# First AMD Benchmarks With DDR3 Memory Posted



## btarunr (Jan 24, 2009)

Better late than never, AMD is embracing the DDR3 memory standard. Its newest desktop CPU socket, the AM3, connects the processor to dual-channel DDR3 memory. Initial specifications about AMD's processors on the new socket suggest that DDR3 1333MHz (PC3-10600) will be held as the memory standard the integrated memory controllers on AMD's processors support. The far-east team of Tom's Hardware posted the first series of benchmarks of a Phenom II AM3 processor, when paired with DDR3-1333. The benchmarks featured Gigabyte's MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard along with Corsair's dual-channel DDR3-1333 kit running at DRAM timings of 9-9-9-24. The CPU-Z window also shows that the memory modules are running unganged, meaning that the two memory controllers of the Deneb core are independent, with each controller handling a 64-bit wide memory channel. This state is somewhat comparable to that of single-channel memory, except that multi-threaded applications will still be able to independently address memory on each channel, utilizing all the bandwidth on offer.

At the center of the test-bench was the AMD Phenom II X4 910, the company's first flagship quad-core AM3 processor. The X4 910 features a default clock speed of 2.60 GHz. The same chip was tested in two settings: default clock-speeds, and overclocked to 3.12 GHz (240 x 13.0 @ default vCore). The screenshots below show the test results for WPrime. The overclocked chip scored a crunch-time of 46.613 s (1M). The overclock did not affect SuperPi at all, with insignificant differences in the scores between the two. PC Mark 05 got a decent boost, while 3DMark06 didn't. Memory bandwidth and latency tests showed something strange, with the overclocked CPU (in effect memory) turning up with lesser latency (while normally, increase in clock speeds tend to step up latencies). The tests show that there are increments in performance with the use of DDR3 memory, though they are merely proportional to the clock speeds the memory is running at. 



 

 






 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 24, 2009)

Very nice jumps when the 910 is oc'd. Looking good though I Wish they did a triple channel like intel did.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 24, 2009)

these tests seemed a bit odd when i found them and wprime looks to have been run on a single core when you factor in a 3.89x efficiency factor (about what these get) for the chip it is pretty close to the numbers a phenom 2+DDR2 gives


also this is set for stability not performance so you could easily see them saving several seconds off everything with proper settings


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jan 24, 2009)

> The benchmarks featured Gigabyte's MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard along with Corsair's dual-channel DDR3-1333 kit running at DRAM timings of 9-9-9-24.



FAIL.

Why use RAM that's barely faster than DDR2 and ridiculously loose timings?


----------



## Darksaber (Jan 24, 2009)

just my two cents...that looks more like gigabyte marketing than anything else...Gigabyte GPUs, Board, CPU Cooler (which cannot be qualified as an OC cooler by any means)


----------



## cdawall (Jan 24, 2009)

Darksaber said:


> just my two cents...that looks more like gigabyte marketing than anything else...Gigabyte GPUs, Board, CPU Cooler (which cannot be qualified as an OC cooler by any means)



it is GB marketing but thats against the point lol


----------



## Octavean (Jan 24, 2009)

Phenom II X4 910,……?

I thought the first AM3 chips were going to be Phenom II X4 945,….?


----------



## suraswami (Jan 24, 2009)

hmm another sh**y review from sh**y one sided site.  why bother seeing this?


----------



## Weer (Jan 24, 2009)

Everyone always thanks the AMD-news poster.


----------



## zithe (Jan 24, 2009)

Weer said:


> Everyone always thanks the AMD-news poster.



Because this is something everyone wants to see. AMD got a chip that's competitive with core 2. Both will be in focus for maybe a year or two longer as most people don't really need more power. I'd say that making the chips as good as they are wasn't a bad move by AMD. They need a cash cow, not a killer flagship chip.


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jan 24, 2009)

And I'll be one of the first to be feeding that cash cow the minute the 945 or 950 is released.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 24, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> FAIL.
> 
> Why use RAM that's barely faster than DDR2 and ridiculously loose timings?



Ding-Ding, that's what I was thinking as well.  Who would actually buy this type of ram for an enthusiast PC? I checked newegg and found a 2gig kit of G.Skill DDR3 1333Mhz ram at 7-7-7-18 for $65 + shipping.  I wonder what the result are when that ram is used.

