PDA

View Full Version : MT/S - what does it mean?


Asfand Yar Qazi
March 22nd 06, 10:42 PM
Hi,

I see some motherboard descriptions that have something along the lines of
'2000 MT/s' or '1600 MT/s'. What does MT/s mean? What would be the
difference in performance between 2000 and 1600 MT/s?

Thanks

--
To reply, take of all ZIGs !!

Alternative email address:

Wes Newell
March 22nd 06, 11:19 PM
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:42:48 +0000, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:


> I see some motherboard descriptions that have something along the lines of
> '2000 MT/s' or '1600 MT/s'. What does MT/s mean? What would be the
> difference in performance between 2000 and 1600 MT/s?
>
Million(s of) Transfers per Second. Assuming you're talkig about the
system bus (HT link), in reality it means nothing to very little. Since
moving the memory bus to it's own dedicated bus. The system bus (FSB) has
very little to do for the power it has.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Wes Newell
March 22nd 06, 11:22 PM
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:42:48 +0000, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:


> I see some motherboard descriptions that have something along the lines of
> '2000 MT/s' or '1600 MT/s'. What does MT/s mean? What would be the
> difference in performance between 2000 and 1600 MT/s?
>
I should have pointed out that the 1600 one would be a socket 754 board,
and the 2000 one would be either 940, 939, or AM2 (which is also 940 pins
but not compatible with earlier 940 boards).

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Scott Lurndal
March 23rd 06, 12:03 AM
Asfand Yar Qazi > writes:
>Hi,
>
>I see some motherboard descriptions that have something along the lines of
>'2000 MT/s' or '1600 MT/s'. What does MT/s mean? What would be the
>difference in performance between 2000 and 1600 MT/s?
>

Megatransfers per second. A method of measuring the throughput of
the Direct Connect Architecture hypertransport ports. 2000 MT/s
corresponds to a 1000 MHz ht clock speed, 1600MT/s is a 800Mhz clock.

scott

tic toc
March 25th 06, 11:30 AM
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:03:06 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal) wrote:

>Asfand Yar Qazi > writes:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I see some motherboard descriptions that have something along the lines of
>>'2000 MT/s' or '1600 MT/s'. What does MT/s mean? What would be the
>>difference in performance between 2000 and 1600 MT/s?
>>
>
>Megatransfers per second. A method of measuring the throughput of
>the Direct Connect Architecture hypertransport ports. 2000 MT/s
>corresponds to a 1000 MHz ht clock speed, 1600MT/s is a 800Mhz clock.
>
>scott

info clocked twice per cycle ?

dual pumped and all that jazz.

Asfand Yar Qazi
March 25th 06, 06:18 PM
tic toc wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:03:06 GMT, (Scott
> Lurndal) wrote:
>
>
>>Asfand Yar Qazi > writes:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I see some motherboard descriptions that have something along the lines of
>>>'2000 MT/s' or '1600 MT/s'. What does MT/s mean? What would be the
>>>difference in performance between 2000 and 1600 MT/s?
>>>
>>
>>Megatransfers per second. A method of measuring the throughput of
>>the Direct Connect Architecture hypertransport ports. 2000 MT/s
>>corresponds to a 1000 MHz ht clock speed, 1600MT/s is a 800Mhz clock.
>>
>>scott
>
>
> info clocked twice per cycle ?
>
> dual pumped and all that jazz.
>
>

How much faster would having a 2000MT/s bus be over a 1600MT/s bus?

--
To reply, take of all ZIGs !!

Alternative email address:

Scott Lurndal
March 25th 06, 07:50 PM
Bill > writes:
>Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
>
>>>>Megatransfers per second. A method of measuring the throughput of
>>>>the Direct Connect Architecture hypertransport ports. 2000 MT/s
>>>>corresponds to a 1000 MHz ht clock speed, 1600MT/s is a 800Mhz clock.
>>
>>How much faster would having a 2000MT/s bus be over a 1600MT/s bus?
>
>I don't believe it's any faster in actual use.
>
>I have an x2 3800+ on my 939 board which is overclocked 25%, so I had to
>slow the HyperTransport link to remain 100% stable. Right now it's set
>at 3x (250 clock rate) which gives me a rate of 1500 MT/s. At 4x the
>rate is correctly set at the maximum rate of 2000 MT/s, but then Prime95
>stability tests will fail.
>
>I've tried various configurations and done benchmark tests, and have
>found that I can lower the rate to about 1400 MT/s with negligible
>effect on performance. Anything over 1500 is just fluff really.

It really only matters for CPU to CPU links in multi-socket
systems, and perhaps if your non-coherent link(s) bridge to 16
fully used lanes of PCI-express. PCI, PCI-X won't touch
the bandwidth of a single HT link, so if that's all you got,
the speed doesn't really matter.

scott

Bill
March 25th 06, 08:00 PM
In article >,
says...
> tic toc wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:03:06 GMT, (Scott
> > Lurndal) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Asfand Yar Qazi > writes:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>I see some motherboard descriptions that have something along the lines of
> >>>'2000 MT/s' or '1600 MT/s'. What does MT/s mean? What would be the
> >>>difference in performance between 2000 and 1600 MT/s?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Megatransfers per second. A method of measuring the throughput of
> >>the Direct Connect Architecture hypertransport ports. 2000 MT/s
> >>corresponds to a 1000 MHz ht clock speed, 1600MT/s is a 800Mhz clock.
> >>
> >>scott
> >
> >
> > info clocked twice per cycle ?
> >
> > dual pumped and all that jazz.
> >
> >
>
> How much faster would having a 2000MT/s bus be over a 1600MT/s bus?
>
>

400MT/S Duh.

Bill
--
Gmail and Google Groups. This century's answer to AOL and WebTV.

Asfand Yar Qazi
March 26th 06, 12:20 PM
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bill > writes:
>
>>Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Megatransfers per second. A method of measuring the throughput of
>>>>>the Direct Connect Architecture hypertransport ports. 2000 MT/s
>>>>>corresponds to a 1000 MHz ht clock speed, 1600MT/s is a 800Mhz clock.
>>>
>>>How much faster would having a 2000MT/s bus be over a 1600MT/s bus?
>>
>>I don't believe it's any faster in actual use.
>>
>>I have an x2 3800+ on my 939 board which is overclocked 25%, so I had to
>>slow the HyperTransport link to remain 100% stable. Right now it's set
>>at 3x (250 clock rate) which gives me a rate of 1500 MT/s. At 4x the
>>rate is correctly set at the maximum rate of 2000 MT/s, but then Prime95
>>stability tests will fail.
>>
>>I've tried various configurations and done benchmark tests, and have
>>found that I can lower the rate to about 1400 MT/s with negligible
>>effect on performance. Anything over 1500 is just fluff really.
>
>
> It really only matters for CPU to CPU links in multi-socket
> systems, and perhaps if your non-coherent link(s) bridge to 16
> fully used lanes of PCI-express. PCI, PCI-X won't touch
> the bandwidth of a single HT link, so if that's all you got,
> the speed doesn't really matter.
>
> scott

Ah, that's good to know - I won't feel guilty over using a socket 754 mobo for
my 'secondary' computer then (i.e. running a few servers - dhcpd, named - as
well as Azureus and perhaps an enemy territory game server etc).

Obviously my primary computer will be an Opteron 165 OC'ed to atleast 2.4GHz
using OCZ value VX memory on a DFI motherboard - but that's for another
discussion :-)

Thanks all

--
To reply, take of all ZIGs !!

Alternative email address: