AMD San Diego 4000+ and 5x512MB vs 2x1GB

[alkemyst]

I can't find a set answer especially on the San Diego cores.

i have 2x512mb ocz EL 3200 Plat Rev2, on a K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI. I can run at 280x9 / 231Mhz to the memory at 2-3-3-7 timings.

I would like to go 2GB...to buy 2x1GB it would be about $200, to simply add another pair of 512mb's about $80.

Anyone try these combinations? I would like to try loosening my timings (2.5/3-3-3-8 or so) and try for a higher memory timing.

Thanks
Å

 

[myocardia]

You're either gonna have to go with 2x1 GB sticks, or keep your 2x512 MB sticks, and add a single 1GB stick of RAM that will overclock roughly the same, with the same timings. Your San Diego can only handle 3 sticks at 200 Mhz (or over, when overclocking). If you have 4 sticks, you'll have to use a low memory divider, so you can keep it below 166 Mhz, and will also have to use a 2T command rate. But, you do lose dual-channel with 3 sticks, it seems.

 

[alkemyst]

The San Diego can run 4 sticks at DDR333 divider and 1T.

I am running at that divider now to give me 231 (FSB 280) on my memory.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: myocardia
You're either gonna have to go with 2x1 GB sticks, or keep your 2x512 MB sticks, and add a single 1GB stick of RAM that will overclock roughly the same, with the same timings. Your San Diego can only handle 3 sticks at 200 Mhz (or over, when overclocking). If you have 4 sticks, you'll have to use a low memory divider, so you can keep it below 166 Mhz, and will also have to use a 2T command rate. But, you do lose dual-channel with 3 sticks, it seems.

3 sticks will mean running in single channel, rather than dual channel - I think that's going to cause more of a performance hit, and AFAIK, Socket 939 motherboards don't allow 3 sticks anyway?

 

[kurt454]

San diegos can do 4x512 sticks at DDR400 at 2t command rate or DDR333 at 1t.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
The San Diego can run 4 sticks at DDR333 divider and 1T.

I am running at that divider now to give me 231 (FSB 280) on my memory.

You won't be running 4 sticks at 231 Mhz. That was my point all along. With 4 sticks, you'll have to keep your RAM under 166 Mhz @ 1T or under 200 Mhz @ 2T. Both are miles from 231 @ 1T.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
3 sticks will mean running in single channel, rather than dual channel - I think that's going to cause more of a performance hit, and AFAIK, Socket 939 motherboards don't allow 3 sticks anyway?

I can assure you, you're completely wrong. All Skt. 939 motherboards allow 3 sticks of RAM, and "losing" dual-channel is gonna be way less of a performance hit than losing either ~60 Mhz of RAM bandwidth @ 1T or losing 30 Mhz of RAM bandwidth, and also having to run a 2T command rate.

 

[alkemyst]

losing dual channel depends on if you need it. I am doing more research tonight. I may just say screw it and buy the 2x1gb and call it a day.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
losing dual channel depends on if you need it. I am doing more research tonight. I may just say screw it and buy the 2x1gb and call it a day.

Since you're overclocking, that would really be your best choice. Overclocking with 3 sticks is much better than overclocking with 4. But, neither comes close to having only 2x1 GB sticks. You most likely will be able to sell your 512 MB sticks for a decent price to someone who doesn't overclock, and won't care that they'll lose a bit of performance by having 4x512 MB sticks, since they'll be doubling their RAM.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
3 sticks will mean running in single channel, rather than dual channel - I think that's going to cause more of a performance hit, and AFAIK, Socket 939 motherboards don't allow 3 sticks anyway?

I can assure you, you're completely wrong. All Skt. 939 motherboards allow 3 sticks of RAM, and "losing" dual-channel is gonna be way less of a performance hit than losing either ~60 Mhz of RAM bandwidth @ 1T or losing 30 Mhz of RAM bandwidth, and also having to run a 2T command rate.

I can assure YOU you're completely wrong. My Dad's Gigabyte board CAN'T run 3 sticks, and I remember looking at equivalent boards from MSI at the time and seeing that 3 sticks weren't supported.

 

[alkemyst]

some of the boards cannot support odd memory stick configs...

Anyway right from OCZRyder, being I am overclocking; running 4 dimms will add stress to the system...2x1GB will increase it somewhat ove 2x512mb, but not as much as 4 dimms.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
I can assure you, you're completely wrong. All Skt. 939 motherboards allow 3 sticks of RAM, and "losing" dual-channel is gonna be way less of a performance hit than losing either ~60 Mhz of RAM bandwidth @ 1T or losing 30 Mhz of RAM bandwidth, and also having to run a 2T command rate.

