benchmarks showing the amd64 x2 doesnt need all its memory..

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

link

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2469

Basicly they used ddr500 and in most instances proved no performance
increase, kind of makes you wonder why the move to m2 unless they are
planing for quad cores

mildly ot but if amd were to go for buffered ram would the be able to keep
socket compatibility with 939 boards
5 answers Last reply
More about benchmarks showing amd64 doesnt memory
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:36:56 GMT, Unknown <epaton@localhost.com> wrote:

    >link
    >
    >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2469
    >
    >Basicly they used ddr500 and in most instances proved no performance
    >increase, kind of makes you wonder why the move to m2 unless they are
    >planing for quad cores

    I think M2 may be because of a concern that DDR-II is going to eventually
    dominate the memory market and that there'll be a price premium for DDR.
    BTW I'm not surprised at the lowish performance improvement with the new
    "dividers" - it's typical of what we've seen with non-clock locked chipset
    memory controllers in the past. DDR500 is, from my POV, something you use
    if you want to overclock the hell out of the CPU.

    >mildly ot but if amd were to go for buffered ram would the be able to keep
    >socket compatibility with 939 boards

    You mean registered DRAM? I'm not sure what changes internally in the
    Athlon64 memory controller for s939 but the 2T timing gives essentially the
    same timing slack and loss of performance as registering so I don't see the
    incentive to do registering for the Athon64.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:36:56 GMT, Unknown <epaton@localhost.com>
    wrote:

    >link
    >
    >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2469
    >
    >Basicly they used ddr500 and in most instances proved no performance
    >increase, kind of makes you wonder why the move to m2 unless they are
    >planing for quad cores
    >
    >mildly ot but if amd were to go for buffered ram would the be able to keep
    >socket compatibility with 939 boards
    AMD did it even before s939 introduction. It was, and still is,
    socket 940, and it can use only buffered, aka registered, memory.
    Trust me on that - this is being typed on a dual Opty system.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Unknown" <epaton@localhost.com> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.07.16.23.28.23.452652@localhost.com...
    > link
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2469
    >
    > Basicly they used ddr500 and in most instances proved no performance
    > increase, kind of makes you wonder why the move to m2 unless they are
    > planing for quad cores
    >
    > mildly ot but if amd were to go for buffered ram would the be able to keep
    > socket compatibility with 939 boards

    Any chance that next-gen PC uses parallel lines microweaved XDR2 on either
    main memory or video memory for graphic cards? I saw a lot of posts on Yahoo
    Rambus messageboard that many posters are sure that ATI or NVidia will use
    XDR2 on the new graphic cards in 2006.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:11:08 GMT, "Ar Q" <ArthurQ283@hottmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Unknown" <epaton@localhost.com> wrote in message
    >news:pan.2005.07.16.23.28.23.452652@localhost.com...
    >> link
    >>
    >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2469
    >>
    >> Basicly they used ddr500 and in most instances proved no performance
    >> increase, kind of makes you wonder why the move to m2 unless they are
    >> planing for quad cores
    >>
    >> mildly ot but if amd were to go for buffered ram would the be able to keep
    >> socket compatibility with 939 boards
    >
    >Any chance that next-gen PC uses parallel lines microweaved XDR2 on either
    >main memory or video memory for graphic cards? I saw a lot of posts on Yahoo
    >Rambus messageboard that many posters are sure that ATI or NVidia will use
    >XDR2 on the new graphic cards in 2006.

    The boards at Yahoo are well known pump 'n' dump venues. The graphics card
    could go XDR2 I suppose but for system memory, I believe we'd likely have
    to accept the abandonment of a multi-drop memory channels and add-in slot
    upgrades.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:51:00 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:36:56 GMT, Unknown <epaton@localhost.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>link
    >>
    >>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2469
    >>
    >>Basicly they used ddr500 and in most instances proved no performance
    >>increase, kind of makes you wonder why the move to m2 unless they are
    >>planing for quad cores
    >>
    >>mildly ot but if amd were to go for buffered ram would the be able to keep
    >>socket compatibility with 939 boards
    > AMD did it even before s939 introduction. It was, and still is,
    > socket 940, and it can use only buffered, aka registered, memory.
    > Trust me on that - this is being typed on a dual Opty system.

    Sure, with the advantage that you can drive more DIMMs *reliably*. ...not
    that this board (Tyan S2875S) takes advantage of that feature.

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs