Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sandra memory bench

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 16, 2005 11:02:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Hey all,
Something isn't right here,I think. Sandra memory bandwidth gives me
3060/3059. Not good right?
My PC is an Athlon 64 2800+, Chaintech VNF3-250 motherboard, 1GB PC3200 DDR.
It is overclocked and overclocking an A64 system is kinda wierd.
I have my BIOS "FSB overclock" at 250 and HTT set at x3. Which gives me
HTT@750 (default is 4x200)So, according to my boot screen the CPU is running
at 2260 and actual DDR FSB is 416.PCI/AGP is locked at default. Don't ask me
how it got there.I wish I knew!!
So, Is the sandra bencmark a result of asyncronous clock settings? Thanks

More about : sandra memory bench

Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 17, 2005 1:35:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

dawg wrote:
> Hey all,
> Something isn't right here,I think. Sandra memory bandwidth gives me
> 3060/3059. Not good right?
> My PC is an Athlon 64 2800+, Chaintech VNF3-250 motherboard, 1GB
> PC3200 DDR. It is overclocked and overclocking an A64 system is kinda
> wierd.
> I have my BIOS "FSB overclock" at 250 and HTT set at x3. Which gives
> me HTT@750 (default is 4x200)So, according to my boot screen the CPU
> is running at 2260 and actual DDR FSB is 416.PCI/AGP is locked at
> default. Don't ask me how it got there.I wish I knew!!

You've set the RAM to the "166MHz" or 5:6 setting. Also, the BIOS has
calculated the RAM speed incorrectly: it should be 204.5MHz.

> So, Is the sandra bencmark a result of asyncronous clock settings?

No. There is no "async" in an Athlon64 due to it's architecture, no no
penalty for running RAM at non-1:1 ratios (except the lower raw MHz, of
course). Since you have a S754 system, your maximum theoretical speed would
be 3273 MB/sec, so your Sandra scores are giving about 93.5% efficiency.
This sounds about right for an A64 system.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
June 17, 2005 1:35:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

I thought the bandwidth would be higher too.

My OC'ed P4 on an i875 at 253MHz (3.8GHz) is giving up almost 6200mb/sec.



"Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
news:42b20d0c$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> dawg wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> Something isn't right here,I think. Sandra memory bandwidth gives me
>> 3060/3059. Not good right?
>> My PC is an Athlon 64 2800+, Chaintech VNF3-250 motherboard, 1GB
>> PC3200 DDR. It is overclocked and overclocking an A64 system is kinda
>> wierd.
>> I have my BIOS "FSB overclock" at 250 and HTT set at x3. Which gives
>> me HTT@750 (default is 4x200)So, according to my boot screen the CPU
>> is running at 2260 and actual DDR FSB is 416.PCI/AGP is locked at
>> default. Don't ask me how it got there.I wish I knew!!
>
> You've set the RAM to the "166MHz" or 5:6 setting. Also, the BIOS has
> calculated the RAM speed incorrectly: it should be 204.5MHz.
>
>> So, Is the sandra bencmark a result of asyncronous clock settings?
>
> No. There is no "async" in an Athlon64 due to it's architecture, no no
> penalty for running RAM at non-1:1 ratios (except the lower raw MHz, of
> course). Since you have a S754 system, your maximum theoretical speed
> would be 3273 MB/sec, so your Sandra scores are giving about 93.5%
> efficiency. This sounds about right for an A64 system.
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 17, 2005 10:18:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Right. According to CPU-z the memory divider is 11. If it makes a difference
"
Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
news:42b20d0c$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> dawg wrote:
> > Hey all,
> > Something isn't right here,I think. Sandra memory bandwidth gives me
> > 3060/3059. Not good right?
> > My PC is an Athlon 64 2800+, Chaintech VNF3-250 motherboard, 1GB
> > PC3200 DDR. It is overclocked and overclocking an A64 system is kinda
> > wierd.
> > I have my BIOS "FSB overclock" at 250 and HTT set at x3. Which gives
> > me HTT@750 (default is 4x200)So, according to my boot screen the CPU
> > is running at 2260 and actual DDR FSB is 416.PCI/AGP is locked at
> > default. Don't ask me how it got there.I wish I knew!!
>
> You've set the RAM to the "166MHz" or 5:6 setting. Also, the BIOS has
> calculated the RAM speed incorrectly: it should be 204.5MHz.
>
> > So, Is the sandra bencmark a result of asyncronous clock settings?
>
> No. There is no "async" in an Athlon64 due to it's architecture, no no
> penalty for running RAM at non-1:1 ratios (except the lower raw MHz, of
> course). Since you have a S754 system, your maximum theoretical speed
would
> be 3273 MB/sec, so your Sandra scores are giving about 93.5% efficiency.
> This sounds about right for an A64 system.
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 18, 2005 2:46:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

fish wrote:
> I thought the bandwidth would be higher too.
>
> My OC'ed P4 on an i875 at 253MHz (3.8GHz) is giving up almost
> 6200mb/sec.