I can assure YOU you're completely wrong. My Dad's Gigabyte board CAN'T run 3 sticks, and I remember looking at equivalent boards from MSI at the time and seeing that 3 sticks weren't supported. [/quote]
I can assure YOU that I not only ran for a short time with 3 sticks, so did this guy. Are you calling him a liar, also? Oh, and like I had said in an earlier post on this thread, he also agrees that it was much easier to overclock with 3 sticks.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
3 sticks will mean running in single channel, rather than dual channel - I think that's going to cause more of a performance hit, and AFAIK, Socket 939 motherboards don't allow 3 sticks anyway?

I can assure you, you're completely wrong. All Skt. 939 motherboards allow 3 sticks of RAM, and "losing" dual-channel is gonna be way less of a performance hit than losing either ~60 Mhz of RAM bandwidth @ 1T or losing 30 Mhz of RAM bandwidth, and also having to run a 2T command rate.

I can assure YOU you're completely wrong. My Dad's Gigabyte board CAN'T run 3 sticks, and I remember looking at equivalent boards from MSI at the time and seeing that 3 sticks weren't supported.

Just because your dad's motherboard and some MSI boards can't do it doesn't mean that all NF4 boards are incapable of doing it.

 

[lopri]

Go with 2 x 1GB. From my experience with Vista 64-bit, by the end of the year 4GB of system RAM will be the de facto standard for benchmarks. Especially if you like to play demanding games. Company of Heroes feels like 10~20 FPS faster with 4GB of RAM under Vista, compared to 2GB under XP. I know it's hard to believe it and I didn't think that's the case at the beginning. It's like when folks found out how much smoother BF2 ran with 2GB of RAM vs 1GB. Only difference being now it's 4GB vs 2GB, a phenomenon which will only be accelerated by Vista.

 

[f4phantom2500]

lopri:

True, but by the end of the year his machine will be so far outdated just because it's 939. Even if he gets 4 gigs of ram, he's still using a single core processor, and even if he upgrades to a 939 dual core it will probably suck by the end of the year in relation to the hardware that will be out then.

EDIT: I still think 2x1GB is the way to go if possible.

 

[lopri]

That's true, too. I guess I was too compelled by Vista and its memory usage. I was just about to start a thread about it.

My main rig is also a 939 rig and I intend to keep it for some time to come. It's my work machine and 2GB is more than enough with XP. I stand corrected.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
I can assure you, you're completely wrong. All Skt. 939 motherboards allow 3 sticks of RAM, and "losing" dual-channel is gonna be way less of a performance hit than losing either ~60 Mhz of RAM bandwidth @ 1T or losing 30 Mhz of RAM bandwidth, and also having to run a 2T command rate.

I can assure YOU you're completely wrong. My Dad's Gigabyte board CAN'T run 3 sticks, and I remember looking at equivalent boards from MSI at the time and seeing that 3 sticks weren't supported.

I can assure YOU that I not only ran for a short time with 3 sticks, so did this guy. Are you calling him a liar, also? Oh, and like I had said in an earlier post on this thread, he also agrees that it was much easier to overclock with 3 sticks.[/quote]

so two dudes set the stage that all S939 boards are compatible with 3 sticks of ram....

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
lopri:

True, but by the end of the year his machine will be so far outdated just because it's 939. Even if he gets 4 gigs of ram, he's still using a single core processor, and even if he upgrades to a 939 dual core it will probably suck by the end of the year in relation to the hardware that will be out then.

EDIT: I still think 2x1GB is the way to go if possible.

my machine will continue to be able to do what I want it too. I am not into the latest FPS games.

Most are saying that the S939 platform should have a couple more years of life in it.

It will not be cutting edge nor the fastest at that time, but my machine currently is faster and better performing than most I know.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
lopri:

True, but by the end of the year his machine will be so far outdated just because it's 939. Even if he gets 4 gigs of ram, he's still using a single core processor, and even if he upgrades to a 939 dual core it will probably suck by the end of the year in relation to the hardware that will be out then.

EDIT: I still think 2x1GB is the way to go if possible.

my machine will continue to be able to do what I want it too. I am not into the latest FPS games.

Most are saying that the S939 platform should have a couple more years of life in it.

It will not be cutting edge nor the fastest at that time, but my machine currently is faster and better performing than most I know.

Oh yeah, I think you're right, but I think the same thing about 2GB of RAM. It will be fine (like 939), but not bleeding edge like 4GB (and like Penryn/K10 or whatever).