What would be the fastest 1G memory stick for a 939 system?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
What would be the fastest 1G memory stick for a 939 system?
I am a big fan of lots of fast memory and been trying to find me some 2,2,2 merory for a 1G stick and can not seem to find any does it exist is there anything close out there?
-
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:56 am
Cant do it yet, the 1GB ram stick if thats what you want is going to have to dial back the timings. Also, you probably don't want to run on one 1GB ram stick due to bandwidth issues. It might hurt when you play games. My TCCD dropped frames all over the place when I took out one of my ram sticks to test it.
Anyway, there maybe no need to be a big fan of fast memory. in most cases.
Anyway, there maybe no need to be a big fan of fast memory. in most cases.
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 2887
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: New York City zzzz
- Contact:
eh screw it. small ram is for being l33t, big 1 stick gigs on an amd system is for future proofing your investment. 2, 1 gig sticks will work great, imagine having 4 gigs via a cheap-by-then upgrade in a new windows 64 longhorn when games require min of 1 gig to run, youll be free running.merovingian wrote:Cant do it yet, the 1GB ram stick if thats what you want is going to have to dial back the timings. Also, you probably don't want to run on one 1GB ram stick due to bandwidth issues. It might hurt when you play games. My TCCD dropped frames all over the place when I took out one of my ram sticks to test it.
Anyway, there maybe no need to be a big fan of fast memory. in most cases.
I have a pIII tualatin 1.2 that still lives in my house. i bought a 512 chip for it when people thought that was nuts/stupid, now it still works as it has 768 megs and runs most things smooth.
im like anti-l33t memory if you havent noticed.
2 sticks is usually better than 4. Up until recently, many mb's and CPU combinations would reduce the memory speed from 400 to 333 if 4 sticks are used. I believe this may be been fixed with the latest AMD CPU's, but going with 2 sticks is a safer bet.oakdad wrote:I was thinking running 2 sticks of 1G memory would be better than running 4 sticks of 512k memory. The thought is the air flow through them to cool them be better and 2 sticks would produce less heat than 4.
On my Asus A8N-E with only 2 sticks, I was able to use DIMM slots 2 & 4 (for dual channel config), which moved the memory a bit further from my XP-120 heatpipes.
-
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:56 am
I believe that ram runs like raid0 so bandwidth won't be an issue with 4 sticks even if you ran them at 333. Timings on the otherhand might be not that it makes much of a difference.
I think that 2x1GB sticks is fine if you don't want to have to upgrade for awhile. I would be inclined to get 2x512 and wait a year to get another 2x1GB. The total cost should be about the same and at the end of a year you would have 2GB. Eitherway.
I think that 2x1GB sticks is fine if you don't want to have to upgrade for awhile. I would be inclined to get 2x512 and wait a year to get another 2x1GB. The total cost should be about the same and at the end of a year you would have 2GB. Eitherway.
This is incorrect. Each 32/64 bit word is stored completely on one memory stick. The reduced clock rate would slow the speed at which things could be gotten from memory. This does not necessarily lead to a real world difference, but I would suspect it would matter more than timings.merovingian wrote:I believe that ram runs like raid0 so bandwidth won't be an issue with 4 sticks even if you ran them at 333. Timings on the otherhand might be not that it makes much of a difference.
-
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:56 am
Interesting, but doesn't it still "stripe" the data across all ram chips to utilize the bandwidth. Someone on the anandtech forums told me that the reason why I was dropping frames with one stick was because I didn't have enough bandwidth and that ram effectively operates like system of raided drives.seltrus wrote:This is incorrect. Each 32/64 bit word is stored completely on one memory stick. The reduced clock rate would slow the speed at which things could be gotten from memory. This does not necessarily lead to a real world difference, but I would suspect it would matter more than timings.merovingian wrote:I believe that ram runs like raid0 so bandwidth won't be an issue with 4 sticks even if you ran them at 333. Timings on the otherhand might be not that it makes much of a difference.