Edit:
It looks like they used these the cheapest I know of right now.  I still believe they should have used a much lower timing for such low speed ram.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 24, 2009)

Not to nit-pick results but the CineBench results when OC shows a pretty big gain.  Only time will tell if high latency DDR3 negatively impacts PII performance.  I await more results from synthetics as well as games!


----------



## Blacklash (Jan 24, 2009)

Yep I want to see gaming results, particularly with HD 4870 1Gb Crossfire.


----------



## HolyCow02 (Jan 24, 2009)

Mega-Japan said:


> And I'll be one of the first to be feeding that cash cow the minute the 945 or 950 is released.



Here Here! 

Nice to see a 510MHz overclock on stock voltage. Should get pretty good when you have a non-shitty cooler on it


----------



## Weer (Jan 24, 2009)

zithe said:


> Because this is something everyone wants to see. AMD got a chip that's competitive with core 2. Both will be in focus for maybe a year or two longer as most people don't really need more power. I'd say that making the chips as good as they are wasn't a bad move by AMD. They need a cash cow, not a killer flagship chip.



And I'd like to believe that what I see as fanboy-ism is actually civil-minded market-competition protection.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2009)

As far as I'm concerned, it's a worthless benchmark.  All they do is test stock vs. overclocked.  So?  Of course it will be slightly faster is that not the point of overclocking (dah)?  We need to know how this processor, at stock, stacks up to the DDR2 processors (Phenom II 920 or 940), at stock.  Stock vs overclocked proves absolutely nothing.  Pathetic.


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jan 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As far as I'm concerned, it's a worthless benchmark.  All they do is test stock vs. overclocked.  So?  Of course it will be slightly faster is that not the point of overclocking (dah)?  We need to know how this processor, at stock, stacks up to the DDR2 processors (Phenom II 920 or 940), at stock.  Stock vs overclocked proves absolutely nothing.  Pathetic.



I don't find it to be THAT bad but I do would like to see comparison with Core 2 at the same memory.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 24, 2009)

Agreed, as a sneek-peek it does provide some information.  This really isn't a full blown review of PII using DDR3.  It just gives you an idea of what to expect using cheap ram IMO.  What I didn't like was that they didn't provide good information as to CF results since they used it.


----------



## TheScavenger (Jan 24, 2009)

What this article is really lacking is a control setup/processor to test the DDR3/AM3 setup against. Those benchmarks mean nothing to me because there isn't a Phenom II AM2+ to compare them against!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 24, 2009)

TheScavenger said:


> What this article is really lacking is a control setup/processor to test the DDR3/AM3 setup against. Those benchmarks mean nothing to me because there isn't a Phenom II AM2+ to compare them against!



We are just going to have to wait until full reviews are published.  After reading this article I didn't get the impression that information was needed at this time until a complete and full review is shown.


----------



## Octavean (Jan 24, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> FAIL.
> 
> Why use RAM that's barely faster than DDR2 and ridiculously loose timings?



LOL, it wasn't too long ago people were saying the same thing about DDR2 with respect to DDR1 on both AMD and Intel platforms.


----------



## Swansen (Jan 24, 2009)

Octavean said:


> LOL, it wasn't too long ago people were saying the same thing about DDR2 with respect to DDR1 on both AMD and Intel platforms.



exactly, thats because there isn't any noticeable gain in performance with any new DDR jump.... and there won't be until they can figure out how to bring down latency.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 24, 2009)

What does it matter how DDR3 run vs DDR3 OC'd. Why didn't they toss the 910 into an AM2+ board after set it to the same clocks and test it compared to DDR2?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 24, 2009)

Hold on a sec, why are they using Wprime 1.55? WPrime 2.00 was released Sept 2008.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 24, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Hold on a sec, why are they using Wprime 1.55? WPrime 2.00 was released Sept 2008.



It's tomshardware funded by Gigashit. What else do you expect?


----------



## Octavean (Jan 24, 2009)

Swansen said:


> exactly, thats because there isn't any noticeable gain in performance with any new DDR jump.... and there won't be until they can figure out how to bring down latency.




My point, in case it was missed  and my guess is that it was,  simply is that the transition from DDR2 to DDR3 is the direction that the industry is going in. The transition from DDR1 to DDR2 was a certainty, why fight it?

For example, some people may want a super fast high end single core processor but Intel and AMD will be giving us Dual Core and Quad Core processors for these markets. Both companies will likely phase out even Dual Core,….

