If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
Hello,
I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). I also received a green card with instructions on it which shows how to install the memory chips into the motherboard's memory slots. Today I ran my own (32 bit) memory benchmark (on windows xp 64 bit) which reads as many integers from the memory as possible. The results were quite shocking... only 2.4 million bytes per second. Even my 6 year old pentium III 450 mhz overclocked to 600 mhz is able to achieve 3.1 million bytes per second. My first suspect for the poor memory performance/access time is the memory chips themselfes and there settings. The support on the website of Corsair is quite bad. There are no settings to be found anywhere. Their specification is mostly a marketing ad. That's not a specification ! I would like to know all the settings about these memory chips ! Is there a real/full specification of these memory chips and if so were can I download/view it ? Failing that... does anybody know the correct settings for these memory chips in the bios of the motherboard asus a8n32-sli ? Which of these settings have to be changed and what would be there values ?: Memclock mode: [Auto] MCT Timing mode: [Auto] Cas latency (cl): [Auto] TRAS: [Auto] TRP: [Auto] TRCD: [Auto] TRRD: [Auto] TRC: [Auto] TRFC: [Auto] TRWT: [Auto] User Config Mode: [Auto] Read Preamble: 9.5 ns (?) Asyc Latency: 11.0 ns (?) Bank interleaving: [Auto] Burst Length: [4 Beats] Hardware Memory Hole: [Enabled] - I changed that for 4 GB support. MCT Extra Timing Mode: TREF: 7.8 us TWCL: 1 R/W Queue Bypass Count: 8 ByPass Max: 4 Idle Cycle Limit: 16 Dynamic Idle Cycle Center: Enabled DDR Driving Strength: Normal Enable 32-byte granularity: Disabled (what is this ?) Twr: 3 clk DDR Input Strobe Skew: Disabled DDR Data Driving Strength: Disabled ECC Configuration Dram ECC Enable: Disabled L2 Cache BG Scrub: Disabled Data Cache BG Scrub: Disabled DDR Vco Auto DDR Clock Skew: Auto (Message also posted on Corsair support forum) Bye, Skybuck. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
In article , "Skybuck
Flying" wrote: Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). I also received a green card with instructions on it which shows how to install the memory chips into the motherboard's memory slots. Today I ran my own (32 bit) memory benchmark (on windows xp 64 bit) which reads as many integers from the memory as possible. The results were quite shocking... only 2.4 million bytes per second. Even my 6 year old pentium III 450 mhz overclocked to 600 mhz is able to achieve 3.1 million bytes per second. My first suspect for the poor memory performance/access time is the memory chips themselfes and there settings. The support on the website of Corsair is quite bad. There are no settings to be found anywhere. Their specification is mostly a marketing ad. That's not a specification ! I would like to know all the settings about these memory chips ! Is there a real/full specification of these memory chips and if so were can I download/view it ? Failing that... does anybody know the correct settings for these memory chips in the bios of the motherboard asus a8n32-sli ? Which of these settings have to be changed and what would be there values ?: Memclock mode: [Auto] MCT Timing mode: [Auto] Cas latency (cl): [Auto] TRAS: [Auto] TRP: [Auto] TRCD: [Auto] TRRD: [Auto] TRC: [Auto] TRFC: [Auto] TRWT: [Auto] User Config Mode: [Auto] Read Preamble: 9.5 ns (?) Asyc Latency: 11.0 ns (?) Bank interleaving: [Auto] Burst Length: [4 Beats] Hardware Memory Hole: [Enabled] - I changed that for 4 GB support. MCT Extra Timing Mode: TREF: 7.8 us TWCL: 1 R/W Queue Bypass Count: 8 ByPass Max: 4 Idle Cycle Limit: 16 Dynamic Idle Cycle Center: Enabled DDR Driving Strength: Normal Enable 32-byte granularity: Disabled (what is this ?) Twr: 3 clk DDR Input Strobe Skew: Disabled DDR Data Driving Strength: Disabled ECC Configuration Dram ECC Enable: Disabled L2 Cache BG Scrub: Disabled Data Cache BG Scrub: Disabled DDR Vco Auto DDR Clock Skew: Auto (Message also posted on Corsair support forum) Bye, Skybuck. The datasheets are on the XMS memory web page. They aren't hard to find. http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/...048-3200c2.pdf "Tested at aggressive latency settings of 2-3-3-6 for all platforms. 2-3-3-6 on Intel and AMD based systems Test voltage: 2.75V" Slide 24 here, tells you the order of parameters: http://corsairmicro.com/corsair/prod...707/index.html "CAS Latency, tRCD, tRP, tRAS" When using four sticks of memory, the expected settings would be DDR400 Command Rate 2T, which is better than the alternative setting of DDR333 Command Rate 1T. You cannot expect to run DDR400 Command Rate 1T with four memory sticks. There really isn't much point in adjusting other parameters on that memory page. As for your little test program, try the following. Download memtest86+ from www.memtest.org . The program will format a testing floppy for you. Boot your new computer with the boot floppy disk. When memtest86+ starts, there are three bandwidth indicators in the upper left hand corner. The third one down, monitors memory bandwidth (unbuffered). Specifically, what the code does, is it flushes the cache before sequentially reading a large chunk of