My question is, how then did the frames drop?
BTW, Welcome to the forums!
If you have a memory controller that allows dual channel memory, then you need to have atleast 2 memory sticks to take advantage of it. Dual channel means that you have two independent memory channels that can fetch data, but because of the way your typical memory is physically accessed, you can't have two concurrent memory accesses into one memory stick.merovingian wrote:Interesting, but doesn't it still "stripe" the data across all ram chips to utilize the bandwidth. Someone on the anandtech forums told me that the reason why I was dropping frames with one stick was because I didn't have enough bandwidth and that ram effectively operates like system of raided drives.
I wouldn't quite describe dual channel memory as similar to raid0. At a very basic level both techniques try to increase throughput by accessing independent memory units in parallel, but dual channel memory controllers are restricted to those two channels, while raid0 can scale upto available device channels in the used controller until the central bus is saturated.
In the end I'm not sure if that has anything to do with your system dropping frames when run with just one stick of memory, but obviously with just one stick you are only using half of the potential memory bandwidth of recent performance oriented platforms (which should all support dual channel memory by now).
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 2887
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: New York City zzzz
- Contact:
yeah id go ballistix if i had to make a general recommendation to someone who wasnt a hacker/modder type. kinda tried and true crucial memory.
2 gig sticks is way to go. if youi need a whole chip revision just to use 4, id still wonder if my value ram or whatver might lead to a problem down the line, or board version, etc.
2 gig sticks is way to go. if youi need a whole chip revision just to use 4, id still wonder if my value ram or whatver might lead to a problem down the line, or board version, etc.
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:11 pm
- Location: California
Decided to expose my ignorance, but not start a new thread.
I'm confused about RAM configs and effects on bus speed and CAS latency. This is for Abit AN8-Ultra MB and AMDx2 4800+ that will start at 2Gb and may go to 4 soon. Abit says system defaults to DDR333 if four dual rank sticks of RAM are installed, and as far as I know, there are no single rank 1Gb DDR400s out there. However, memory controller is in the CPU, and some threads suggest that the newer CPUs stepping E6 (whatever that means) may not have the same limitation forcing the DDR333 default. AMD site says check mobo's mfr for memory issues; Abit says check RAM mfr; Crucial says check mobo mfr. Back in the day, this used to be referred to as a pointer fault.
Anyway, to further complicate things, my son (who knows way more than I) says that I should skip the 1Gb sticks which (e.g. Patriot and OCZ) are 2-3-2-5 at best and get 4x512Mb sticks with 2-2-2-5 latency. I've got no idea how much difference any of this will make, but suspect the bus speed drop to 333 would be the single most noticeable factor.
For this reason, I'm planning on 2x1Gb at 2-3-2-5 and hoping that either the memory controller can maintain DDR400 on 4 sticks of 1Gb dual rank, or that 1Gb single rank sticks miraculously appear.
Does this seem reasonable?
I'm confused about RAM configs and effects on bus speed and CAS latency. This is for Abit AN8-Ultra MB and AMDx2 4800+ that will start at 2Gb and may go to 4 soon. Abit says system defaults to DDR333 if four dual rank sticks of RAM are installed, and as far as I know, there are no single rank 1Gb DDR400s out there. However, memory controller is in the CPU, and some threads suggest that the newer CPUs stepping E6 (whatever that means) may not have the same limitation forcing the DDR333 default. AMD site says check mobo's mfr for memory issues; Abit says check RAM mfr; Crucial says check mobo mfr. Back in the day, this used to be referred to as a pointer fault.
Anyway, to further complicate things, my son (who knows way more than I) says that I should skip the 1Gb sticks which (e.g. Patriot and OCZ) are 2-3-2-5 at best and get 4x512Mb sticks with 2-2-2-5 latency. I've got no idea how much difference any of this will make, but suspect the bus speed drop to 333 would be the single most noticeable factor.
