[QUOTE=kracker;351598]On 28.1 with one thread, times went from 10 ms to 8 ms.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, memory bandwidth prevents us from enjoying this gain when running 4 workers.

On another note, I successfully downloaded LinX and it drives temperatures a good 10 degrees higher than prime95's small FFT torture test.

Wow! This means that is still room from improvement in P95!
About (75/65-1)*100=15.38% :razz:

Waiting for the improved version...

[QUOTE=LaurV;351612]Wow! This means that is still room from improvement in P95!
About (75/65-1)*100=15.38% :razz:

Waiting for the improved version...[/QUOTE]


75 = ?
65 = ?

Oliver

[QUOTE=Prime95;351600]Sadly, memory bandwidth prevents us from enjoying this gain when running 4 workers.[/QUOTE]

Around the same time I e-mailed George thusly:
[quote]I've been meaning to ask: Are you OCing both cpu and ram, or just the former? If also the ram, do you use a preset OC config or a custom? [e.g. do you need to up the ram voltages and such].

I'm thinking those big alu heatfins on the ddr3 2400 ram we bought are just screaming "overclock me!", and that is something I might be able to do even with cpu at stock.[/quote]
I've been quite busy the past month writing code aimed at boosting || performance of Mlucas and have not wanted to interrupt my workflow for mem-OC experiments, but if I'm not mistaken George may soon have some good news on that front.

Faster = Slower?
 

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351770]if I'm not mistaken George may soon have some good news on that front.[/QUOTE]

My good news was premature. Last night I went into the BIOS and selected DDR3-2600 and DDR3-2800 and the machine booted and torture tested OK. Sadly, this morning I benchmarked prime95 and it was slower!!

Digging deeper, the mobo chooses a 266Mhz memory clock for DDR3-2400, but a 200MHz memory clock for DDR3-2600 and DDR3-2800. With timings for 2400 a nice tight 10-12-12-31. Timings for 2600 were a slow 11-13-13-33 (I assume this is clock counts for the slower 200 MHz memory bus).

Next I tried DDR3-2666. While it isn't stable, it does use the 266 MHz memory clock and timings of 11-13-13-34. Surely this will be faster in prime95, right? Wrong. This too is 15% slower than DDR3-2400.

Clearly I don't understand memory overclocking. Can anyone explain to me what might be going on?

Ah, I inferred - incorrectly - from your e-mail yesterday that your preliminary timing/torture tests had indicated a performance gain, which you wanted to make sure still left the system running stably on a 24/7 basis. My new-system experiments in ratcheting up the RAM clocking from 1600 to 2400 also made it sound like the only issue in pushing past the rated 2400 would be stability under load. Sorry about the overoptimism, but it really sounded to me like we were gonna get a nice little freebie here.

(And perhaps we still shall, once we get help from the OC experts).

[offtopic]
[QUOTE=TheJudger;351732]75 = ?
65 = ?[/QUOTE]
that was just a joke: he said that the cpu is 10 degree hotter, and I assumed that the temperature goes from 65C to 75C, something which is "in his favour", but you can use any numbers, inlcuding 3 and 13 :razz:, which would mean other tester uses the cpu "better", as is squeezes more heat from it. The conclusion is that p95 can be improved... for the case when his initial temperature was 3C, and it is now 13C, well... p95 is very inefficient program, and it has to be improved (13/3-1)*100=333% :w00t:
[/offtopic]

FWIW- this chart gives some idea of the trade-offs between frequency and latency.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM#Modules[/url]

I'm not sure it really addresses your issues, though.

[QUOTE=LaurV;351797][offtopic]

that was just a joke: he said that the cpu is 10 degree hotter, and I assumed that the temperature goes from 65C to 75C, something which is "in his favour", but you can use any numbers, inlcuding 3 and 13 :razz:, which would mean other tester uses the cpu "better", as is squeezes more heat from it. The conclusion is that p95 can be improved... for the case when his initial temperature was 3C, and it is now 13C, well... p95 is very inefficient program, and it has to be improved (13/3-1)*100=333% :w00t:
[/offtopic][/QUOTE]
Physics fail! Everyone knows you must use Kelvins when taking ratios. :razz:

[QUOTE=axn;351799]Physics fail! Everyone knows you must use Kelvins when taking ratios. :razz:[/QUOTE]
:tu:
Where have you been? I was missing you ..

Conventional wisdom, as far as I knew, was that higher frequency meant better bandwidth and lower timings and lower timings meant better latency, but I think that's a bunch of bogus.

The timings essentially represent how many "ticks" the module has to accomplish a certain part of the task of reading and writing memory and that the frequency defines "ticks per second". Any bandwidth calculation I have found does not seem to take into account timings, however, which has me just as confuzzled.

I've been looking a good bit into this and sadly I seem to know less and less the more I read. I was hoping to just add my knowledge to the pool here but if I keep going I won't have anything useful to say.