Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Test Setup

Parallel Processing, Part 2: RAM and HDD
By

We selected a typical upper mainstream configuration for this project :

Platform
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (65nm, 3000 MHz, 4 MB L2 Cache)
Motherboard DFI LANParty UT P35-T2R, Rev : A.03
Chipset : Intel P35, BIOS 23.08.2007
RAM Corsair CM2X1024-888C4D
2x 1024 MB DDR2-800 (CL 4-4-4-12, 2T)
System Hard Drive Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD
150 GB, 10,000 RPM, 16 MB cache, SATA/150
Additional Hard Drives Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD
150 GB, 10,000 RPM, 16 MB cache, SATA/150
DVD-ROM Samsung SH-S183
Graphics Card Zotac GeForce 8800 GTS
GPU : GeForce 8800 GTS (500 MHz)
RAM : 320 MB GDDR3 (1600 MHz)
Sound Card Integrated
Power Supply Enermax EG565P-VE
ATX 2.01, 510 Watt
System Software & Drivers
OS Windows XP Professional 5.10.2600, Service Pack 2
DirectX Version 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Platform Drivers Intel Version 8.3.1013
Graphics Drivers Nvidia Forceware 162.18

An AMD Athlon 64 X2 system would have been more memory sensitive, but its overall performance is smaller, which is why we decided to stay with the Intel Core 2 Duo system.

Benchmarks And Settings

Benchmarks and Settings
3D-Games
Call Of Duty 2 Version : 1.3 Retail
Video Mode : 1280x960
Anti Aliasing : off
Graphics Card : medium
Timedemo demo2
Prey Version : 1.3
Video Mode : 1280x1024
Video Quality : game default
Vsync = off
Benchmark : THG-Demo
Quake 4 Version : 1.2 (Dual-Core Patch)
Video Mode : 1280x1024
Video Quality : high
THG Timedemo waste.map
timedemo demo8.demo 1 (1 = load textures)
Audio
Lame MP3 Version 3.98 Beta 5
Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min
wave to mp3
160 kbps
Video
TMPEG 3.0 Express Version : 3.0.4.24 (no Audio)
fist 5 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE (704x576) 16:9
Multithreading by rendering
DivX 6.7 Version : 6.7 (4 Logical CPUs)
Profile : High Definition Profile
1-pass, 3000 kbit/s
Encoding mode : Insane Quality
Enhanced multithreading
no Audio
XviD 1.1.3 Version : 1.1.3
Target quantizer : 1.00
Mainconcept H.264 v2 Version 2.1
260 MB MPEG-2 source (1920x1080) 16:9
Codec : H.264
Mode : NTSC
Audio : AAC
Profile : High
Stream : Program
Applications
Winrar Version 3.70
(303 MB, 47 Files, 2 Folders)
Compression = Best
Dictionary = 4096 kB
Autodesk 3D Studio Max Version : 8.0
Characters "Dragon_Charater_rig"
Rendering HTDV 1920x1080
Cinebench Version : R10
1 CPU, x CPU run
Sysmark 2007 Preview Version 1.01
Official Run
Synthetics
PCMark05 Pro Version : 1.2.0
CPU and Memory Tests
Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646
Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 6 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    perzy , August 8, 2008 8:11 AM
    This is a great article!
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , September 15, 2008 9:40 PM
    (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
  • 3 Hide
    hellwig , November 21, 2008 6:33 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    meodowla , September 15, 2009 9:27 AM
    Won't it be different when using a AMD processor with Memory Controller inside CPU.
  • 0 Hide
    junghm69 , March 24, 2011 4:48 AM
    My Windows Experience Index 3D gaming graphics score goes up from 3.8 to 5.1 when I switch from dual channel to single channel. This makes absolutely no sense. I thought dual channel was supposed to be better than single channel. Can anyone explain this?

    I seriously doubt that this score is accurate. I am using the built in graphics controller on the motherboard which is an AMD 760G chipset (ATI HD 3000 or 3200 I think). I've used Radeon HD 5450 video cards on similar systems and they give me a score of 5.4. How can a built in graphics controller give me a 5.1?

    AMD Athlon II X3 435 Rana (2.9 ghz)
    Asus M4A78LT-M motherboard
    4 GB G.Skill DDR3-1333 (2x2GB) F3-10600CL9D-4GBNT CL9-9-9-24 1.5V
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , April 24, 2011 12:57 AM
    junghm69
    because if you used 2 different memory chips both will run at the speed of the lowest memory chip when you activate dual channel in your motherboard