What is the performance difference between the nForce 220 and the 420?

[MidiGuy]

What is the performance difference between the nForce 220 and the 420? I know the differences in the specs, but if you get the version that only has one memory bank instead of two, what is the decrease in performance? Also, if you do get the version with two memory banks, but only put RAM in one bank, I assume you would see the same performance decrease. Is that true?

Thanks!

-Midi

 

[Rand]

Also, if you do get the version with two memory banks, but only put RAM in one bank, I assume you would see the same performance decrease. Is that true?

Yes.


The performance difference is virtually nothing if your not using the integrated graphics. Peak differences of maybe 2-3% and generally they perform identically.

If you are going to make use of the integrated graphics, then the graphics core will see a hefty performance boost from the extra bandwidth, and even typical office apps will see a decent boost as the integrated GF2 will steal some of the system memory bandwidth needed by other components, specifically the processor.

 

[MidiGuy]

Thanks! Does anyone have any idea how much using the integrated graphics effects performance when only using one bank?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: MidiGuy
Thanks! Does anyone have any idea <STRONG>how much</STRONG> using the integrated graphics effects performance when only using one bank?

I have a A7N266-VM and 1 256mb stick of Crucial 2100DDR and the integrated G2 scores 1800 in the 3Dmark2001 S.E. and the mem bandwidth scores in Sandra are suck even with cas2 turbo settings, mid 1200's I have a 1600+ for it coming in thursday so I'll steal a stick from my other XP box when I change out CPUs on it and see what it'll do with both 64bit controllers running and post back then if you're still interested

 

[mechBgon]

Anand's take on it was that it was mostly 3D apps where the memory bandwidth was an issue, not 2D office-type apps. The onboard video does steal a chunk of actual RAM for itself (8, 16, or 32Mb depending on which you choose in the BIOS).

I have four of these boards at work so far, and I was curious to see how much RAM a typical user would use, and whether the missing 16Mb was forcing the system to page to disk. I tested on a system that runs Win2k, and we use McAfee VirusScan, which sucks down 22Mb by itself. Then I started Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint, Publisher, QuickBooks Pro, Microsoft Photo Editor and our Terminal Services client program. Out of 256Mb of RAM, I had about 110Mb free (oops, I said "in use" before) at that point. Not bad. I closed all the programs and then re-launched some. As expected with Win2k, *BLAM!* they appeared instantly on-screen again, direct from RAM. Nice!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

LOL, Nice post mechBgon I'm such a dumbass! I'll have to compare the 3Dmark scores and mem bandwidth before changing the CPU since the XP with a bigger cache and running synchronously with the ram will undoubtedly turn it better score than the 1ghz Morgan I have in there.

 

[MidiGuy]

Thanks for all the input! I'm looking forward to seeing your test results, DAPUNISHER.