Athlon64 question

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedSheraton
  • Start date Start date
R

RedSheraton

Sorry to ask this question here, but ...


I'm thinking of upgrading to a Athlon64 3000+ socket 939, A8V or A8N
mainboard based system. When I look on the AMD website for front side
bus speeds, it doesn't quote FSB as 1600, 2100, 2700 or whatever,
neither does it specify whether it the Athlon64 3000+ skt 939 should use
DDR2700, DDR3200 or whatever, it simply quotes the Integrated Memory
Controller speed as 2000 MHz. Does this mean I can use DDR2700 or
DDR3200 as I choose and the mainboard and processor will automatically
adjust themselves correctly to the memory speed? The AMD website isn't
very helpful about this.
 
RedSheraton said:
Sorry to ask this question here, but ...


I'm thinking of upgrading to a Athlon64 3000+ socket 939, A8V or A8N
mainboard based system. When I look on the AMD website for front side
bus speeds, it doesn't quote FSB as 1600, 2100, 2700 or whatever,
neither does it specify whether it the Athlon64 3000+ skt 939 should use
DDR2700, DDR3200 or whatever, it simply quotes the Integrated Memory
Controller speed as 2000 MHz. Does this mean I can use DDR2700 or
DDR3200 as I choose and the mainboard and processor will automatically
adjust themselves correctly to the memory speed? The AMD website isn't
very helpful about this.
Click to expand...

I am sorry to say we are still many years away from a FSB of 2700, now that
will be something!!!

Most all mainboards these days are able to configure themselves to the proc
you install, certainly all AUS boards will.

The RAM will have a device on it called SPD. This will tell the mainboard
the BIOS what memoru speed you have. So you only need to set the BIOS for
Auto, and you are good to go there.

Don
 
Ha ha! Yes :)

I should have meant FSB of 333 or 400 Mhz! LOL!

I presume I just place my banks of DDR PC2700 or DDR PC3200 into the
correct slots in the mainboard and the CPU or mainboard chipset will
recognise what the speed of the memory is and adjust itself accordingly.

I found the AMD website info confusing because all Socket A Semprons
(AFAIK) have an FSB of 333MHz i.e. must use DDR PC2700 or faster
 
That's right.

RedSheraton said:
Ha ha! Yes :)

I should have meant FSB of 333 or 400 Mhz! LOL!

I presume I just place my banks of DDR PC2700 or DDR PC3200 into the
correct slots in the mainboard and the CPU or mainboard chipset will
recognise what the speed of the memory is and adjust itself accordingly.

I found the AMD website info confusing because all Socket A Semprons
(AFAIK) have an FSB of 333MHz i.e. must use DDR PC2700 or faster
Click to expand...
 
Red;

While ASUS boards will correctly determine the SPEED of the RAM, you nay
have to manually adjust the voltage. I have an ASUS motherboard running an
AMD64 with 1GB Corsair RAM with 2-2-2-5 timings. The motherboard set the
proper timings, but put the voltage a default setting of 2.5. I had blue
screens like mad until I upped the voltage to 2.75 volts ( in the BIOS).

BTW, I might add that the Corsair RAM is by far the best RAM I have ever
used.

Bobby
 
If you have 2 sticks of PC3200 put them in slot 1 and 3 to utilize the Dual
Channel feature.
 
I am sorry to say we are still many years away from a FSB of 2700, now
that
will be something!!!
Click to expand...

.. . . but my ASUS board has a FSB of 800 peta hertz and the CPU is 4.0
exa-hertz. The memory has an access time of 100 yoctoseconds, all 400
exabytes of it.

-g
 
Geoff said:
. . . but my ASUS board has a FSB of 800 peta hertz and the CPU is 4.0
exa-hertz. The memory has an access time of 100 yoctoseconds, all 400
exabytes of it.

-g
Click to expand...

Not everyone can be a professor of electronic engineering :)
 
You need 80 ys ram in a config like that... remember?

(oh for the day - I expect a pina colada in the sun on some tropical beach
if I last that long).
 
If you have 2 sticks of PC3200 put them in slot 1 and 3 to utilize the Dual
Channel feature.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread..