That’s life, just be thankful there isn’t a significant performance deficit in most cases with the new memory type,…..  Also be thankful that there is a choice between DDR2 and DDR3 for the Phenom II,….. Lord knows Core i7 users don’t have that choice


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 25, 2009)

If it's possible, one should just get DDR3-1600 at CL7 and try to get the best speed possible.  Again, if the setup will allow you to boot with DDR3-1600 at DDR3-1333 (for example).  Get the best stable OC for your PII and the highest possible speed for your ram.

Granted we will still need to see a full review between DDR2 vs DDR3.  But if I one was to get a AM3 setup regardless, this would be the route I would take if the ram can be used.   

However, another question arises from this.  If you are not able to get DDR3-1600 can you do CL5 or CL6 at or around DDR3-1400 (for example)?  Time will tell either through reviews or through personal experiences.


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 25, 2009)

Swansen said:


> exactly, thats because there isn't any noticeable gain in performance with any new DDR jump.... and there won't be until they can figure out how to bring down latency.



latency timings *are not *100% of the performance equation when it comes to the next DDR series.

I'm not going to go into it here, as there are more than enough threads running around TPU that discuss this little aspect; there's no need to get hung up on the high-timings of DDR3 when you stop to consider how much *more* information DDR3 moves per clock cycle compared to DDR2.


----------



## iamverysmart (Jan 25, 2009)

Swansen said:


> exactly, thats because there isn't any noticeable gain in performance with any new DDR jump.... and there won't be until they can figure out how to bring down latency.


The latency is fine. Do some research. The timings don't directly convert to latency.

For example you can have 1066Mhz C6 with lower latency then 800Mhz C4.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 25, 2009)

What research? There are no benchmark results using AM3 yet.  What we are looking for is to see what results are when AM3 is put to the test.  At the time of this post, I don't know of any link providing this information.  Do you have a link providing these results using AM3?


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 25, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> However, another question arises from this.  If you are not able to get DDR3-1600 can you do CL5 or CL6 at or around DDR3-1400 (for example)?  Time will tell either through reviews or through personal experiences.



Check the current market, there is no such DDR3 at that latency.

But _*here*_, the fastest DDR3, and it's not released yet.



ShadowFold said:


> It's tomshardware funded by Gigashit. What else do you expect?



GIGAshit? Lolz

At least, GIGA Boards don't need to boot from any kind of devices to update their board bios, (Press End when POST, and update your bios from FAT32 partition), and that isn't from Windows.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 25, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> Check the current market, there is no such DDR3 at that latency.
> 
> But _*here*_, the fastest DDR3, and it's not released yet.


I honestly don't think you understood my question.  I am talking about when folk do us DDR3-1600 and are not able to actually get 1600 MHz (something lower around 1400 for example). Will they be able to use CL5 or CL6?  This type of question cannot be answered until they are made available for use.


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 25, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I honestly don't think you understood my question.  I am talking about when folk do us DDR3-1600 and are not able to actually get 1600 MHz (something lower around 1400 for example). Will they be able to use CL5 or CL6?  This type of question cannot be answered until they are made available for use.



From what little I've seen, timings with DDR3 don't seem to make too phenomenal of a difference in terms of overall performance.  DDR3 seems to benefit a lot more from higher clock speeds than it does tighter timings.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 25, 2009)

imperialreign said:


> From what little I've seen, timings with DDR3 don't seem to make too phenomenal of a difference in terms of overall performance.  DDR3 seems to benefit a lot more from higher clock speeds than it does tighter timings.



IMO when it comes to ram speed is everything at a decent timing.  I was speculating on a specific scenario were  a user wasn't able to achieve DDR3-1600.  

In the end, we will have to wait and see if they are able to actually get DDR3-1600 stable or not.


----------



## Formula350 (Jan 25, 2009)

On my Toledo 939 X2, the overclock HELP my latency. I get 47ns @ 450mhz mem and 2.7ghz CPU, but 49.9ns @ 426mhz mem and 2.55ghz CPU. This is Corsair 2x1gb XMS Platinum @ 2.5-3-3-6 1T (highest overall timing is only 9). So maybe that's a DDR2/3 issue with higher clocks making the memory's latency rise.


