slow memory bechmark for ecs k7s5a

[gphang]

Like the title says I think I have slow memory bechmark for ecs k7s5a.

My setup is:

ecs k7s5a
Duron 700 on
Crucial 256 DDR 2100

I'm set at 100/133 for cpu/memory settings in bios.

My score with Sisoft Sandra is
1073/1044

Reference for SIS 735 PC2100u CL2 DDR (K7 1.4GHz) is
1757/1663

Why are my memory benchmark so low. Is this normal for having a Duron 700? Is the difference in CPU speed?

 

[Duvie]

i believe that sandra mem scores says it is a test of CPU-Chipset-Memory....duron 700's cache will be quite a hit versus tbirds more cache and faster speed of that cache....

1)cpu speed equate to cache speed
2)may have something to do with asynch timings...many boards seem to have issues with, and I have seen many report such with ecs mobo though usually sdram pc133...

3)what are the memory settings like in the bios???

 

[bowie71]

yes it's normal using Duron 700 and PC133 SDRAM to have that number, moreover it's really unfair to benchmark your CPU/memory setting to a different type of cpu and memory stick, Athlon 1.4 is faster and has more cache than Duron 700, and moreover, DDRAM PC2100 is twice faster than PC133.

My K7S5A ( wth one less capasitor) with DDRAM PC2100 256MB ahd Athlon XP 1900+ @1650Mhz can hit 1749/1664 which is not too bad compare to SiS735 reference board with DDRAM PC2100 and Athlon 1.4Mhz benchmark in Sandra.

 

[Peter]

Well first of all Duron-700 can't use the full bandwidth of DDR266 RAM, so you might end up faster
clocking at 100/100 - sacrificing the mostly unneeded throughput headroom in order to avoid the
latency hit of async busses.

Then, you might want to use the latest BIOS (not yet available from www.ecs.com.tw, but from
www.pcchips.com.tw - 830 or 830LR (no LAN/LAN versions). Big improvement in PCI card compatibility,
but also in the area of RAM handling.

regards, Peter

 

[DieHardware]

SIS 735 has terrible asynchronous performance...get a 266CPU or put a big HSF on that Duron, close all L7s and set the board to 133/133.

 

[Peter]

... with DDR RAM, yes, as I explained above, because you just add latency and gain no throughput because
the CPU is too slow to use it.

With SDRAM however, 100/133 still has worse latency than 100/100, but the 33 percent gain in throughput
(which with SDRAM is actually used by the 100 MHz DDR CPU) more than makes up for that.

Got the latter situation at home, I know what I'm talking about

regards, Peter

 

[bowie71]

<< ......unneeded throughput headroom in order to avoid the
latency hit of async busses.

Then, you might want to use the latest BIOS (not yet available from www.ecs.com.tw, but from
www.pcchips.com.tw - 830 or 830LR (no LAN/LAN versions). Big improvement in PCI card compatibility,
but also in the area of RAM handling. >>



Honestly, I'm not familiar with technical terms like latency, RAM handling, assinc busses, and so on, but still I tried to install PCCHIPS BIOS in my K7S5A as Peter suggested to see the difference between ECS BIOS and PCCHIPS BIOS, too bad, using the similar BIOS setting, My sandra Memory Benchmark score using PCHIPS latest BIOS is only 1710/1650. I decide to go back using ECS latest BIOS, and VOILA!!!! happy to see my benchmark score goes back to 1749/1664.

Could you please tell me whether I misunderstood the meaning of sandra memory benchmark score, bigger number means better performance rite?

 

[Peter]

Well yes, but look at the figures again ... that's a two percent difference, apart from the fact that this is well within measuring tolerance, it might be explained from the fact that the real latest BIOS (the 2002/03/25 release) is adjusted for better SDRAM compatibility when two DIMMs are present - again, if there actually is any difference and not just variations in measurement.
The BIOS from the ECS site is older, but they'll release the exact same 2002/03/25 real soon now. On the same release date, there is no real difference between ECS and PC-Chips BIOSes (and boards) except for the name string btw.

regards, Peter

 

[gphang]

Thanks for all the replys! Now it makes sense not to compare a honda accord using premium gasonline and a corvette using the same gas Much appreciated.

 

[Peter]

you're welcome ... to put the lid onto that topic, here are my numbers.

Using a Duron-600, and a quality 256-MByte stick of PC133 SDRAM.

Timing in BIOS set to Ultra, tCL=2, tRAS=6, tRRD=3 (i.e. as fast as it gets).

Took a few real world apps, latency bound, streaming, throughput bound. Sorry these are not the usual Windows benches, I'm running Linux here.

So, here goes (all averages across ten runs):

CPU/RAM 100/100

Memtest-86 says 281 MB/s, finishes tests 1-3 in 3:07 minutes.
LAME encodes the test song in 1:51 minutes, a realtime ratio of 2.10x.
hdparm -T /dev/sda does a 128 MByte buffer-to-buffer copy in 0,76 seconds.

CPU/RAM 100/133

Memtest-86 says 259 MB/s, finishes tests 1-3 in 3:22 minutes.
LAME encodes the test song in 1:52 minutes, a realtime ratio of 2.09x.
hdparm -T /dev/sda does a 128 MByte buffer-to-buffer copy in 0,73 seconds.


I also saw that the "Ultra" BIOS setting is much more aggressive at 100 MHz, so if you have a generic DIMM that runs "Normal" only, then memtest-86 is down to 3:33 mins at 100/100, but runs in 3:26 mins at 100/133.

Bottom line:
With the truly excellent SDRAM DIMM, 100/133 is as fast or faster in normal applications, only special stuff that does many many single RAM accesses instead of bursting larger chunks to and from RAM is faster on 100/100.
With a more generic DIMM, the latter effect vanishes, and 100/133 is faster in everything.

This underlines my above theory, better latency only matters when there's plenty bandwidth. Sorry I don't have any DDR RAM at hand, but we all know the result - 100/100 is faster than 100/133 in everything. Enough other people measured that already.

So ...

Generic SDRAM: Run 100/133
Quality SDRAM: Run 100/133 unless you have one of these "special" apps, run 100/100 then.
DDR RAM: Run 100/100, the extra bandwidth of 133 DDR won't be used by a 100 DDR CPU, but the extra latency will slow things down.

regards, Peter

regards, Peter

 

[bowie71]

<< ....., I'm running Linux here. >>




Peter, can you make the onboard LAN works with your LINUX?.. I can't make it works,.. any sugestion to me?.. I have a project to operate Linux for my home networking using this AMAZING ECS K7S5A (mine works with one less capasitor that is burnt out for unknown reason).

Regards and Thx in advance

 

[Peter]

Yes, got it running, no problem. Kernel 2.4.17, driver module is sis900.o.

Got the sound running as well - ALSA 0.9.0-beta12, driver module (oddly enough) snd-intel8x0.o.

regards, Peter