• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

why is the 3rd memory slot a different color ?

Yep, it is the second memory channel. Install one stick in slot 1 (dark blue) and another stick in slot 3 (aquamarine) to enable dual channel.
 
Well yeah you can but it probably wont run too well.

You are supposed to balance the channels.

Channel 1: 2x 256mb
Channel 2: 1x 512mb

Do you see what i am saying? Additionally most boards require a 2T command rate, meaning Data instead of being transfered on the rise and the fall of the clock frequency, it is only transmitted on the rise. IMO not worth it.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Well yeah you can but it probably wont run too well.

You are supposed to balance the channels.

Channel 1: 2x 256mb
Channel 2: 1x 512mb

Do you see what i am saying? Additionally most boards require a 2T command rate, meaning Data instead of being transfered on the rise and the fall of the clock frequency, it is only transmitted on the rise. IMO not worth it.

-Kevin
Click to expand...


Thanks Kevin. I see how it works now. I would need to buy a 1gb stick of ram or 2 256mb sticks like you said.



 
That's something AMD really needs to address. The limitation in RAM timings and DIMM installation is simply stupid. On Intel systems, you can put as many sticks as you want and still get full dual-channel performace.
 
Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
That's something AMD really needs to address. The limitation in RAM timings and DIMM installation is simply stupid. On Intel systems, you can put as many sticks as you want and still get full dual-channel performace.
Click to expand...

When fully loaded there are very few M/Bs that can sustain the 1T timings. Intel or AMD or not the cause. You still need a 2T command rate even on an Intel board.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
I haven't noticed any performace drop when using four dimms, neither in benchmarks or real world. Memory bandwith is the same.
Click to expand...

Memory bandwidth stays the same. The command transfer rate changes. Which has a huge negative impact on everything aside from the A64 which still has a performance drop but not nearly as large.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Well yeah you can but it probably wont run too well.

You are supposed to balance the channels.

Channel 1: 2x 256mb
Channel 2: 1x 512mb

Do you see what i am saying? Additionally most boards require a 2T command rate, meaning Data instead of being transfered on the rise and the fall of the clock frequency, it is only transmitted on the rise. IMO not worth it.

-Kevin
Click to expand...


It has been proven that the difference between 1T and 2T timings is completely non existant. Running in 2T timing leads to no performance loss in real world applications.
 
What are you hell bent on trying to prove me wrong??

Wrong. There is a huge difference.

Link

Even OCed farther it still loses. Quake 3 is a very good test for testing memory performance and CPU performance.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: dguy6789
It has been proven that the difference between 1T and 2T timings is completely non existant. Running in 2T timing leads to no performance loss in real world applications.
Click to expand...

Proven to be non-existent? What the hell are smoking dude?
I'd say the complete opposite is true.
 
i run 3 stick of 512 on my MOBO it has 3 ram banks just like that one, there was no preformance hit when i went from 2 stick to 3 sticks, and when i ran 2 i had it in the DC config
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
That's something AMD really needs to address. The limitation in RAM timings and DIMM installation is simply stupid. On Intel systems, you can put as many sticks as you want and still get full dual-channel performace.
Click to expand...

When fully loaded there are very few M/Bs that can sustain the 1T timings. Intel or AMD or not the cause. You still need a 2T command rate even on an Intel board.

-Kevin
Click to expand...

Actually AMD is the cause as it has to do with the integrated memory controller on the CPU.
However, the new venice core fixes this.
With the Venice, 4 sticks of single-sided RAM can be run at DDR 400 @1T.
4 Sticks of double-sided RAM will run at DDR 400, but @2T.
A BIOS upgrade will be required for this, but you'll need one anyways to use the Venice core.

Edit: Of course this is only for A64 chips. Socket A does not have an integrated memory controller.
 
Yes however, this is the case on Pentium boards as well. The problem with the A64's is when the banks are fully loaded, the memory frequency defaults to 333, 2T is going to happen on any board when you stress the memory subsystem.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
What are you hell bent on trying to prove me wrong??

Wrong. There is a huge difference.

Link

Even OCed farther it still loses. Quake 3 is a very good test for testing memory performance and CPU performance.

-Kevin
Click to expand...

There is an entire thread showing this. They have made points that make anandtech's benchmark false(there are more differences between the 2 tests than the ram timing). Sisandra is the ONLY program so far that has shown to be more than 5% difference.

Read this and all will become clear.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1577496&enterthread=y
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
What are you hell bent on trying to prove me wrong??

Wrong. There is a huge difference.

Link

Even OCed farther it still loses. Quake 3 is a very good test for testing memory performance and CPU performance.
-Kevin
Click to expand...
Shall we ignore the decrease in SuperPi time, and the increase in Enemy Territory FPS, and instead look at SiSuck changes and Quake 3 FPS drops (of 1 or 2) when moving from 1T to 2T?


Originally posted by: Ike0069
Originally posted by: dguy6789
It has been proven that the difference between 1T and 2T timings is completely non existant. Running in 2T timing leads to no performance loss in real world applications.
Click to expand...

Proven to be non-existent? What the hell are smoking dude?
I'd say the complete opposite is true.
Click to expand...

And this is why Zebo created his thread.

Too many idiots spouting the same now disproved crap about 1T vs 2T.
We are looking at a max of 3% difference in REAL WORLD applications, and the possibility of (in the Anandtech article Gamingphreek so kindly linked to) a increase in overclockability on RAM buy almost 8%, which could in turn lead to an increase in clock speed, which would make up for the slight performance hit from 2T.

SiSoft is useless.
Quake 3 is useless (who cares if you get 2 fps less out of 600 in Quake 3 when you get maybe 2 more out of 120 in something else like Enemy Territory?)
2 from 120 is much better than 2 from 600 IMO.
 
OK im not as smart as some of you,

1)Can i use my 3x 512mb sticks?
2)Is this an upgraded board compared to my MSI MS-6380E


I play really only 2 games on my system. And do DVD backups. I love having 1.5gb of ram.
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
What are you hell bent on trying to prove me wrong??

Wrong. There is a huge difference.

Link

Even OCed farther it still loses. Quake 3 is a very good test for testing memory performance and CPU performance.
-Kevin
Click to expand...
Shall we ignore the decrease in SuperPi time, and the increase in Enemy Territory FPS, and instead look at SiSuck changes and Quake 3 FPS drops (of 1 or 2) when moving from 1T to 2T?


Originally posted by: Ike0069
Originally posted by: dguy6789
It has been proven that the difference between 1T and 2T timings is completely non existant. Running in 2T timing leads to no performance loss in real world applications.
Click to expand...

Proven to be non-existent? What the hell are smoking dude?
I'd say the complete opposite is true.
Click to expand...

And this is why Zebo created his thread.

Too many idiots spouting the same now disproved crap about 1T vs 2T.
We are looking at a max of 3% difference in REAL WORLD applications, and the possibility of (in the Anandtech article Gamingphreek so kindly linked to) a increase in overclockability on RAM buy almost 8%, which could in turn lead to an increase in clock speed, which would make up for the slight performance hit from 2T.

SiSoft is useless.
Quake 3 is useless (who cares if you get 2 fps less out of 600 in Quake 3 when you get maybe 2 more out of 120 in something else like Enemy Territory?)
2 from 120 is much better than 2 from 600 IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes you are able to OC farther. However you have to OC farther to make up for the performance delta. Notice even OCed the 2T RAM still cannot beat the 1T RAM.

We are not comparing the RAM at the same clockspeed in that article.

-Kevin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top