For this reason, I'm planning on 2x1Gb at 2-3-2-5 and hoping that either the memory controller can maintain DDR400 on 4 sticks of 1Gb dual rank, or that 1Gb single rank sticks miraculously appear.
Does this seem reasonable?
It should be able to run at ddr400 with four 1gig sticks, but the timings will need to be dropped down to 2T. There will be a ~3-5% performance loss most of the time, but not always. you won't be finding any single sided 1g sticks anytime soon.
Athlons are less effected by memory compared to Pentium 4s due to their onboard memory controllers, so if you really just need the extra memory for video or content creation you surely won't notice a difference. If you need every extra FPS you can get in the latest games, then you are better off sticking with 1-2 gig of the fastest memory you can get.
Couple things i find helpfull
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=760374
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952359
Athlons are less effected by memory compared to Pentium 4s due to their onboard memory controllers, so if you really just need the extra memory for video or content creation you surely won't notice a difference. If you need every extra FPS you can get in the latest games, then you are better off sticking with 1-2 gig of the fastest memory you can get.
Couple things i find helpfull
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=760374
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952359
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7681
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
- Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
- Contact:
Hello,
I built an Athlon 64 4000+ (Newcastle) with four 1GB sticks of the best Corsair PC3200 available. It ran very stably, but at 333mHz -- this a limitation of the Newcastle memory controller. The RAM was pretty warm to the touch. Also, WinXP Pro (32bit) only "saw" 3.25GB -- and AIUI any one program can use "only" 2GB. You'll need WinXP Pro 64 to get access to all 4GB, and then it all should be usable by one program.
The speed of the RAM is pretty much negligible -- you have so much that you won't ever dips into virtual memory, and even 333mHz RAM is much, much faster than the hard drive!
I built an Athlon 64 4000+ (Newcastle) with four 1GB sticks of the best Corsair PC3200 available. It ran very stably, but at 333mHz -- this a limitation of the Newcastle memory controller. The RAM was pretty warm to the touch. Also, WinXP Pro (32bit) only "saw" 3.25GB -- and AIUI any one program can use "only" 2GB. You'll need WinXP Pro 64 to get access to all 4GB, and then it all should be usable by one program.
The speed of the RAM is pretty much negligible -- you have so much that you won't ever dips into virtual memory, and even 333mHz RAM is much, much faster than the hard drive!
The limitation of the memory controllers that fall back to 333MHz when driving 4 sticks is simply due to the inability of their output stage to drive the capacitive load and meet the 400MHz timing. It's an I= C*dv/dt thing....
As timings get tighter, the ability to drive 4 sticks gets tougher....trading off speed vs. supply current vs. load.
So, driving two 1GB sticks is easier/better than four 512MB sticks, etc...as you are addressing the same data width, but half of the input capacitance (ok - not really 50%,as the board capacitance plays into it...but, you get the idea.)
As timings get tighter, the ability to drive 4 sticks gets tougher....trading off speed vs. supply current vs. load.
So, driving two 1GB sticks is easier/better than four 512MB sticks, etc...as you are addressing the same data width, but half of the input capacitance (ok - not really 50%,as the board capacitance plays into it...but, you get the idea.)
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:41 am
- Location: IN, USA
I've been extremely happy with the RAM I selected for my AN8 Ultra. I'm not overclocking or anything, but I found the Corsair TWINX2048-3200 kit (2GB - 2 x 1GB sticks) to do the trick quite nicely. The price is pretty reasonable at Newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820145486
Timings are only 3-3-3-8 1T, but you're going to get more benefit out of 2GB than having 1GB with quicker timings since you will rarely if ever have the hard drive working to move virtual memory around.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820145486
Timings are only 3-3-3-8 1T, but you're going to get more benefit out of 2GB than having 1GB with quicker timings since you will rarely if ever have the hard drive working to move virtual memory around.
-
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:45 pm
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:11 pm
- Location: California
Damn, do I like the knowledge and quality of information available from you guys!