memory. Pop that test floppy into your old system, then into your new system, and you should see an appropriate increase in performance. The AMD memory controller does a pretty good job with DDR. The memtest86+ source code is available for download. I've downloaded the source, and made a minor modification to the program, so I could test memory bandwidth at different addresses within system memory. I've had a look at the code and their approach seems reasonable. Basically flush the cache, and then read a block of memory larger than any cache, a number of times, and average the results. Are you certain that the time base measurement code in your test program, is able to deal with the faster operation of your new computer ? There are many ways to explain failures of your test program. The top post here, lists numbers like 368MB/sec for some PC133 SDRAM. http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.co...9aeea20d9a440d There is a picture of a memtest86+ screen here, for a 3500+ with 2x1GB memory. It lists 3908MB/sec, or roughly 10x the memory bandwidth of the other system. This 3500+ is running at 2700MHz and is overclocked. The memory is also overclocked big time. I expect your system will be a bit lower than that. http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1238439 HTH, Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:31:45 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
wrote: Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). Double sided is a bad idea. Supported by motherboard doesn't specify how they'll perform. As you can see, they do in fact run, just slow as ****. Welcome to the world of 2T performance and remember, if people weren't so stupid you could at least have had the benefit of ECC, if not registered memory. Yep, there was a reason for all that stuff. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
"Paul" wrote in message ... In article , "Skybuck Flying" wrote: Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). I also received a green card with instructions on it which shows how to install the memory chips into the motherboard's memory slots. Today I ran my own (32 bit) memory benchmark (on windows xp 64 bit) which reads as many integers from the memory as possible. The results were quite shocking... only 2.4 million bytes per second. Even my 6 year old pentium III 450 mhz overclocked to 600 mhz is able to achieve 3.1 million bytes per second. My first suspect for the poor memory performance/access time is the memory chips themselfes and there settings. The support on the website of Corsair is quite bad. There are no settings to be found anywhere. Their specification is mostly a marketing ad. That's not a specification ! I would like to know all the settings about these memory chips ! Is there a real/full specification of these memory chips and if so were can I download/view it ? Failing that... does anybody know the correct settings for these memory chips in the bios of the motherboard asus a8n32-sli ? Which of these settings have to be changed and what would be there values ?: Memclock mode: [Auto] MCT Timing mode: [Auto] Cas latency (cl): [Auto] TRAS: [Auto] TRP: [Auto] TRCD: [Auto] TRRD: [Auto] TRC: [Auto] TRFC: [Auto] TRWT: [Auto] User Config Mode: [Auto] Read Preamble: 9.5 ns (?) Asyc Latency: 11.0 ns (?) Bank interleaving: [Auto] Burst Length: [4 Beats] Hardware Memory Hole: [Enabled] - I changed that for 4 GB support. MCT Extra Timing Mode: TREF: 7.8 us TWCL: 1 R/W Queue Bypass Count: 8 ByPass Max: 4 Idle Cycle Limit: 16 Dynamic Idle Cycle Center: Enabled DDR Driving Strength: Normal Enable 32-byte granularity: Disabled (what is this ?) Twr: 3 clk DDR Input Strobe Skew: Disabled DDR Data Driving Strength: Disabled ECC Configuration Dram ECC Enable: Disabled L2 Cache BG Scrub: Disabled Data Cache BG Scrub: Disabled DDR Vco Auto DDR Clock Skew: Auto (Message also posted on Corsair support forum) Bye, Skybuck. The datasheets are on the XMS memory web page. They aren't hard to find. http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/...048-3200c2.pdf "Tested at aggressive latency settings of 2-3-3-6 for all platforms. 2-3-3-6 on Intel and AMD based systems Test voltage: 2.75V" Slide 24 here, tells you the order of parameters: http://corsairmicro.com/corsair/prod...707/index.html "CAS Latency, tRCD, tRP, tRAS" When using four sticks of memory, the expected settings would be DDR400 Command Rate 2T, which is better than the alternative setting of DDR333 Command Rate 1T. You cannot expect to run DDR400 Command Rate 1T with four memory sticks. There really isn't much point in adjusting other parameters on that memory page. As for your little test program, try the following. Download memtest86+ from www.memtest.org . The program will format a testing floppy for you. Boot your new computer with the boot floppy disk. When memtest86+ starts, there are three bandwidth indicators in the upper left hand corner. The third one down, monitors memory bandwidth (unbuffered). Specifically, what the code does, is it flushes the cache before sequentially reading a large chunk of memory. Pop that test floppy into your old system, then into your new system, and you should see an appropriate increase in performance. The AMD memory controller does a pretty good job with DDR. The