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 25, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> IMO when it comes to ram speed is everything at a decent timing.  I was speculating on a specific scenario were  a user wasn't able to achieve DDR3-1600.
> 
> In the end, we will have to wait and see if they are able to actually get DDR3-1600 stable or not.



I tend to agree, but, in regards to DDR3, I don't think forcing lower CAS timings would prove to be that beneficial, even for users who can't push higher clock speeds.

In regards to my setup, I saw little benefit in forcing CAS6 versus my current timings at the same clock speed (1800).  So little, actually, I decided that it wasn't worth the risk of instability to shave fractions of a ns off latency benches.

Granted, this is with a X38 chipset - AMD's might be a completely different ballpark in regards to actual operational performance of DDR3 on their setups.


----------



## Polarman (Jan 25, 2009)

Pretty pointless.

Everyone wants a DDR2 Vs DDR3 comparison using the exact same settings to actually see it it really does improve at all.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 25, 2009)

Darksaber said:


> just my two cents...that looks more like gigabyte marketing than anything else...Gigabyte GPUs, Board, CPU Cooler (which cannot be qualified as an OC cooler by any means)



That cooler looks sufficient for a 2.60 to 3.10 GHz OC (voltage is constant), though the marketing crap is where they used two HD 2600 XT silent cards.

This p(r)eview shows performance scaling with an overclock that roughly sends the memory frequency to that of DDR3-1600.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 25, 2009)

imperialreign said:


> I tend to agree, but, in regards to DDR3, I don't think forcing lower CAS timings would prove to be that beneficial, even for users who can't push higher clock speeds.
> 
> In regards to my setup, I saw little benefit in forcing CAS6 versus my current timings at the same clock speed (1800).  So little, actually, I decided that it wasn't worth the risk of instability to shave fractions of a ns off latency benches.
> 
> Granted, this is with a X38 chipset - AMD's might be a completely different ballpark in regards to actual operational performance of DDR3 on their setups.



Thus the reason why we have to wait until either
A. Someone tests it for themselves and post results
B. A review is made available regarding the subject

In the end, what can be said without speculating is that if a lower latency doesn't hurt performance and proves to be stable there is no reason why one shouldn't.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jan 25, 2009)

good , but the new gigabyte mobo support 1600 ram fsb , why they use 1333


----------



## Bl4ck (Jan 25, 2009)

i know what my next cpu will be ;], time to go quad, Intel is to pricey for me , i rather give the money to AMD for now , not really need those "super pi breakers" ;]


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 25, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> good , but the new gigabyte mobo support 1600 ram fsb , why they use 1333



next logical step, and 1600 ram is really for overclocking anyway.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jan 25, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> next logical step, and 1600 ram is really for overclocking anyway.



i mean i want to see overclock the 1600 ddr3 , how much this mobo can handle


----------



## nanohead (Jan 25, 2009)

I'm staying with DDR2 AM2+ until there is a material difference that I can feel in day to day work, or DDR3 is almost as cheap as DDR2 is now.   

While the amount of data moved in and out of memory with DDR3 is somewhat greater, remember that DDR3 was really motivated by large power reductions (claimed 30%) over DDR2, and less so for lower latency.   

And everyone complained with DDR2 CAS numbers went from 1.5 or 2 all the way up to 7 when DDR2 was initially released.   Somehow we survived that horrific event in human history


----------



## Lozza (Jan 25, 2009)

> The overclocked chip scored a crunch-time of 46.613 s (1M).



That seems ridiculous. My Opteron 165 scores 30.907s in 1M at 2.8GHz so there is definitly something wrong with their testing, or the chips have somehow got worse.


----------



## blueskynis (Jan 25, 2009)

*Explanation*



Lozza said:


> That seems ridiculous. My Opteron 165 scores 30.907s in 1M at 2.8GHz so there is definitly something wrong with their testing, or the chips have somehow got worse.



That's what I thought too. Is that a normal score?

EDIT: OK, here is the explanation:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3600818&postcount=3



> I noticed a few mistakes/issues in their preview.First of all,their wPrime numbers are way off,it looks like wprime used only 1 core instead of 4 cores(take 46s for 3.12Ghz OCed AM3 Phenom II,apply the 3.89x scaling with 4 cores and you get right in the territory of known and valid scores for Phenom IIs at that clock).
> Second,the OCed superPI number is not valid,it should be around 21.9s,instead they listed almost the same results for 1M for stock and OCed CPU.
> Third,as they wrote the BIOS is not optimized for performance but for stability at this moment and they expect a performance lift(probably a few %s,still worth mentioning):


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 25, 2009)

Lozza said:


> That seems ridiculous. My Opteron 165 scores 30.907s in 1M at 2.8GHz so there is definitly something wrong with their testing, or the chips have somehow got worse.



