AMD Memory Problems Continue

[joe2004]

AMD advertises the memory controller on chip as a big advance but apparently this is a big weakness as well. With a Prescott available all that you need to get better memory handling is a new motherboard. For example DDR II will be supported with a new chipset.
With AMD you need a new processor! Current AMD chips do not support DDRII.
Not to mention that it is near impossible to run any decent overclocking with more than 2 sticks in 754.

 

[Tbirdkid]

Go buy a hot opteron.... to me.... im gonna save my money until later when it is all supported. which is why i own a barton and an asus a7n8x deluxe.

 

[Soulkeeper]

yeah going ddr-2 with either amd or intel is gonna be a problem if you don't have DEEP pockets

i wouldn't worry about it really mattering at first

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It's the trickle down theory :light: you buy bleeding edge hardware, use it awhile, when new stuff hits, you sell your stuff to someone who isn't an early adopter and buy the new stuff Leasing cost more but you always get to drive the new model.

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

DDRII-400 memory is slower than DDRI-400..

according to XBitlabs. AMD will support DDR-II memory at 667 and upwards, when real speed gains are realised.

 

[joe2004]

I am just learning the tricks with this memory controller of AMD. It is one weird thing, this is the main reason why chips are not going to overclock harder.
It cannot handle fast memory. I can easily get 2.5 GHz with the 3200+ but:
#1 not with 512 sticks
#2 not with 1:1 DDR400
#3 not with 2 sticks of DDR333
The higher you go you have to either slow memory down, or reduce the number of sticks, or reduce the number of banks, or stuff the voltage into sticks and so on.
The main problem for overclocking aren't PCI/AGP locks but the flaky memory controller. For some reason it is just not capable of handling aggressive settings. Now I am beginning to understand why the FX release was with registered memory. AMD just cannot figure out how to manage memory. Intel boys are laughing on that one though it is getting rather hot over there.

 

[Sahakiel]

I thought DDR II only increased the burst bandwidth. I was under the impression that access latency is still as high as DDR, but what they did was increase the burst rate for a single row.

 

[wicktron]

Originally posted by: joe2004
I am just learning the tricks with this memory controller of AMD. It is one weird thing, this is the main reason why chips are not going to overclock harder.
It cannot handle fast memory. I can easily get 2.5 GHz with the 3200+ but:
#1 not with 512 sticks
#2 not with 1:1 DDR400
#3 not with 2 sticks of DDR333
The higher you go you have to either slow memory down, or reduce the number of sticks, or reduce the number of banks, or stuff the voltage into sticks and so on.
The main problem for overclocking aren't PCI/AGP locks but the flaky memory controller. For some reason it is just not capable of handling aggressive settings. Now I am beginning to understand why the FX release was with registered memory. AMD just cannot figure out how to manage memory. Intel boys are laughing on that one though it is getting rather hot over there.

Your experience does not speak for the population.
There are PLENTY of folks that are able to run 2-2-2-6 on their A64 systems. You're making this into such an "Intel RULES, AMD SUCKS thread," and bring little to no valid points on the table.

 

[Duvie]

What is not valid Wicktron??? I guess you should test your A64...HUH??? He has an amd system and is an amd user...You discount his experience casue it isn't rosy yet do you have one to contradict it???

He has been in threads supporting and promoting AMD64's all over the place and has been really tweaking this stuff...I think he has a bit more possibly under his belt....

Also this is not the first I heard of the memory holding ppl back...Shimmishim maybe???

 

[wicktron]

Originally posted by: Duvie
What is not valid Wicktron??? I guess you should test your A64...HUH??? He has an amd system and is an amd user...You discount his experience casue it isn't rosy yet do you have one to contradict it???

He has been in threads supporting and promoting AMD64's all over the place and has been really tweaking this stuff...I think he has a bit more possibly under his belt....

Also this is not the first I heard of the memory holding ppl back...Shimmishim maybe???

Chill man...
But anyway, his blanket statements that "AMD Memory Problems Continue" and that "AMD just cannot figure out how to manage memory" without giving more than just his experience. And as for those who can run low latency on A64, here:

Here (2-2-2-x)
Here (CAS2)

And 2 users to whom I inquired about their A64 systems via PM.