memtest86+ source code is available for download. I've downloaded the source, and made a minor modification to the program, so I could test memory bandwidth at different addresses within system memory. I've had a look at the code and their approach seems reasonable. Basically flush the cache, and then read a block of memory larger than any cache, a number of times, and average the results. Are you certain that the time base measurement code in your test program, is able to deal with the faster operation of your new computer ? There are many ways to explain failures of your test program. The top post here, lists numbers like 368MB/sec for some PC133 SDRAM. http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.co...9aeea20d9a440d There is a picture of a memtest86+ screen here, for a 3500+ with 2x1GB memory. It lists 3908MB/sec, or roughly 10x the memory bandwidth of the other system. This 3500+ is running at 2700MHz and is overclocked. The memory is also overclocked big time. I expect your system will be a bit lower than that. http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1238439 Hello, Your story is consistent with what I tried. I wasn't sure if command rate t1 would work so I tried it =D then I got a little worried. The computer completely stopped responding, no screen, no boot screen, no beep, no nothing, I couldn't even turn it off or reboot. Finally I had to turn off/on the computer via the power switch. Fortunately for me the asus motherboard and american trends bios is able to detect this overclock failure and reports it as such. Then I tried command rate T2 and this time it worked. I also tested memtest 1.65. Since the rawrite.exe utility does not work in windows xp 64 bit, I installed it as follows. Fortunately for me I still had a very cool ms-dos bootdisk... First I thought about using the windows 98 startup disk since it was the first disk in the box and had to make a quick decision... but I already knew that worked... fortunately for me the boot time is 10 seconds so I could still switch the boot disk... I wondered if ms-dos 6.22 boot disk/os would still work on my new dream pc... so I put it in... and haven't used that for a few years or so. Fortunately for me everything worked perfectly... It worked even better than I ever imagined... when I made the bootdisk I was even smart enough to install a microsoft ram drive =D So it has default 4 MB of ram drive space =D and even qedit but ok. So I was able to simply copy rawrite.exe and other files to the ramdisk... since I wasn't sure if starting from a floppy would work... maybe that would work as well... anyway... so finally I made the new disk. First I wanted to make it on my old pc... but it doesn't have a floppy drive anymore lol... so the point of the story is... where there is a will there is a way Ofcourse I first tried the iso image.. but that didn't work... rar and winimage showed an empty iso image. Now back to the memory/benchmarking test etc. First I ran the memory testing before changing any memory settings. Everything worked ok. The speed reported was: 16 GB/sec (I think it was called L1 cache) 3.5 GB/sec(I think it was called L2 cache) 2 GB/sec (I think this was main memory or controller or something) Then I changed the default memory settings to command rate t2 and 2-3-3-6 and ran the test again. Now it reported this: 16 GB/sec 4 GB/sec 2 GB/sec Finally I also run my own 32 bit benchmark and it reported still a somewhat disappointing: 2.5 million bytes / sec It's still 100.000 bytes faster than with the old memory settings so the new memory settings does seem to help a bit... but only slighty... So all in all the new memory settings aren't really worth bothering with.. or taking any corruption risks... but for now I will simply keep these settings for the coming weeks/month/years to see what happens etc... It will probably run just fine... so no need to run with any slower settings... but all in all it wouldn't matter much. Also the difference in the L2 cache is kinda weird... where is the L2 cache located ? Is it in the memory chips or is it on the cpu or somewhere in between ? It could just be a random measurement glitch/curiosity Finally I also noticed a little bit more of freezing when running both benchmarks and other programs... when trying to move the windows around... And finally when I ran two benchmarks, one benchmark instance didn't run at all.. .which is really weird... my benchmark is mostly about testing how many integers can be read randomly from memory and there is maybe also some writing involved... not sure how the code gets compiled... so it's more about access time than bandwidth. I have seen some very strange readings... once I saw a reading of 500 MB/sec... now I tested another application actually running two instances and now it only achieved 5 MB/sec through loopback adapter though/winsock etc.. it's kinda strange.. since the same application reported 500 MB/sec when testing with two computers... maybe I am being delirius but I don't think so I have seen some weird bugs on windows xp 64 bit with 32 bit applications, also dos programs won't work etc. I do look forward to writing better applications for windows xp 64 bit though. The bottom line is that for now my PIII 600 mhz is able to read more 32 bit integers per second