DDR 1 vs DDR 3 dude, do the math, IIRC the HTT setup is a lowlatency solution, not a massive bandwidth solution like Core 2/P4/AM0D XP was.

also with this comparison

DDR1 PC 3200 (400MTS) VS DDR2 PC2 6400 (800MTS)

both get work done at the same time, but it takes the PC2 to run at a slower latency and higher bandwidth to get it done aka
222 5 (DDR) vs 444 10 (DDR2) etc now if DDR was Upped to PC 6400 it would eat PC2 6400 alive.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 25, 2009)

500MHz is a fine oc. Keep it up, AMD!!


----------



## Lozza (Jan 25, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> DDR 1 vs DDR 3 dude, do the math, IIRC the HTT setup is a lowlatency solution, not a massive bandwidth solution like Core 2/P4/AM0D XP was.
> 
> also with this comparison
> 
> ...



I see what you're trying to say, that now RAM is now more focused on bandwidth instead of latency.

But what I'm saying is that it should be able to produce better results despite this, because if you look at the price difference and how new the tech is you would expect it to be faster than a 2+ year old tech. It's the same as when DDR2 800 came out originally, the figures were similar to DDR 400 because of the latencies. The only thing going for it was the power consumption. That's only for the memory tests though.

But then if you look at Core 2 figures and Phenom figures in a superpi test the Core 2 is better even using the same RAM with the same latencies - so there is still scalability with respect to clock speed/computing power of the chip.

So I would expect the new chips to be better than the old one, even if they are using this "slower" memory.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 25, 2009)

With the price of DDR3 coming down more and more, its not too much longer till the price vs ddr2 wont really be a factor. Even for the highest latency ram that EastCoast linked us too, its only 51 bucks for a 2gig kit.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 25, 2009)

well to get back to your point being, if DDR had a process shrink to say 45nm, its clock could probably be raised without even changing the timings and possibly lower the voltages, it would probably eat the DDR2/3 ram. Another Point being, these benchmarks are synthetic meaning they only Provide a PR number, it doesnt show the true potential of these products, they are also good for testing stability other than COD 4.



Lozza said:


> I see what you're trying to say, that now RAM is now more focused on bandwidth instead of latency.
> 
> But what I'm saying is that it should be able to produce better results despite this, because if you look at the price difference and how new the tech is you would expect it to be faster than a 2+ year old tech. It's the same as when DDR2 800 came out originally, the figures were similar to DDR 400 because of the latencies. The only thing going for it was the power consumption. That's only for the memory tests though.
> 
> ...


----------



## cdawall (Jan 25, 2009)

blueskynis said:


> That's what I thought too. Is that a normal score?
> 
> EDIT: OK, here is the explanation:
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3600818&postcount=3



i already said this in post #3




cdawall said:


> these tests seemed a bit odd when i found them and wprime looks to have been run on a single core when you factor in a 3.89x efficiency factor (about what these get) for the chip it is pretty close to the numbers a phenom 2+DDR2 gives
> 
> 
> also this is set for stability not performance so you could easily see them saving several seconds off everything with proper settings


----------



## Lozza (Jan 25, 2009)

Yes that is a good point, synthetic benchmarks never do really show the true potential of these things.

EDIT: Ok I've just read that xtreme systems link, it explains it all.


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 25, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> With the price of DDR3 coming down more and more, its not too much longer till the price vs ddr2 wont really be a factor. Even for the highest latency ram that EastCoast linked us too, its only 51 bucks for a 2gig kit.




I was about to comment on this same thing, but I see ya beat me too it 


As far as DDR3 prices vs DDR2 prices go - it depends on what kind of, and what performance segment, DDR3 you want to buy.

If you're looking for the el-cheapo, off-the-shelf-at-Best-Buy, not going to OC or hope it runs stable -type of DDR3:

< $25

if you want something cheap, that should be fairly reliable:

< $50

if you're looking for the low-end performance market:

< $100

and the price of more higher-end performance DDR3 is on par with what high-end DDR2 was only a year and a half or so ago.