Yeah, but that's dual channel:

> Michael Brown wrote:
[...]
>> Since you have a S754 system, your maximum
^^^^^^^^^^^
>> theoretical speed would be 3273 MB/sec, so your Sandra scores are
>> giving about 93.5% efficiency. This sounds about right for an A64
>> system.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
June 18, 2005 2:46:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

even with single channel, the bandwidth is still over 5700mb/sec.


"Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
news:42b2c67f$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> fish wrote:
>> I thought the bandwidth would be higher too.
>>
>> My OC'ed P4 on an i875 at 253MHz (3.8GHz) is giving up almost
>> 6200mb/sec.
>
> Yeah, but that's dual channel:
>
>> Michael Brown wrote:
> [...]
>>> Since you have a S754 system, your maximum
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> theoretical speed would be 3273 MB/sec, so your Sandra scores are
>>> giving about 93.5% efficiency. This sounds about right for an A64
>>> system.
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 18, 2005 5:40:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

fish wrote:
> even with single channel, the bandwidth is still over 5700mb/sec.

Nope.

In his case:
204.5 * 2 * 64 = 26176 Mbit/s = 3272 MByte/sec
In your case:
253 * 2 * 64 = 32384 Mbit/s = 4048 MByte/sec

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 18, 2005 5:40:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
news:42b2ef60$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> fish wrote:
> > even with single channel, the bandwidth is still over 5700mb/sec.
>
> Nope.
>
> In his case:
> 204.5 * 2 * 64 = 26176 Mbit/s = 3272 MByte/sec
> In your case:
> 253 * 2 * 64 = 32384 Mbit/s = 4048 MByte/sec
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
>
>
Okay. Those numbers make sense. But,whats with the setting of 250 for "CPU
overclock in mhz" in the BIOS? Sorry for being dense.
June 22, 2005 1:41:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:10:25 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
<notdiscosed@example.com> wrote:

>As for overall benchmarks, nothing beats how a user's system performs runing
>the user's programs. Anything else is, well, beside the point.

you are right too!
--
Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
3rd Ann.: - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 22, 2005 10:19:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Spajky wrote:
> dawg wrote:
>> Right. According to CPU-z the memory divider is 11. If it makes a
>> difference
>
> yes it makes difference; your ram runs @ 91% of FSB clock if the mem
> divider is shown properly with your version of CPU-Z ..
>

>>> dawg wrote:
>>>> I have my BIOS "FSB overclock" at 250
[...]
>>>> CPU is running at 2260 and actual DDR FSB is 416.PCI/AGP is
>>>> locked at default.
>
> your ram is running @ 227MHz (ddr454) ....

Err, he's using a 9x multiplier (says sys clock is 250, CPU speed is 2260),
not 10x, giving the RAM running at 82% of the sys clock speed (ie:
204.5MHz).

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
June 22, 2005 10:19:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:19:18 +1000, "Michael Brown"
<see@signature.below> wrote:

>>> According to CPU-z the memory divider is 11.

>> your ram runs @ 91% of FSB clock if the mem
>> divider is shown properly with your version of CPU-Z ..

>>>>> I have my BIOS "FSB overclock" at 250

>> your ram is running @ 227MHz (ddr454) ....
>
>Err, he's using a 9x multiplier (says sys clock is 250, CPU speed is 2260),
>not 10x, giving the RAM running at 82% of the sys clock speed (ie:
>204.5MHz).

IMHO wrong! ALL frequency versions of A64 have a system bus clock @
2GHz & default FSB/mem divider @ 10 !!!! Multiplier for core clock
frequency is another stuff ! so:

2000 / 100 = 200 Fsb = 200MHz mem clock default
200 fsb x 9 multi = 1,8GHz core clock default
divider FSB/mem reported by his CPU-Z is 10/11 (if correct) in his
case, so @ default FSB the mem clock would be 91% of fsb one (182MHz);
overclock by 25% (x1,25) = Cpu clock 2,26GHz, Fsb 250MHz & ram clock
227MHz ... (& Cpu-Z mostly reports true mem.clock wrong on "k8"
family!)