than the AMD X2 3800+ which is kinda weird. Actually I also tested before changing memory settings and running two benchmarks... and then every instance achieves 1.5 million so that's about the same as the PIII which also achieves 3 million. Then I tried running two instances on the PIII and one instances achieved 2.4 million and the other one 0.6 million. The one that has focus runs faster. I thought I set foreground boost option disabled... but I probably enabled it again to play games faster... so the foreground boost option is probably enabled and at worked explaining this difference. I dont know if windows xp 64 bit has a foreground boost option and if it's enabled... that's something I might check out in the future Also I just ran the test.. and in the beginning one test behaved like it didn't want to run probably because the memory first needs to be locked etc.. all in all quite a fuzzy test. Another explanation might be that the high performance timer has problems but I don't think so because I tested that with two other applications.. so why one benchmark doesn't want to run is strange... I place my bet on the locking of the memory failing or something. I could look into that later or maybe not all because in general I don't use that feature in my other applications... I only used that feature for the benchmark. My next test will probably be testing the speed of the harddisks now that will be very interesting. All in all I can only recommend software developers to start developing for windows xp 64 bit or windows vista as soon as possible... If you still developing software on windows xp 32 bit... you might be faced with your software not running on 64 bit software... which does seem to be the feature... Also be sure to have to bootable operating systems... windows xp 32 bit is still necessary to use software which won't run on windows xp 64 bit... like dos software... unless you wanna boot into ms-dos... etc... Fortunatelly for me I have two development computers.. one xp 32 bit and one xp 64 bit I could even boot into ms-dos or windows 98 from a harddrive... yeah my old pc has multi boot... my new pc doesn't though... I never used multi boot on my old pc that's why... yeah I wanna keep this new pc 64 bit completely I guess... just to be ready for the future or maybe I will get to me and then I decided to still install xp 32 bit... but then I need to screw around with sata drivers.. I dont wanna do that... and I dont want to download zillion-1 xp 32 bit patches if you know what I mean... so screw that yeaaaah =D Besides I am not sure if system commander 7 or 8 will work with windows xp 64 bit... it probably should work since the file systems are still more or less the same - ntfs 64 bit. All in all microsoft and the hardware world have made quite a mess of things and breaking quite a lot of things... really funny =D Though as other people have written.. using windows xp 64 bit has a nice feel to it... it's just like xp 32 bit... with some minor improvements... like a little bit better internet explorer... Bye, Skybuck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
Well as promised I also just tested the harddisk performance and also that
is throwing dirt in my eyes First I created two test images of 5 gigabyte with filedisk tool one on C: and one D: First image: Then I started reading from it... the speed was 530 MB/sec. Then I started writing to it.. the speed was 400 MB/sec. Second image: This time I reversed the order. I first write to it... the speed was only 2 MB/sec to maybe 3 MB/sec Then I read from it... the speed started slowly dont remember what... then it proceeded to 10 MB/sec then 100 MB/sec then I stopped it... finally I started it again it went on with 200 MB/sec and increased it's speed until it finally again reached 500 MB/sec. There is 4 GB of ram in the system... I also checked the performance monitor... the kernel seems to be using 750 MB of ram or so... So I can come really fast to the following conclusion: Microsoft's windows xp 64 bit simply caches a whole lot of the file... maybe like a 500 MB cache or so... The read speed is probably coming directly from RAM buffers instead of the harddisk.. which only has 16 MB of hd cache etc... So the operating system manages to throw quite some dirt in my eyes Ofcourse the second test was more interesting... since it's speed was only 2 MB/sec to maybe 3 MB/sec or so... Also after stopping the write test... when it reaches 500 MB/sec the operating system simply continued writing to the harddisk... probably still busy writing caches to the harddisk.. it took a few seconds before the hd led shut down. All in all testing like this isn't really a reliable way of testing the true speed of harddisks.. ofcourse you and me probably already know this... still it's interesting to see what happens of my new dream pc Windows blunty caches it 500 MB or so... no idea what algorithms are behind it or what percentage etc... all in all seeing 500 MB/sec read/write speed is quite statisfieing even if it isn't the true harddisk performance... Things will get more interesting when transferring new data via the network from another computer... it will still perform some write caching I guess... Oh well so much for trying to establish a write disk performance true maximum speed etc.. I'll have to find some other more advanced tools which can truely test the speed of the harddisk.. hopefully without destroying my harddisk Bye, Skybuck. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