Even still, one can purchse 2GB of high-end DDR3 at prices comparable to high-end DDR2.


It's time to start putting some of these myths to rest


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 25, 2009)

whats the point in ddr3 other than fast speeds and power efficiency
the timings are so bad on them

they will get better just like ddr 2 did but right now the speed vs timings is BAD


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 25, 2009)

we've been over the timing debate, before.


Just to break it down in a very _general_ way, running timings of CAS8+ with DDR3 doesn't mean squat when the memory is capable of moving nearly twice the amount of information that DDR2 is capable of, per clock cycle.

Think of it like this, DDR2 moves information like a garden hose.  DDR3 moves information like a firehose.

Think of timings like kinks in the hose, how many kinks can you add to a gardenhose before it starts to hurt overall performance?  How many kinks can you add to a firehose before it hurts overall performance?


DDR2 benefits from getting all those kinks out.  Sure, you can increase the volume moving through the hose by increasing the pressure (think: clock speeds), but after a certain point, it just can't do any better without possibly bursting the hose.  DDR3, on the otherhand, being a firehose, can handle much more volume and pressure (think: clock speeds) without having to iron out all the kinks (high latency timings).


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 25, 2009)

timings on ddr3 dont matter as much because it makes up for it in raw speed right?

im not on tpu as much due to lack of wireless on main rig, thats why i aint been involved in any recent discussions like ddr3 and phenom 2


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 25, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> timings on ddr3 dont matter as much because it makes up for it in raw speed right?
> 
> im not on tpu as much due to lack of wireless on main rig, thats why i aint been involved in any recent discussions like ddr3 and phenom 2


Timing still matters, not so much as it relates to DDR2 but as it relates to DDR3.  It's a little confusing but here an example:
People want to know the difference between DDR3-1600 at CL9 vs DDR3-1600 at CL7 when using AM3, for example.  You really can't compare DDR2 timing to DDR3 since we know that DDR3 is faster (1600MHz for example).  Only a well thought out review can fill in missing pieces of this puzzle.  Time will tell (hopefully).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2009)

actually pressure and velocity are inversely proportional
as velocity increases, pressure decreases, as pressure increases, velocity decreases

venturi effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

now with electrons, since apparently they move at speed of light without control, latency and Clock speed manage the flow of electrons thru the system (Local Oscillator), because just like how EM rays are emitted into space, once they hit space (either beyond our atmosphere or within) they are moving at speed of light, once they hit the pickup they are slowed down, aka Radio transmit towers and Radio receivers in cars.



imperialreign said:


> we've been over the timing debate, before.
> 
> 
> Just to break it down in a very _general_ way, running timings of CAS8+ with DDR3 doesn't mean squat when the memory is capable of moving nearly twice the amount of information that DDR2 is capable of, per clock cycle.
> ...


----------



## btarunr (Jan 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> actually pressure and velocity are inversely proportional
> as velocity increases, pressure decreases, as pressure increases, velocity decreases
> 
> venturi effect
> ...



lolwut

DRAM latency is brought about by the way the SPD is programmed, on how it makes the IMC/MCH deal with the memory (based on the SKU and quality of the DRAM chips used). higher latency = more number of clock-cycles spent in moving data across. The reason you don't have 800 MHz (1600 DDR) do CL 2T is because of the high clock speed, and the constraints/limitations brought about by the DRAM technology with respect to the chips' voltages and thermal footprints. The high clock speed makes up for the latency, though for PC3-10600 (1333 MHz), the ideal latency should be 6-6-6-~18. The latest generation of DDR3 kits haven't managed to do those latencies at sub-1.6V, owing to the silicon fab technology they're built on, and hence we're seeing 1333 MHz kits with 9-9-9-~24, which isn't all that great compared to 1066 MHz at 5-5-5-~15.


----------



## frankie827 (Jan 26, 2009)

isnt that a bad 32m score?
i get 13.638sec seconds with my setup

i know i have 4gb of ram while that setup only had 2gb...but still....