My main deal is multiple processes (hence dual core) doing floating point math and not a lot of I/O. Large arrays stashed in RAM and generally not very efficiently accessed. So . . .
Sounds like I'm not far off going for 2x1Gb. Going to larger total RAM sounds like I'll take a hit, but probably won't know till I actually try it.
Thanks!
My main deal is multiple processes (hence dual core) doing floating point math and not a lot of I/O. Large arrays stashed in RAM and generally not very efficiently accessed. So . . .
Sounds like I'm not far off going for 2x1Gb. Going to larger total RAM sounds like I'll take a hit, but probably won't know till I actually try it.
Thanks!
-
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 1:52 pm
RAM speeds
It's not only possible to get 2,2,2,5 1Gb sitcks at the moment, it's not too hard. However for Athalon systems it's a bit of a waste of time getting anything more than PC3200 with those timings, going from ultra cheap to top of the range only increases performance by 10%. That means doubling or more the amount of money spent on RAM, if you're a gamer then spend the extra cash on a better graphics card. Read these to see if you're special or just kidding yourself. http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2560
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc ... =2392&p=16
P4s are much more RAM sensitive, and are less forgiving of poor quality RAM. Check anandtech for yourself for information on what to buy. They have a massive amount of reviews and information there on memory and performance.
Dual Channel RAM:
Most motherboards have support for dual channel RAM, this is where two nearly identical sticks of RAM (same size and timings, same manufacturer is good too but not essential) are used to double the memory bandwidth availible. Current A64 system and P4 systems let you run two different dual channel sets, although you do not get any increase in performance due to the increased bandwidth (the bottleneck is elsewhere).
Dual channel should be viewed as a must for any gaming system, or for any other system that is RAM dependant like photoshoping computers.
2 Sticks or 4?
2 is best. The reasons used to be that the speed would decrease, negating some of the benifits of the RAM, however these problems are being steadily erroded as motherboard and CPU manufacturers realise that 4gb of RAM just isn't enough anymore. 2 sticks is best because you can upgrade to 4 sticks at a later date if you need more RAM for Vista or BF3 Or Quake 7 or whatever. 4 sticks is harder to overclock, and you will be tied to the slowest of the sticks.
Whatever you do, don't use 1 or 3 sticks, the devil himself will rise up and eat your CPU, you have been warned.
It's not only possible to get 2,2,2,5 1Gb sitcks at the moment, it's not too hard. However for Athalon systems it's a bit of a waste of time getting anything more than PC3200 with those timings, going from ultra cheap to top of the range only increases performance by 10%. That means doubling or more the amount of money spent on RAM, if you're a gamer then spend the extra cash on a better graphics card. Read these to see if you're special or just kidding yourself. http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2560
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc ... =2392&p=16
P4s are much more RAM sensitive, and are less forgiving of poor quality RAM. Check anandtech for yourself for information on what to buy. They have a massive amount of reviews and information there on memory and performance.
Dual Channel RAM:
Most motherboards have support for dual channel RAM, this is where two nearly identical sticks of RAM (same size and timings, same manufacturer is good too but not essential) are used to double the memory bandwidth availible. Current A64 system and P4 systems let you run two different dual channel sets, although you do not get any increase in performance due to the increased bandwidth (the bottleneck is elsewhere).
Dual channel should be viewed as a must for any gaming system, or for any other system that is RAM dependant like photoshoping computers.
2 Sticks or 4?
2 is best. The reasons used to be that the speed would decrease, negating some of the benifits of the RAM, however these problems are being steadily erroded as motherboard and CPU manufacturers realise that 4gb of RAM just isn't enough anymore. 2 sticks is best because you can upgrade to 4 sticks at a later date if you need more RAM for Vista or BF3 Or Quake 7 or whatever. 4 sticks is harder to overclock, and you will be tied to the slowest of the sticks.
Whatever you do, don't use 1 or 3 sticks, the devil himself will rise up and eat your CPU, you have been warned.