But what is this Dual Channel Feature?
I'm still in the Dimms world, but will sometime soon be making the
move to ddr.. I guess this is one more reason why one should get two
sticks of 512 instead of a single 1 gig?

-Tony!-
 
Tony said:
Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread..

But what is this Dual Channel Feature?
I'm still in the Dimms world, but will sometime soon be making the
move to ddr.. I guess this is one more reason why one should get two
sticks of 512 instead of a single 1 gig?

-Tony!-
Click to expand...
If your motherboard supports dual channel memory, you should get two sticks
(preferably a matched pair). Dual channel is "sort of" like disk RAID
stripping for memory and is faster than single channel. If you don't
understand RAID stripping for disk, then start doing some googling.
 
Mark said:
If your motherboard supports dual channel memory, you should get two sticks
(preferably a matched pair). Dual channel is "sort of" like disk RAID
stripping for memory and is faster than single channel. If you don't
understand RAID stripping for disk, then start doing some googling.
Click to expand...

But we all know that "dual channel" is not noticeably quicker (in the
real world, of course) than single channel.

And filling up available memory slots with tiny modules is nowhere near
as quick as filling them with high capacity modules.

A Windows 2000 / XP system with 2GB of memory (in single-channel mode)
is going to run a *lot* smoother than one with 1GB of memory.


Odie
 
Odie Ferrous said:
But we all know that "dual channel" is not noticeably quicker (in the
real world, of course) than single channel.

And filling up available memory slots with tiny modules is nowhere near
as quick as filling them with high capacity modules.

A Windows 2000 / XP system with 2GB of memory (in single-channel mode)
is going to run a *lot* smoother than one with 1GB of memory.
Click to expand...

Well...no freakin' duh.
But that system with 2GB in dual channel will (theoretically) run faster
than just 2GB, and the 1GB system running in dual channel will run faster
than the 1GB in single channel.
 
Well...no freakin' duh.
Click to expand...

No - no "freakin' duh" at all. There seems to be a lot of emphasis
placed on dual channel.
But that system with 2GB in dual channel will (theoretically) run faster
than just 2GB, and the 1GB system running in dual channel will run faster
than the 1GB in single channel.
Click to expand...

I agree. But what I meant to say is 2GB running in single channel will
knock spots off your average machine with 1GB in dual channel mode.

I found that moving from 1GB to 1.5GB made a noticeable difference.

Odie
 
Odie Ferrous said:
I agree. But what I meant to say is 2GB running in single channel will
knock spots off your average machine with 1GB in dual channel mode.

I found that moving from 1GB to 1.5GB made a noticeable difference.

Odie
--
Click to expand...

The question at hand is whether you run 2 GB at dual channel vs 2 GB at
single channel,

or run 1 GB at dual channel vs 1 GB at single channnel.

No one (except you) is comparing 1GB of dual channel vs. 2 GB of single
channel.
 
The question at hand is whether you run 2 GB at dual channel vs 2 GB at
single channel,

or run 1 GB at dual channel vs 1 GB at single channnel.

No one (except you) is comparing 1GB of dual channel vs. 2 GB of single
channel.
Click to expand...

I believe the question has been answered.

Dual channel is faster than single channel

2 GB is bigger than 1 GB

An application requiring more RAM may run better overall with 2 GB single channel than
with 1 GB dual channel..

For most applications that are more processor intensive, the dual channel mode should out
perform the single channel mode

With computers as fast as they are these days, 90% or more users can't tell the
difference.

I don't see much, if any, difference between my P4 box, running in dual channel, and my
XP3200 box running single channel


--

Packrat©

Est.1943

Need Help?????
http://www.videohelp.com
http://www.abmefaq.net
http://www.help4newbies.fsnet.co.uk/
http://www.slyck.com/ng.php
http://www.timdoc.com/
http://www.warezfaq.com/Index.htm
 
Mark A said:
The question at hand is whether you run 2 GB at dual channel vs 2 GB at
single channel,

or run 1 GB at dual channel vs 1 GB at single channnel.

No one (except you) is comparing 1GB of dual channel vs. 2 GB of single
channel.
Click to expand...
Bing! Ta-da, thankyou and goodnight.
 
Back
Top