evil ******* wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:31:45 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" wrote: Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). Double sided is a bad idea. Supported by motherboard doesn't specify how they'll perform. As you can see, they do in fact run, just slow as ****. Welcome to the world of 2T performance and remember, if people weren't so stupid you could at least have had the benefit of ECC, if not registered memory. Yep, there was a reason for all that stuff. I hope you dont base your conclusion on my 2.5 MB/sec figure... because that's not a bandwidth test... that's just my wacky memory access time benchmark test access time test is not a bandwidth test Rest assured... even my harddisk benchmark programs achieve 530 MB/sec and 430 MB/sec which are probably reading and writing from windows xp 64 bit ram/disk caches etc... I wouldn't be surprised at all if my dream pc achieves gigabytes/sec with a true memory bandwidth test.. However real world performance of my own application is what is more interesting to me... Finally your remark about slow as **** is probably the state of the industry... - not being able to make transistors switch any faster... sure you can add more transistor to make more memory.. sure you can add more lanes for more bandwidth... but when it comes to executing commands and processing power... the transistors dont switch faster... hence the dual core... multi core processors... - industry hoping to get more speed by doing this in parallism... If parallism is the way to go then the whole pc architecture will have to be redesigned... in other words take a look at cell processor... each core will have to be connected to it's own memory... otherwise bottleneck at memory possible... etc etc etc. It's quite interesting what microsoft is going to do... I'll bet you 10 bucks microsoft might be bankrupt in 5, 10, 20 years down the road... I surely hope not... but though times are ahead ohhhh yes sir bob Windows vista is probably still based on old pc architecture however it can do somet multi threading as well.. It will be interesting to see if microsoft's operating system will be able to adept to all this parallism stuff Some applications probably won't even become faster because of parallism... but those applications probably don't need to become any faster anyway.. hence no more reason to sell new ms word copies etc - see dead milk cow etc etc etc. Quite frankly... most people probably don't need a new computer.. for stuff... expect slowass flash media player in internet explorer. But then again.. hardware interface change... so in the end people will still have to buy new computers etc... So the only thing the industry has to do to keep people buying new stuff.. is simply changing, changing, changing all the current stuff without actually improving it or making it any faster... as long as you can keep people believing that it's faster or even slighty faster... and people buy in to it the industry is a little bit safe =D hehehehe. That's the sad part of it... change only to keep afloat Bye, Skybuck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
In article , "Skybuck
Flying" wrote: "Paul" wrote in message ... In article , "Skybuck Flying" wrote: Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). I also received a green card with instructions on it which shows how to install the memory chips into the motherboard's memory slots. Today I ran my own (32 bit) memory benchmark (on windows xp 64 bit) which reads as many integers from the memory as possible. The results were quite shocking... only 2.4 million bytes per second. Even my 6 year old pentium III 450 mhz overclocked to 600 mhz is able to achieve 3.1 million bytes per second. My first suspect for the poor memory performance/access time is the memory chips themselfes and there settings. The support on the website of Corsair is quite bad. There are no settings to be found anywhere. Their specification is mostly a marketing ad. That's not a specification ! I would like to know all the settings about these memory chips ! Is there a real/full specification of these memory chips and if so were can I download/view it ? Failing that... does anybody know the correct settings for these memory chips in the bios of the motherboard asus a8n32-sli ? Which of these settings have to be changed and what would be there values ?: Memclock mode: [Auto] MCT Timing mode: [Auto] Cas latency (cl): [Auto] TRAS: [Auto] TRP: [Auto] TRCD: [Auto] TRRD: [Auto] TRC: [Auto] TRFC: [Auto] TRWT: [Auto] User Config Mode: [Auto] Read Preamble: 9.5 ns (?) Asyc Latency: 11.0 ns (?) Bank interleaving: [Auto] Burst Length: [4 Beats] Hardware Memory Hole: [Enabled] - I changed that for 4 GB support. MCT Extra Timing Mode: TREF: 7.8 us TWCL: 1 R/W Queue Bypass Count: 8 ByPass Max: 4 Idle Cycle Limit: 16 Dynamic Idle Cycle Center: Enabled DDR Driving Strength: Normal Enable 32-byte granularity: Disabled (what is this ?) Twr: 3 clk DDR Input Strobe Skew: Disabled DDR Data Driving Strength: Disabled ECC Configuration Dram ECC Enable: Disabled L2 Cache BG Scrub: Disabled Data Cache BG Scrub: Disabled DDR Vco Auto DDR Clock Skew: Auto (Message also posted on Corsair support forum) Bye, Skybuck. The datasheets are on the XMS memory web page. They aren't hard to find. http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/...048-3200c2.pdf "Tested at aggressive latency settings of 2-3-3-6 for all platforms. 