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> actually pressure and velocity are inversely proportional
> as velocity increases, pressure decreases, as pressure increases, velocity decreases
> 
> venturi effect
> ...




thanks for spoiling my fun  

yeah, I know all that physics stuff - but I was trying to keep it on a technical level most would be able to understand


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2009)

lolz


----------



## unclewebb (Jan 26, 2009)

Intel better watch out.  AMD has almost caught up to the CPUs that Intel was turning out 2 years ago.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Intel better watch out.  AMD has almost caught up to the CPUs that Intel was turning out 2 years ago.



cheers


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 26, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Intel better watch out.  AMD has almost caught up to the CPUs that Intel was turning out *2 years ago*.







btarunr said:


> DRAM latency is brought about by the way the SPD is programmed, on how it makes the IMC/MCH deal with the memory (based on the SKU and quality of the DRAM chips used). higher latency = more number of clock-cycles spent in moving data across. The reason you don't have 800 MHz (1600 DDR) do CL 2T is because of the high clock speed, and the constraints/limitations brought about by the DRAM technology with respect to the chips' voltages and thermal footprints. The high clock speed makes up for the latency, though for PC3-10600 (1333 MHz), the ideal latency should be 6-6-6-~18. The latest generation of DDR3 kits haven't managed to do those latencies at sub-1.6V, owing to the silicon fab technology they're built on, and hence we're seeing 1333 MHz kits with 9-9-9-~24, which isn't all that great compared to 1066 MHz at 5-5-5-~15.



Pretty much sum up what I wanted to say.


----------



## TheScavenger (Jan 26, 2009)

unclewebb said:


> Intel better watch out.  AMD has almost caught up to the CPUs that Intel was turning out 2 years ago.



Regardless, it's good to see AMD moving in a positive direction


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2009)

finally someone else that sees what they are doing instead of bashing them like the majority do here. I think the only reason they do it is so they can mask their insecurities.


----------



## TheScavenger (Jan 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> finally someone else that sees what they are doing instead of bashing them like the majority do here.



I think a lot of the AMD-bashers fail to consider the price of the CPU (or entire system) when comparing an AMD processor to an Intel. I understand that Intel has been wiping the floor with AMD in terms of maximum, high-end performance but none of that matters when you're on a budget. Its hard to go wrong with an X2 7750 BE when you can't spend more than $75 on a processor.

Josh


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2009)

TheScavenger said:


> I think a lot of the AMD-bashers fail to consider the price of the CPU (or entire system) when comparing an AMD processor to an Intel. I understand that Intel has been wiping the floor with AMD in terms of maximum, high-end performance but none of that matters when you're on a budget. Its hard to go wrong with an X2 7750 BE when you can't spend more than $75 on a processor.
> 
> Josh



the Kuma is a Considerable Jump compared to what Brisbane/ Phenom 1 brought to the table, too bad they wont have a BE/FX in that niche anymore.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 26, 2009)

frankie827 said:


> isnt that a bad 32m score?
> i get 13.638sec seconds with my setup
> 
> i know i have 4gb of ram while that setup only had 2gb...but still....




it was only run on a single core



TheScavenger said:


> I think a lot of the AMD-bashers fail to consider the price of the CPU (or entire system) when comparing an AMD processor to an Intel. I understand that Intel has been wiping the floor with AMD in terms of maximum, high-end performance but none of that matters when you're on a budget. Its hard to go wrong with an X2 7750 BE when you can't spend more than $75 on a processor.
> 
> Josh




i already proved that with that cpu in everything except superpi it beat C2D clock for clock


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 26, 2009)

I thought Kuma is an _Phenom *I*_ X2?


----------



## trabanom (Jan 26, 2009)

*do not get it.???*

The CPUZ picture says it is a AM2+ socket mobo, but on THS and Gigabyte site says it is a AM3 - http://www.tomshardware.tw/image/GA-MA790FXT-UD5P-01,0101-176917-5623----jpg-.html . There are something not right here.


----------



## frankie827 (Jan 31, 2009)

cdawall said:


> it was only run on a single core



not trying to start a fight here but, if it was run on a single core, why is cpu-z recognizing all 4 cores.  and dont say that it recognizes them even if they are disabled because i know for a fact that it wont.


----------



## Meizuman (Feb 6, 2009)

frankie827 said:


> not trying to start a fight here but, if it was run on a single core, why is cpu-z recognizing all 4 cores.  and dont say that it recognizes them even if they are disabled because i know for a fact that it wont.



In Wprime 1.55 you have to manually set the thread count each time you open the program.

With one thread my system did *46,562s*.
CPU 3.2GHz, NB/HT 2.4GHz, RAM 1066 5-5-5-15


----------