all frequency versions of s.754 Semprons have instead a system bus @
1,6 GHz clock & default Fsb/mem divider @ 8 !!! the calculations are
done the same! ... :-)
/so for example same basic clock Sempron3100+ with a Fsb/mem divider
of for example same 11 & same 25% OC, would be running at same clock,
same Fsb, but Ram @ 182MHz .../
--
Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
3rd Ann.: - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 23, 2005 12:11:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
news:42b91f6b$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> Spajky wrote:
> > dawg wrote:
> >> Right. According to CPU-z the memory divider is 11. If it makes a
> >> difference
> >
> > yes it makes difference; your ram runs @ 91% of FSB clock if the mem
> > divider is shown properly with your version of CPU-Z ..
> >
>
> >>> dawg wrote:
> >>>> I have my BIOS "FSB overclock" at 250
> [...]
> >>>> CPU is running at 2260 and actual DDR FSB is 416.PCI/AGP is
> >>>> locked at default.
> >
> > your ram is running @ 227MHz (ddr454) ....
>
> Err, he's using a 9x multiplier (says sys clock is 250, CPU speed is
2260),
> not 10x, giving the RAM running at 82% of the sys clock speed (ie:
> 204.5MHz).
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
>
>

Thanks guys.Cleared up a few things.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 23, 2005 10:17:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Spajky wrote:
[...]
> ALL frequency versions of A64 have a system bus clock @
> 2GHz & default FSB/mem divider @ 10 !!!! Multiplier for core clock
> frequency is another stuff !

Incorrect on all three counts. Read
http://www.emboss.co.nz/amdmults/k8mults.html
This is documented in AMD tech docs and has been widely tested and found to
be true (hence the discovery of the 5 exceptions).

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
June 23, 2005 11:30:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:17:13 +1000, "Michael Brown"
<see@signature.below> wrote:

>Spajky wrote:
>[...]
>> ALL frequency versions of A64 have a system bus clock @
>> 2GHz & default FSB/mem divider @ 10 !!!!

forgot to mention FX series (1,6GHz & 8 ; same as Semprons)

> Multiplier for core clock
>> frequency is another stuff !
>
>Incorrect on all three counts. Read
>http://www.emboss.co.nz/amdmults/k8mults.html
>This is documented in AMD tech docs and has been widely tested and found to
>be true (hence the discovery of the 5 exceptions).

yeah, I read that, & even the author is not 100% sure & I already know
that Oscar Wu's table (& some others too!)

.... There was/is a lot a mess about finding true memory clock on "k8"
systems, I also read a lot on the Net forums, searching for a way to
be sure about that frequency. With my way of calculation ...

I know I could be wrong (happened many times in my life!), but I could
be also right & all others over the Net wrong !
(happened 4 years ago with my statement after studying
Tualatins & BX chipset, that with some minor mods could be done
running it on older boards; the massive "flame" tornado hit me thru
Usenet & certain forums to my head very soon that could not be done
:-))) . Well, few months later PowerLeap released their too-expensive
gadget & we found another few months later a way how to do it w/o
PowerLeap adaptor ... :-)))

There are few things that could support my calculation (previous
post): using some own "sane" common logic:

- some experienced guys encountered problems with OC-ing sometimes
memory; while proofed to handle certain high clock (downclocking
multiplier) or high Fsb/Htt & high cpu clock too; even when getting
better results encountered instability too soon when tried to OC
altogether (even when lowering HTT multiplier) even if reported Ram
clocks were lower with some programs or Bios-es.
With my calculation could be that explained: mem.clock was
higher than showed with some programs & expected!

- people have serious problems calculating memory clock most "known"
way when Cpu multiplier is a non integer number like 8,5x !!! This
could be linked also to upper problem.
My type of calculation does NOT have this problem!

- this link supports the fact of basic system bus frequency:
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/default.aspx
(but first wrong declaration - memory frequency & when clicking More
details about CPU, declaration is HT speed) & common logic tells you
if default A64 & Sempron s.754 FSB/HTT & mem clock is 200MHz (ddr400),
there MUST be also a default FSB (cpu)/mem. divider for same family of
CPU, which is always an integer number !!! /Cpu multiplier can be
instead non-integer one like 8,5x for example/

- another my theory supporting article is my own one :-)
/few months ago had a lot of work to find out what´s happening!/
http://freeweb.siol.net/jerman55/HP/benchMem.htm
(read very carefully & try!)
With fixed totally relaxed mem.latency timings, play with some
OC-ing & downClocking, changing other parameters; bench results will
follow memory clock practically linearly ... :-) /first check on
default 200MHz clocks! FSB: Mem = 1:1 (in_sync) ... :-)

..... I also had a lot of problems first to determine the real clock
ram was running on "K8" core (for recalculating that 100MHz
score-yellow column) since sometimes I was getting ridicules
results from people believing CPU-Z or some other program was telling
them ...