2-3-3-6 on Intel and AMD based systems Test voltage: 2.75V" Slide 24 here, tells you the order of parameters: http://corsairmicro.com/corsair/prod...707/index.html "CAS Latency, tRCD, tRP, tRAS" When using four sticks of memory, the expected settings would be DDR400 Command Rate 2T, which is better than the alternative setting of DDR333 Command Rate 1T. You cannot expect to run DDR400 Command Rate 1T with four memory sticks. There really isn't much point in adjusting other parameters on that memory page. As for your little test program, try the following. Download memtest86+ from www.memtest.org . The program will format a testing floppy for you. Boot your new computer with the boot floppy disk. When memtest86+ starts, there are three bandwidth indicators in the upper left hand corner. The third one down, monitors memory bandwidth (unbuffered). Specifically, what the code does, is it flushes the cache before sequentially reading a large chunk of memory. Pop that test floppy into your old system, then into your new system, and you should see an appropriate increase in performance. The AMD memory controller does a pretty good job with DDR. The memtest86+ source code is available for download. I've downloaded the source, and made a minor modification to the program, so I could test memory bandwidth at different addresses within system memory. I've had a look at the code and their approach seems reasonable. Basically flush the cache, and then read a block of memory larger than any cache, a number of times, and average the results. Are you certain that the time base measurement code in your test program, is able to deal with the faster operation of your new computer ? There are many ways to explain failures of your test program. The top post here, lists numbers like 368MB/sec for some PC133 SDRAM. http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.co...9aeea20d9a440d There is a picture of a memtest86+ screen here, for a 3500+ with 2x1GB memory. It lists 3908MB/sec, or roughly 10x the memory bandwidth of the other system. This 3500+ is running at 2700MHz and is overclocked. The memory is also overclocked big time. I expect your system will be a bit lower than that. http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1238439 Hello, Your story is consistent with what I tried. I wasn't sure if command rate t1 would work so I tried it =D then I got a little worried. The computer completely stopped responding, no screen, no boot screen, no beep, no nothing, I couldn't even turn it off or reboot. Finally I had to turn off/on the computer via the power switch. Fortunately for me the asus motherboard and american trends bios is able to detect this overclock failure and reports it as such. Then I tried command rate T2 and this time it worked. I also tested memtest 1.65. Since the rawrite.exe utility does not work in windows xp 64 bit, I installed it as follows. Fortunately for me I still had a very cool ms-dos bootdisk... First I thought about using the windows 98 startup disk since it was the first disk in the box and had to make a quick decision... but I already knew that worked... fortunately for me the boot time is 10 seconds so I could still switch the boot disk... I wondered if ms-dos 6.22 boot disk/os would still work on my new dream pc... so I put it in... and haven't used that for a few years or so. Fortunately for me everything worked perfectly... It worked even better than I ever imagined... when I made the bootdisk I was even smart enough to install a microsoft ram drive =D So it has default 4 MB of ram drive space =D and even qedit but ok. So I was able to simply copy rawrite.exe and other files to the ramdisk... since I wasn't sure if starting from a floppy would work... maybe that would work as well... anyway... so finally I made the new disk. First I wanted to make it on my old pc... but it doesn't have a floppy drive anymore lol... so the point of the story is... where there is a will there is a way Ofcourse I first tried the iso image.. but that didn't work... rar and winimage showed an empty iso image. Now back to the memory/benchmarking test etc. First I ran the memory testing before changing any memory settings. Everything worked ok. The speed reported was: 16 GB/sec (I think it was called L1 cache) 3.5 GB/sec(I think it was called L2 cache) 2 GB/sec (I think this was main memory or controller or something) Then I changed the default memory settings to command rate t2 and 2-3-3-6 and ran the test again. Now it reported this: 16 GB/sec 4 GB/sec 2 GB/sec Finally I also run my own 32 bit benchmark and it reported still a somewhat disappointing: 2.5 million bytes / sec It's still 100.000 bytes faster than with the old memory settings so the new memory settings does seem to help a bit... but only slighty... So all in all the new memory settings aren't really worth bothering with.. or taking any corruption risks... but for