Impact of Athlon 64 Memory Controllers on 1GB DIMM Performance

While there has been a lot of talk about the different capabilities of the evolving Athlon 64 on-processor memory controllers, there really hasn't been much discussion of the limitations of some of the earlier Clawhammer controllers. We ran into this issue head-on in our first efforts at testing these 1GB DIMMs.

Most are aware that the early Clawhammer controllers did not officially support 4 DIMMs of any kind at other than a 2T Command Rate. In fact, this continued on in the current Rev. E controller. Some are also aware that the Clawhammer memory controller did not officially support DDR400 with 4 DS DIMMs - official support was DDR333. However, most board makers found that the controller really had no problem with 4DS DIMMs running at DDR400 and supported that "extended feature" in BIOS.

There are not the only differences in the memory controllers that come into play with the more demanding 1GB DIMMs. Our standard test bed CPU has been the 4000+, specifically the original Clawhammer version. Today, you can also buy a 90nm Rev. E version, but we had found no reason to upgrade from the Clawhammer version - until these 1GB tests. Our first efforts with the OCZ 2GB kit saw things very much out of the ordinary in our memory testing. First, Super Pi was no longer a reliable indicator of top speed. In the past, we could run Super Pi, and if it ran, we were confident that the rest of our memory test suite would run without problems.

Now, with the 1GB DIMMs and Clawhammer controller, Super Pi could run perfectly at a CPU clock some 15 points higher than what we could get Quake3, or Return to Wolfenstein to run. With 1GB DIMMs, gaming was now the most demanding task in our suite.

The other strange behavior with our Clawhammer was overclocking. Our first efforts with the OCZ 1GB DIMMs topped out at DDR520. That seemed OK until we saw others doing 540 and even higher on simple air cooling with the same memory. What was different? We finally realized that the highest overclockers with 1GB DIMMs were using processors with Rev. E memory controllers.

Once we switched to an FX57, with a set multiplier of 12X to produce comparable results to past memory reviews, our overclocking clock frequency went up to DDR550 - 30 points higher. The Super Pi issue remained, since we could run Super Pi and Sandra Memory tests all day at DDR565, but gaming tests crashed the system at any setting over DDR550.

It is clear that 1GB DIMMs put a much greater demand on system resources than 512MB DIMMs. It is also clear that the newer Athlon 64 memory controllers are better at meeting the demands of 1GB DIMMs in overclocking. We went back and compared performance of 512MB DIMMs on Clawhammer and Rev. E just for a sanity check. There was virtually no difference in 512MB overclocking on either memory controller - pointing again to the extra demands of 1GB memory modules.

Our advice is to use a recent processor and memory controller with 1GB DIMMs if you plan to overclock the memory. If this is not possible, then expect lower overclocks from your 1GB DIMMs.

Why 1GB DIMMs? Performance Test Configuration
Comments Locked

40 Comments

View All Comments

  • Slaimus - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Does 4 single sided 512MB sticks behave the same as 2 double sided 1GB sticks?
  • eastvillager - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Why would you buy these when the 2-3-2-5 sticks are readily available?
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    If you read the review you will see that ALL THREE of the 1GB dimms ran at 2-3-2 at DDR400 to DDR440 or so. They will all run 2-3-2-5, but we have shown in previous tests the the nForce 4 is fastest running a tRAS of 6 or 7. We ran 2-3-2-7 because it is faster than 2-3-2-5 on the nForce4. Try it for yourslef with memtest86 and differnet tRAS.
  • Sunrise089 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Possible minor typos aside, this article is a great change of pace from some of the recent technical write-ups here on Anandtech(cough:R520:cough). The quality of writing as well as the attempt to put the parts in perspective and give the big picture is much appreciated. With so many sites out there, I can go anywhere for simple RAM benchmarks, but for me it is much harder to find informed discussions about why the part being reviewed is a good idea/choice or not. I really felt this side of the story was lacking in the X1800 reviews and am glad to see it here.
  • Houdani - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Page 3:
    quote:

    our overclocking clock frequency went up to DDR500 - 30 points higher.

    I think you meant DDR550.

    Page 4:
    In your table of memory, you list the 3 new sticks as 2x512. I think you meant 2x1024.
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Corrected. Thanks for bringing these to us. It's funny that they looked just fine at 3AM :-)
  • Doormat - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Whether its worth it or not to invest heavily (these pieces arent cheap) in DDR1 tech if you've already got a pair of fast running 2x512MB sticks. You'll just have to buy DDR2 sticks in a year if you want the fastest stuff (an A64 M2-socket based chip).
  • emilyek - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Lame. Why not a big review on the many available 2 and 2.5 cas DDR 400 sticks? The Geil, Patriot, OCZ, Gskill, and Corsair already top out at about 1k FSB when loosed up, and the timings on these RAMS sucks anyway.
  • DrMrLordX - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    They've said it before, and I'll say it again: you just can't add every available DIMM variety to RAM tests. There's too much on the market, and many of the budget RAM types have wildly variable quality and performance.
  • RockSolid - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    The RamGuy link on Page 5 is incorrect.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now