 

[Duvie]

ActuallY I never felt like he was speaking for everyone...When i first read te topic of the thread I assumed he was talking about his continuing oc saga which I have been following cause he has one of the higher OC I have seen on the A64 next to shimmishim....

I think you need to chill.....

What in that first post does he state that is so wrong???


Have you bothered to read many of the reviews to date so far that showed cas timings had little effect on the A64...Dapunisher has linked it multiple times. Some ppl here I wont list names could possible OC further if the would relax their timings. It is more like a brag fest anyways....I rather loosen the timings to get possibly 50-100 more mhz then just to say Hey I am running cas 2,2,2,6....


I don't think you have to be a genius to figure out that the chipset and mobo could be limiting factors in this as well...Yet no one states this to him.

 

[wicktron]

Originally posted by: Duvie
ActuallY I never felt like he was speaking for everyone...When i first read te topic of the thread I assumed he was talking about his continuing oc saga which I have been following cause he has one of the higher OC I have seen on the A64 next to shimmishim....

I think you need to chill.....

What in that first post does he state that is so wrong???


Have you bothered to read many of the reviews to date so far that showed cas timings had little effect on the A64...Dapunisher has linked it multiple times. Some ppl here I wont list names could possible OC further if the would relax their timings. It is more like a brag fest anyways....I rather loosen the timings to get possibly 50-100 more mhz then just to say Hey I am running cas 2,2,2,6....


I don't think you have to be a genius to figure out that the chipset and mobo could be limiting factors in this as well...Yet no one states this to him.

Ay man, you're the one with the triple ??? acting all defensive about something, but whatever with that.
The thing he said was this:

Now I am beginning to understand why the FX release was with registered memory. AMD just cannot figure out how to manage memory. Intel boys are laughing on that one though it is getting rather hot over there.

Regardless of what you may think, that is a blanket statement and is fanboyish by saying "Intel boys are laughing on that one," like somehow AMD's product is inferior to Intel's.

And regardless of 'little' performance difference, there is still 'performance difference.'
Although typical, not all people have to sacrifice timings for memory and overall CPU speed.

 

[Elcs]

Its early and I havent had time to fully wake-up and comprehend this thread.... too technical before University.

Are we sure that the overclocking abilities are limited by the chip or are they limited by motherboard/chipset?

I think Prescott has started well, mainly due to the success of the P4 in recent times. It had a base to start off from which was very mature. We are still seeing problems but the Prescott is quite different from the other P4 chips.

AMD brought in their 64 range without a base. Brand new chip, brand new motherboard, brand new chipset..... everything will have some sort of 'teething' problems.... look at T'Bred A's and then look at T'Bred B's for example.

We just need to sit back and see how the game plays out.

 

[uncleX]

>...this is a big weakness as well. With a Prescott available all that you need to get
> better memory handling is a new motherboard.

Yeah. I think I am going to get a new mobo for my 800MHz Tbird so i can use it with DDR II---NOT.

At the rate at which CPUs advance in comparison to mobos, don't people generally do it the other way: get a new CPU to put in the old mobo? There are people still trying to put a faster CPU in their BX mobos. I don't know of anyone trying to find a faster replacement mobo for their 300MHz Celeron. People would think they were nuts.

But you are right that integrated anything reduces flexibility. From an engineering standpoint though, the more integration, the more performance you can squeeze out. Take one example: Before IDE HDs, the data separator was located on an external HD controller. Without the data separator being relocated on the HD, they could never achieve the data rates they do today.

In the old days, it was not unusual to have lots of slots/sockets for adding memory. Why has that changed? Primarily because the bus speed has gone up so much it has become practically impossible to insure reliability with a variable amount of bus loading. The higher the speed, the worse it gets.

I guess we know why AMD went to an integrated memory controller, engineering aside. As proved by experience, they couldn't rely on chipset makers to do memory controllers as good as they did for Intel chips, or get them out in a timely manner.