now I will simply keep these settings for the coming weeks/month/years to see what happens etc... It will probably run just fine... so no need to run with any slower settings... but all in all it wouldn't matter much. Also the difference in the L2 cache is kinda weird... where is the L2 cache located ? Is it in the memory chips or is it on the cpu or somewhere in between ? It could just be a random measurement glitch/curiosity Finally I also noticed a little bit more of freezing when running both benchmarks and other programs... when trying to move the windows around... And finally when I ran two benchmarks, one benchmark instance didn't run at all.. .which is really weird... my benchmark is mostly about testing how many integers can be read randomly from memory and there is maybe also some writing involved... not sure how the code gets compiled... so it's more about access time than bandwidth. I have seen some very strange readings... once I saw a reading of 500 MB/sec... now I tested another application actually running two instances and now it only achieved 5 MB/sec through loopback adapter though/winsock etc.. it's kinda strange.. since the same application reported 500 MB/sec when testing with two computers... maybe I am being delirius but I don't think so I have seen some weird bugs on windows xp 64 bit with 32 bit applications, also dos programs won't work etc. I do look forward to writing better applications for windows xp 64 bit though. The bottom line is that for now my PIII 600 mhz is able to read more 32 bit integers per second than the AMD X2 3800+ which is kinda weird. Actually I also tested before changing memory settings and running two benchmarks... and then every instance achieves 1.5 million so that's about the same as the PIII which also achieves 3 million. Then I tried running two instances on the PIII and one instances achieved 2.4 million and the other one 0.6 million. The one that has focus runs faster. I thought I set foreground boost option disabled... but I probably enabled it again to play games faster... so the foreground boost option is probably enabled and at worked explaining this difference. I dont know if windows xp 64 bit has a foreground boost option and if it's enabled... that's something I might check out in the future Also I just ran the test.. and in the beginning one test behaved like it didn't want to run probably because the memory first needs to be locked etc.. all in all quite a fuzzy test. Another explanation might be that the high performance timer has problems but I don't think so because I tested that with two other applications.. so why one benchmark doesn't want to run is strange... I place my bet on the locking of the memory failing or something. I could look into that later or maybe not all because in general I don't use that feature in my other applications... I only used that feature for the benchmark. My next test will probably be testing the speed of the harddisks now that will be very interesting. All in all I can only recommend software developers to start developing for windows xp 64 bit or windows vista as soon as possible... If you still developing software on windows xp 32 bit... you might be faced with your software not running on 64 bit software... which does seem to be the feature... Also be sure to have to bootable operating systems... windows xp 32 bit is still necessary to use software which won't run on windows xp 64 bit... like dos software... unless you wanna boot into ms-dos... etc... Fortunatelly for me I have two development computers.. one xp 32 bit and one xp 64 bit I could even boot into ms-dos or windows 98 from a harddrive... yeah my old pc has multi boot... my new pc doesn't though... I never used multi boot on my old pc that's why... yeah I wanna keep this new pc 64 bit completely I guess... just to be ready for the future or maybe I will get to me and then I decided to still install xp 32 bit... but then I need to screw around with sata drivers.. I dont wanna do that... and I dont want to download zillion-1 xp 32 bit patches if you know what I mean... so screw that yeaaaah =D Besides I am not sure if system commander 7 or 8 will work with windows xp 64 bit... it probably should work since the file systems are still more or less the same - ntfs 64 bit. All in all microsoft and the hardware world have made quite a mess of things and breaking quite a lot of things... really funny =D Though as other people have written.. using windows xp 64 bit has a nice feel to it... it's just like xp 32 bit... with some minor improvements... like a little bit better internet explorer... Bye, Skybuck The memtest results listed here, is ~2200MB/sec for dual channel on Athlon64, with a more normal memory speed. http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2337&p=5 The L2 cache is inside the processor, and if the L2 speed increases, it means memtest86 is not testing the L2 properly. Based on the description of your test program, I have two observations: 1) "only achieved 5 MB/sec through loopback adapter though/winsock" If your code accesses a network stack in the OS, this is hardly measuring a performance primitive on the hardware. You are testing the efficiency of some network code, an entirely different thing. 