Remarkable results!

[pvsurfer]

Check this out... http://torturetest.com/reviews/jon/M7MIA.htm

If these results are correct, they are nothing short of remarkable! As I construe this review, a new Biostar M7MIA motherboard (with PC1600 DDR SDRAM) was benchmarked against an MSI K7T Pro 2A motherboard (with PC133 CAS2 SDRAM), in an otherwise identically configured system - resulted in the following conclusions:

"Upon running the memory benchmark SEVERAL times, the M7MIA (with PC1600 DDR SDRAM) came out over 40% better than a K7T Pro 2A (with PC133 SDR SDRAM)!"

"The next thing I did was to run the default benchmark for 3D Mark 2000. Again; several times. The MSI board benchmarked a fair 2775. The Biostar board benchmarked 3475! Again; using the same CPU, video card and hard drive. Wow! A 20% increase in benchmark figures."

PC1600 producing 20% to 40% better results than PC133 CAS2? ...I would say "Wow" is an understatement!

 

[IntelConvert]

I replied to this in the Memory forum, but I presume you posted this here as well because it may in fact be a motherboard issue.

As I said there, I've got to admit real surprise over those results, especially considering that TortureTest used a 100MHz PC1600 DIMM in the Biostar DDR board, and not a 133 MHz PC2100 DIMM. Not to mention that it represents a major departure from the findings of TomsHardware on the gains to be realized from DDR!

Makes me wonder just how much the Biostar M7MIA motherboard itself contributed to those fantastic results? Maybe Tom should take a fresh look at the DDR situation, pitting several different DDR mobos against one another in the process!

 

[James35]

You know i just ran this test 3dmark2001 and i have a geforce 2gts 256 megs of ram ata66 20 gig drive
win2k 1100 amd and i only get a 4% diffence
am thinking be cheaper to get my system rather than his.
i came in at 3322 so am thinking toms pretty much on the nose here
and i ran the default he uses on 2000
now if i run on the 3dmark 2000 im pulling in 7351 using the default which is by the way 1024x768 16
and i have the top spot 'thank u very much '
the bottom of that rack is 3440 from an amd 750 duron which is probably running 100mhz mem at cas 3 which i am also by the way.

so to me something there isnt right on his benchmarks
probably the video card id say
am willing to listen to explainations on this.
remember he did say default benchmarks on 3dmark2000
and thats exactly what i ran as well.

 

[James35]

ok, now i just ran the sandra test

he says his memory for ddr is the following
Current memory : IntALU/RAM Bandwidth 476MB/s
System : Float FPU/RAM Bandwidth 639MB/s
mine at cas3 is : Int ALU/RAM Bandwidth 431 MB/s
Float FPU/RAM Bandwidth 468 MB/s

thats only an increase of 0.0945% for the first and
0.267% increase for the second
Which is an average of 18%
keeping in mind im running the slower memory so u put cas2 133 up agasint that it be about half that so ur back to the 10% where he is getting this i have no clue
but if you dont belive me? try the tests for yourself and see.
Personally? i would opt for the faster cpu which is far cheaper than doing a motherboard and mem change

alot cheaper if u ask me
by the way his older system is newer than mine minus the cpu and vid card but if i were to drop the cpu even ill bet you any amount of money id beat him square across the board.

Just a thought but is why i go to sites like this and not those cause u can pick them apart rather easy with out breaking a sweat. and im not doing this to pat tom on the back. even thou he should get one. am just showing who is more accurate.

dont be too hyped to blow ur money on something that isnt panning out all that well.

isnt that why you got the AMD in the first place?
to save money?