.... but there is still a chance, that I am in missbelieve ..
--
Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
3rd Ann.: - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
June 24, 2005 1:34:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Spajky wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:17:13 +1000, "Michael Brown"
> <see@signature.below> wrote:
>
>> Spajky wrote:
>> [...]
>>> ALL frequency versions of A64 have a system bus clock @
>>> 2GHz & default FSB/mem divider @ 10 !!!!
>
> forgot to mention FX series (1,6GHz & 8 ; same as Semprons)

All K8 CPUs have a system clock speed of 200MHz. Socket 939 CPUs have a 5x
hypertransport multiplier by default (resulting in a DDR'd 1GHz bus), socket
754's have a 4x hypertransport multiplier (giving a DDR'd 800MHz bus), and
socket 940's come in both flavours. Nothing stopping you besides BIOS
limitations (and obviously overall chipset hypertransport limitations) from
running it at multipliers of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0
though.

>> Multiplier for core clock
>>> frequency is another stuff !
>>
>> Incorrect on all three counts. Read
>> http://www.emboss.co.nz/amdmults/k8mults.html
>> This is documented in AMD tech docs and has been widely tested and
>> found to be true (hence the discovery of the 5 exceptions).
>
> yeah, I read that, & even the author is not 100% sure & I already know
> that Oscar Wu's table (& some others too!)
>
> ... There was/is a lot a mess about finding true memory clock on "k8"
> systems,

There's a lot of mess about the actual memory clock out there for three
reasons (in no particular order):
1) Many CPUID program writers didn't (and still don't) have a clue how to
calculate the memory speed so did it by random guessing instead of
researching.
2) Sudhian media discovered that ratios and half-integer-multipliers didn't
give the results they would expect from simple calculations, and did a
complete train-wreck of an article. It contradicts itself multiple times and
only serves to confuse people more. At the time, I (among many others) knew
exactly how to calculate the real memory frequency, and pointed out to the
author that his results were exactly in line with what would be expected.
3) There's many people out there who THINK they know how it works, don't
really know how it works, but still say they're right anyhow.

> I also read a lot on the Net forums, searching for a way to
> be sure about that frequency. With my way of calculation ...

Hey, maybe AMD got it wrong too! After all, they only made the damn thing.
Look on page 15 of the "AMD Functional Data Sheet, 939 Pin Package"
document. It gives a list of real memory frequencies for various multipliers
and ratio settings. According to you, the memory speed should not change
when you change the multiplier. But look, the 166MHz speeds bounce all over
the place! Care to explain how, using your method, to get a 157.14MHz memory
clock with a 200MHz FSB, a 11x multiplier, and a 166MHz ratio setting? Note
that the standard method has no such trouble.

Additionally, Oskar Wu (who is probably one of the best motherboard design
engineers in the business) did oscilloscope measurements of memory
frequencies at a range of multipliers and ratios:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=41...
Care to explain these numbers too?

[...]
> - people have serious problems calculating memory clock most "known"
> way when Cpu multiplier is a non integer number like 8,5x !!!

No, not at all. There's no difference between calculating for a 8.0x
multiplier and an 8.5x multiplier. The *only* problem is with a 183MHz ratio
setting, where AMD's engineers appeared to make a mistake in their
calculation program resulting in the wrong divider being used.

> This
> could be linked also to upper problem.
> My type of calculation does NOT have this problem!

Your type of calculation does not give the right answer. According to your
calculation, there should be no drop in memory speed shifting to a
half-integer multiplier. Except there most definately is. Oops.

[...]

The K8 memory speed is not independent of the CPU multiplier, hence cannot
be derived from a simple divisor of the HTT speed. QED.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
June 24, 2005 10:55:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:34:11 +1000, "Michael Brown"
<see@signature.below> wrote:

>All K8 CPUs have a system clock speed of 200MHz.

>There's a lot of mess about the actual memory clock out there for three
>reasons (in no particular order):

>1) Many CPUID program writers didn't (and still don't) have a clue how to
>calculate the memory speed so did it by random guessing instead of
>researching.

>Hey, maybe AMD got it wrong too! After all, they only made the damn thing.
>Look on page 15 of the "AMD Functional Data Sheet, 939 Pin Package"
>document. It gives a list of real memory frequencies for various multipliers
>and ratio settings.

> Oskar Wu (who is probably one of the best motherboard design
>engineers in the business) did oscilloscope measurements of memory
>frequencies at a range of multipliers and ratios:
>http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=41...

> The *only* problem is with a 183MHz ratio
>setting, where AMD's engineers appeared to make a mistake in their
>calculation program resulting in the wrong divider being used.
>
>Your type of calculation does not give the right answer.

>The K8 memory speed is not independent of the CPU multiplier, hence cannot
>be derived from a simple divisor of the HTT speed. QED.

Thank you for some additional ideas, since I am planning to recheck
everything once again soon & in 3 weeks here close to me our "local OC
website" is prepairing a big meeting & hole weekend LAN & education
"party", since kids know me mostly IMHO won´t be problem to find among
all setups some 10 ones with "k8" setup to allow me to make some my
own benchmarking & re-checks and recalculations too ; I will se than
....
--
Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
3rd Ann.: - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
!