Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DDR 333 vs. 400 on an nForce2

Last response: in Memory
Share
May 2, 2003 8:38:17 PM

It has been shown that DDR 400 actually performs worse than 333 on these boards. However, if I set the FSB at 333 it should perform the same as DDR333 right, assuming both are the same CL?

Athlon XP 1600+, MSI K7T PRO2 RU (POS), 2x256 MB CRUCIAL PC2100 CL2.5 memory, Asus V6800 DDR Delux (GF 256) video card, 6.4GB+27GB WD HD, 40GB IBM HD (all 7200RPM). My computer is an acronym

More about : ddr 333 400 nforce2

Anonymous
a b } Memory
May 3, 2003 1:29:41 AM

Where has that been shown? I would like to see it if you have some links or something.
May 3, 2003 3:01:19 AM

it performs worse if you're running out of sync you mean
DDR333 will also run worse than DDR266 if you're running async with a 133mhz fsb
run yourself in sync, no matter what

<A HREF="http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/ayb2.swf" target="_new">411 UR 84$E R 8E10NG 2 U$</A>
Related resources
May 3, 2003 2:16:50 PM

let me rephrase the question.

If I get DDR400, and run it at a 333 FSB,
it should run the same as DDR 333 at 333 FSB correct? (same CL)

Athlon XP 1600+, MSI K7T PRO2 RU (POS), 2x256 MB CRUCIAL PC2100 CL2.5 memory, Asus V6800 DDR Delux (GF 256) video card, 6.4GB+27GB WD HD, 40GB IBM HD (all 7200RPM). My computer is an acronym
May 3, 2003 2:53:04 PM

Yes, that is correct.
May 3, 2003 10:18:57 PM

For what it's worth, AMD is going to release the XP3200+ this month, with a 400 MHz FSB. For the small difference in price, go for the DDR 400 and plan to be able to run synchronously with the newer processors. As for now, sure, run it at 333.

<A HREF="http://rebturtle.com" target="_new">rebturtle</A>
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/rebturtle/TurtleTech.html" target="_new">My System</A>
May 4, 2003 12:14:52 AM

Thanks, that's all I needed to know. I'll get the 400 for future compatability, though it isn't likely that I'll upgrade the proc again on the board. More than likely the next upgrade will be after I graduate, and get an Opteron.

Athlon XP 1600+, MSI K7T PRO2 RU (POS), 2x256 MB CRUCIAL PC2100 CL2.5 memory, Asus V6800 DDR Delux (GF 256) video card, 6.4GB+27GB WD HD, 40GB IBM HD (all 7200RPM). My computer is an acronym
May 12, 2003 1:16:54 AM

you can always run a barton or even a thouroughbred at 400 fsb too and then it'll eb in sync, or am i being obtuse?
May 24, 2003 8:43:32 PM

Actually, I too remember benchmarks (this is months ago) that showed that in Dual Channel, against expectations, 333MHz FSB outperformed 400 MHz FSB.

If anyone can provide links that shows results CONTRARY to what I wrote above, I'll be VERY interested!
Anonymous
a b } Memory
May 25, 2003 3:53:59 PM

That's BS. Show me any of these reviews, please.
May 25, 2003 9:52:02 PM

Why do you say it's BS? Do you think I'm making this up, or what?

Like I said above - early benchmarks showed that in Dual Channel mode PC3200 DDR performed less well than PC2700 DDR. Memory running in sync with the FSB.

Now, *why* this may be I have no idea - whether it had somethign to do with the memory sticks, or the motherboard, or the revision of the nForce2 chipset. I don't know.

But I haven't seen ANY benchmarks which show things have changed, which show the above not to be true. Which is why I said, if anyone can point me to some benches that show that, in sync Dual Channel mode, DDR400 performs better than 333DDR I'll be very interested.

You asked for a link to the benchmarks I refer to - unfortunately I can't remember what site they were on (it's months ago). I've been Googling and reading various websites for the last 2 hours or so, but no luck yet. If I DO come accross it again I'll post a link here.

My request also still stands - if anyone can show a website that shows the above NOT to be correct, please post a link!
Anonymous
a b } Memory
May 26, 2003 3:12:39 PM

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply you are making it up.

I just meant that I think that the generalization that DDR400 is slower than DDR333 on NForce2s is BS.

This concept is completely illogical. I guarantee you if you could show me these mysterious links I could find fault with the benchmark which backs up what you are saying.

There are plenty of benchmarks on the mad onion site which say the exact opposite of what you are saying. I would just like to see one shred of evidence that supports what you say.
May 27, 2003 3:05:20 AM

what I think he is referring to can be seen here:

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030214/index...." target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030214/index....;/A>

you can see in this article that DDR333 does indeed do better in the gaming/theoretical portion of the benchmarking, but DDR400 is better in real world apps and the like for the most part. I believe that the Newest versions of the Nforce2 chipset fix this issue, though I can't find that article yet.

Just a computer junky
Anonymous
a b } Memory
May 27, 2003 8:35:21 PM

That link does not prove or even claim to prove what has been asserted here.

All these benchmarks were done with system settings which optimize DDR333. There is nothing showing what the system/s do/es with a FSB speed of 200MHz. There is incomplete data to draw this conclusion from that data.
!