9:00 AM - 10/17/2007 by
Patrick Schmid
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (4) |
- Share

As expected, 3D performance doesn’t benefit much from better storage throughput. However, SYSmark 2007 Preview at least notices that there is a difference.

As there is a lot of audio-visual content to be loaded, the e-learning section of SYSmark 2007 Preview runs clearly faster on a fast RAID subsystem. Here, four drives do increase performance compared to two.



The final score of SYSmark 2007 rewards the RAID setups with two or four drives. You can gain 4% by deploying a RAID 0 setup with two drives, and a little under 3% more by adding two extra drives.
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- CPU Buyers' Guide (updated 10 May 2008)
- Best CPU for Parallel Cluster?
- Just how is dual core different than non?
- AMD blows $75 million on Rambus
- Compatible?
- Why AMD is better than Intel?
- 256bit 8600 GTS real or just rumours?
- Fluid Flight Sim PC and more. Help please on best equipment
- Best mobo for this processor...
- x1900gt/x1800xt same price. help me choose.
- 3 Motherboards, one choice
- Why is PC RAM only 64-bit?
- The Graphics State of the Union
- Intel's Core 2 Quadro Kentsfield: Four Cores on a Rampage
Related news
- Microsoft Officially Names Cloud-base Operating System "Windows Azure"
- Nvidia adds double graphics processing to GeForce 6800
- UPDATE: Google combines spreadsheets and word processing
- Second-gen Tesla Packs More Memory, Bandwidth, Processing Horsepower
- Intel And Nvidia Co-sponsors In Parallel Programming Initiative
Best offers
|
HDDR500E04XL 500GB Portable External... | $99.99 Dell Home More info |
|
Portable External 640GB 2.5" Hard... | $109.99 Directron More info |
|
My Passport Essential 500GB Portable... | $129.99 STAPLES More info |
|
Signature Mini Espresso Portable... | $139.99 STAPLES More info |
|
My Book Essential Edition External... | $148.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
Popular Searches
- sysmark 2007
- sysmark 2007 download
- sysmark 2007 preview
- sysmark 2007 preview rating
- sysmark 2007 scores
- sysmark 2007 preview productivity
- what is the difference between a single and dual channel raid controller
- sysmark score
- 2007 preview rating
- sysmark® 2007 preview
- dual channel memory benefits
- sysmark 2007 preview overall score
- sysmark scores
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
PC Breakdown
What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
|
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
Ads






This is a great article!
(Firt of all: Excuse my poor English... )
mmm yours memory tests don't convince me. You should run, for example, Winrar AND Lame IN PARALLEL/SIMULTANEOUS (i.e multitasking), otherwise, caches don't are flushed (and it's when dual channel really is important). Note that it's not a superflous situation; under normal use a system commonly have several huge memory applications run concurrently (word, browser whith a lot of tabs open, anti-virus, etc. )
el_bot
I doubt anyone from Tom's will see this comment on such an old article, but it would have been interesting to see Single-vs.-Dual channel memory using an AMD processor. Since Tom's like Intel, the new Core i7's would also be beneficial. The point is, the article acknowledges the Core 2's have a tremendous amount of L2 cache to combat FSB (and consequently Memory) latencies. How is the comparison with an AMD or nwe Core i7 where there is NO FSB and the L2 Cache is significantly reduce? I would imagine this is where dual/tripple-channel shows is mustard. I hope we see a single vs. dual vs. triple channel comparison soon.
Won't it be different when using a AMD processor with Memory Controller inside CPU.