM.

0

I would take Jams advice with a grain of salt. The Athlon, Athlon XP, sempron, and the K8 series(athlon 64) all have integrated memory controllers JAM. Would you like me to get you the white papers??? Or at least a few links to the info? The RAM will always be playing "catch up" Jam. Even at the same speed. This is why it is always a good Idea to buy the fastest RAM one can get. Maybe you should read up on memory latency? Would you like me to post some benchmarks Jam? Jam, please stop posting until you have learned a bit more, or at least lessen the insults.

0

Here is a decent article on why memory controllers on-die are a BAD thing: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-60... Here is an interesting read up on Athlons: http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki... And as far as the Integrated MC on the athlons, there are a lot of conflicting reports Here is one from AMD's own website saying the Athlon has integrated MC, or at least tied directly into the chipsets MC(integrated off-die) supporting DDR http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors... and http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors... Off die, or on-die, the MC is integrated tightly into the CPU of the Athlons from the slot A to modern day athlons. The RAM can NOT be upgraded past spec. SOME athlons integrated MC can be "forced" to run higher clocks, but it is not supported by AMD, and it is overclocking the MC which doesnt always work. It's good to know what one is talking about BEFORE one posts some info, right Jam??? I'll post some benchmarks tonight on RAM speeds from SiSoft Sandra and I'll bench BF2, or other FPS so we can see the benefits of using higher speed RAM in a system, any system.

0

"please stop posting until you have learned a bit more" That's funny, because I was gonna say the same thing about you! And I'm not insulting you, I'm correcting the misinformation you're putting out there...& it's not the 1st time either. If I didn't do it, someone else would have to because you are 100% wrong! Put up or shut up! Yes, I challenge you to post the AMD white papers showing that the memory control is integrated into the K7 series (Athlon, Athlon XP, Duron, or socket A Sempron). The AMD links you posted say no such thing! The K8 series (Athlon64, A64 X2, Sempron64) has the integrated memory controller, not the K7. Do your homework! "Maybe you should read up on memory latency?" You're right, latency is what it's all about. The integrated controller communicates at full CPU speed...generally over 2000MHz. When the memory controller is on the motherboard, it communicates with the CPU at the FSB speed. The FSB speed varies depending on the system but it doesn't come close to 2000Mhz. What do you think that speed difference does for latency? If the ondie memory controller is so bad, explain to me why the A64 & A64 X2 owns the P4 which uses the "conventional" memory controller on the motherboard. "The RAM can NOT be upgraded past spec" What the heck does that mean? That I couldn't run DDR500 (250MHz freq) with my old AXP-M 2400+ because it's only a 266MHz FSB CPU? What if I were to lower the multiplier to 8X & raise the FSB to 500MHz (250MHz freq)? I suggest you research the pros & cons of running the CPU:RAM in sync vs async.

0

Time to be schooled: "The main feature of Athlon 64 architecture is the memory controller, which is embedded in the processor itself and not located on the chipset like all other CPUs. Read our Inside AMD64 Architecture tutorial to learn how Athlon 64 works." http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/arti... From the above mentioned tutorial: "The main difference between AMD64 architecture and the design of other CPUs – including previous CPUs from AMD, like Athlon XP and the original Athlon – is that the memory controller is embedded in the CPU, and not on the north bridge chip (the main chip on the motherboard chipset)." About Latency: "To refresh your memory, though, the Athlon 64 has a number of notable assets that help separate it from its predecessor, the Athlon XP. Among its virtues: an on-chip memory controller to cut memory access latency, a hefty 1MB of level 2 cache, support for SSE2 instructions, a radical system infrastructure based on high-speed HyperTransport links, and AMD's 64-bit instruction set extensions. These changes have made the Athlon 64 a very tough competitor for the Pentium 4..." http://techreport.com/articles.x/60... "The AMD Athlon™ 64 processor and the AMD Opteron™ processor directly addresses this bottleneck by integrating a DDR memory controller into the processor, revolutionizing the way x86-based processors access main memory. By running at the processor’s core frequency, an integrated memory controller greatly increases bandwidth directly available to the processor at significantly reduced latencies." http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors...

0

So you can't read either? Yeah you should really stop posting, all the info you need is in my previous posts. Having a direct connection to the memory controller does NOT mean you can run some insane memory speed. If the memory controller can only handle DDR 266, than that is it! The MC is integrated into the CPU, does not matter if it is on-die, or off-die, it is NON UPGRADABLE! Just a little bit of info, AMD is on their last leg, if their new line of CPU's does not take off, you can count them out unless someone gives them a lot of money. Now it is not just me that has said you attack people here on these forums. Giving your opinion is one thing, but downing another users opinion is another. I have done the same in the past when I have seen something really stupid or incorrect, but I try not to, but if you insult me, I will post the same back to you plus some. Core2 Duo 1.86 1GB DDR2 667 Nvidia 8500GT Asus P5L-MX