2) "my benchmark is mostly about testing how many integers can be read randomly from memory" The memory controller is optimized for fetching bursts of data at a time, and reading 32 bit integers at random would be a cache buster. What your benchmark would be testing, it the transaction rate of the memory controller, rather than the bandwidth. But that should still be faster than the transaction rate of the PC133 SDRAM. This GIF is for SDRAM, but the principles are the same for DDR. The transaction time for a burst, is from ACTV to ACTV. http://www.dewassoc.com/performance/...dram_burst.gif You are only getting one 32 bit integer, after your computer has done all that work. The computer may choose to put that data into cache, but since your code is a cache buster, the effort is wasted. The inverse of the ACTV-ACTV time, gives the transaction rate, which will be a lot lower than a program that takes advantage of the burst access pattern when testing memory access. Memtest86+ does sequential access, so every byte of the data burst is used, and is counted towards the memory bandwidth value in megabytes/second. Random access bandwidth is a different measure than sequential access bandwidth. The measurement still has value, since some algorithms have that kind of access pattern, so some programs have no choice but to do it that way. Basically, all you end up doing, is comparing the access time of the various memory technologies. Memory access has not improved at the same rate as CPU core speed, so random access bandwidth measure would not be a very popular benchmark for your average computer enthusiast. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message . nl... Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). I also received a green card with instructions on it which shows how to install the memory chips into the motherboard's memory slots. Today I ran my own (32 bit) memory benchmark (on windows xp 64 bit) which reads as many integers from the memory as possible. The results were quite shocking... only 2.4 million bytes per second. Even my 6 year old pentium III 450 mhz overclocked to 600 mhz is able to achieve 3.1 million bytes per second. Are you still having problems? FOR GOD SAKE take that box back to your dealer and get them to put it together properly and stop messing around with it. You don't have a clue what you are doing. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
"Craig Sutton" wrote in message ... "Skybuck Flying" wrote in message . nl... Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). I also received a green card with instructions on it which shows how to install the memory chips into the motherboard's memory slots. Today I ran my own (32 bit) memory benchmark (on windows xp 64 bit) which reads as many integers from the memory as possible. The results were quite shocking... only 2.4 million bytes per second. Even my 6 year old pentium III 450 mhz overclocked to 600 mhz is able to achieve 3.1 million bytes per second. Are you still having problems? FOR GOD SAKE take that box back to your dealer and get them to put it together properly and stop messing around with it. You don't have a clue what you are doing. Lol you too funny. I am testing and taking my computer to the extreme to find any possible failures before the warranty ends Also to learn the limits of my computer Bye, Skybuck. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bios settings for TWINX2048-3200C2 on Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe ?
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message . nl... "Craig Sutton" wrote in message ... "Skybuck Flying" wrote in message . nl... Hello, I bought four of these memory chips: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR SDRAM, 1 GB, PC3200, 400 MHz (Double Side, Double Data Rate, Supported by motherboard). I also received a green card with instructions on it which shows how to install the memory chips into the motherboard's memory slots. Today I ran my own (32 bit) memory benchmark (on windows xp 64 bit) which reads as many integers from the memory as possible. The results were quite shocking... only 2.4 million bytes per second. Even my 6 year old pentium III 450 mhz overclocked to 600 mhz is able to achieve 3.1 million bytes per second. Are you still having problems? FOR GOD SAKE take that box back to your dealer and get them to put it together properly and stop messing around with it. You don't have a clue what you are doing. Lol you too funny. I am testing and taking my computer to the extreme to find any possible failures before the warranty ends Failure found - loose nut in front of the keyboard Also to learn the limits of my computer You have reached YOUR limits long before the rig did. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which Bios file for A7n8x2.0 Deluxe | EGK | Asus Motherboards | 2 | February 24th 06 12:12 AM |
Asus A7N8X v2.0 Deluxe bios settings | al | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | February 3rd 06 02:42 PM |
Asus A8V Deluxe: What Bios Version did yours come with? | Richard K Rabbat | Asus Motherboards | 1 | May 30th 05 01:27 PM |
SP2 865/875 Microcode Industry Failure? | Ron Reaugh | Asus Motherboards | 31 | September 13th 04 12:02 PM |
Understanding BIOS settings on ASUS motherboards | Charles | General | 2 | June 13th 04 10:46 PM |