0

Listen, Outlander. Pentium/Core/AMD K7 = NO integrated memory contoller. The memory controller is on the Northbridge, which is that little heatsink-covered chip right below the CPU. AMD K8 = Memory controller is built in to the CPU. "The MC is integrated into the CPU, does not matter if it is on-die, or off-die, it is NON UPGRADABLE!" If the MC is off-die, then it is NOT integrated to the CPU! And that is the case with the Athlon/Athlon XP/Pentium/Core! "...all the info you need is in my previous posts." You mean, all the misinformation we don't need is in your previous post? "If the memory controller can only handle DDR 266, than that is it!" You can still use DDR333 or DDR400. It will just be clocked down to 266MHz. Or, you could overclock the FSB, drop down the processor multiplier (if the CPU doesn't like running at a higher clock speed) and be able to run DDR333. AMD Opteron 185 @ 3.0GHz 4.0GB of OCZ DDR400 RAM 8800GTS 640MB at 625/2000 core/mem, 1500 shader Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe X-Fi, Vista 64-bit, yada yada Completely owns the Super P3

0

"It's good to know what one is talking about BEFORE one posts some info, right Jam???" Yes it is. I'm waiting for you to start. "Yeah you should really stop posting, all the info you need is in my previous posts" You're making my point for me. All the info in your previous posts is incorrect! I realize that you're trying to help, but you're not helping anyone by posting misinformation. "it is not just me that has said you attack people here on these forums" I never attack people. I do correct them when they're wrong & sometimes my answers sting a little. But if someone picks a fight with me, I'm not gonna back down. I've been a regular helper in these forums for 5+ yrs now & believe me, the moderators don't put up with "attacks"...I would have been banned a LONG time ago. And it's good to see jackbomb throw his 2 cents in about your posts because I know he knows his stuff. Just to be clear...the ONLY CPUs that have an integrated/on-die memory controller are the K8 series - A64, A64 X2, Sempron64 & Opteron (I forgot to mention that one earlier) & the upcoming K10 series. That's it! Earlier AMD CPUs (K5, K6, K7) rely on the memory controller that's on the motherboard chipset, as do ALL Intel CPUs.

0

So your calling a AMD, News.com, AND the linux wiki "Incorrect"....... BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Man oh man I am SOOOO glad I will listen to Mr. nobody here instead of the actual manufacturer of the chips. God what would I ever do what out you? lol. I have those hardware benchmarks now and when I get home I will bench an FPS and post the results, I can already tell you Jam, that your full of #($# from the results I have seen. And would you like me to link you to the page where everyone is telling you to stop attacking people Jam??? Because it wasnt but a few days ago. Core2 Duo 1.86 1GB DDR2 667 Nvidia 8500GT Asus P5L-MX

0

"So your calling a AMD, News.com, AND the linux wiki "Incorrect"......." No, I'm calling YOU incorrect! Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem because NONE of the links that you posted say that the Athlon or Athlon XP have an integrated/on-die memory controller. And they won't either, because it's not true! And feel free to post your testing results. I'd be happy to have a look, as I'm sure others would too. Just make sure to use the right benchmark tests. It's no secret that memory bandwidth (or more correctly, "throughput") will increase as memory frequency increases, so if that what's you're trying to prove to me, I'll save you the trouble...you're correct. But what's the point of having memory throughput that exceeds the CPU's bandwidth? What I wanna see are the results between running the CPU & RAM in sync vs running them async. If you're gonna post screenshots, show ALL the evidence in a single screenshot...not multiple shots. Include two instances of CPU-Z...one showing the CPU settings, the other showing the RAM settings. Something like this shot I took last year when testing/overclocking a S754 A64 system: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i... And since the OP is asking about an AMD socket A system, can you run your tests using an AMD socket A system? "To achieve synchronous operation, there is usually a Memory Frequency or DRAM ratio setting in the bios of your system that will allow you to manipulate the memory speed to a either a percentage of the FSB (i.e. 100%) or a fraction (or ratio) i.e. N/N where N is any integer available to you. If you want to run memory at non 1:1 ratio speeds, motherboards use dividers that create a ratio of [CPU FSB]:[memory frequency] or through the use of percentages of the FSB. However, intrinsically, it is possible to see the problem with this and why synchronous operation is preferable on all PC platforms. If for there is divider, then there is going to be a gap between the time that data is available for the memory, and when the memory is available to accept the data (or vica versa). There will also be a mismatch between the amount of data the CPU can send to the memory and how much the memory can accept from the CPU. This will cause slowdowns as you will be limited by the slowest component. "Such a configuration (1:1 ratio) is wholly acceptable for any AMD system, memory should be set this way at all times for best performance. The core architecture of the Athlon XP processor dictates that it works best when run with memory running synchronously to the CPU's FSB. Asynchronous FSB/Memory Speeds are horridly inefficient on AMD systems, but may well be the optimal configuration for P4 systems." http://forums.pcper.com/showthread....

0

BTW, I know exactly which thread you're talking about...it's in the gaming forum. You got pissed because I called you on your claim that the 8500GT is faster than the 6800GT. Then "wgaxp" made certain charges about racism against me that are 100% untrue. If you were to read the particular thread he was referring to, you'd see that it was someone else that made the so-called "racist" remark. However, I hardly see how calling a certain user from India a "famous indian guy" constitutes a racist remark?

0