mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2003-03-21, 00:55   #12
wfzelle
 
Jan 2003

2×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xtreme2k
I tend to agree more chips means higher latency.

But I remember reading from some reputable sites that more sticks does offer MORE performance, which is weird. I think it was aceshardware.com but I really cant be sure.
That happens when you do interleaving. Two sticks work in concert to give a higher throughput. Sort of like RAID 1. It isn't used in RDRAM machines though, but the newest DDR PIV chipsets are using it.
wfzelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-03-21, 06:59   #13
sdbardwick
 
sdbardwick's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
North San Diego County

23·5·17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wfzelle
That happens when you do interleaving. Two sticks work in concert to give a higher throughput. Sort of like RAID 1. It isn't used in RDRAM machines though, but the newest DDR PIV chipsets are using it.
Others can undoubtedly provide a more accurate and detailed explaination, but I need a CNN break, so here goes:

Interleaving reduces latency, making more efficient use of bandwidth.
Multiple [i.e. dual] memory channels (alluded to above with regards to the newest PIV chipsets) increase bandwidth.

Interleaving has been around for a long time, but dual memory channels [in consumer PCs] are a new development.

Interleaving does not necessarily require multiple physical modules; it just needs multiple memory banks, and a single DIMM can have multiple banks. It allows one bank to be accessed while another bank is simultaneously being refreshed and thus cannot be accessed. However, it doesn't make the pipe bigger, just prevents air bubbles.

Dual channel memory does make the pipe bigger; interleaving can be implemented on each of the channels as well.
sdbardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-03-21, 19:29   #14
outlnder
 
outlnder's Avatar
 
Aug 2002

4768 Posts
Default

I have 4-way interleaving on 3 machines. It doesn't make any difference in LL speeds.
outlnder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-01-03, 22:44   #15
RickC
 
Mar 2003

4510 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RickC
I have 4 RDRAM slots configured like this:

1. 256MB module
2. 256MB module
3. continuity module
4. continuity module

Something I will try if the price goes down is fill the other two slots and see the impact on performace not due to total MB but due to more modules in use.

I just ordered two more 256MB modules. I will run some benchmarks out of curiosity to see if there's any difference with two RDRAM modules vs. four RDRAM modules. The two I ordered are identical to the two that are already in there: SAMSUNG PC1066 256MB RAMBUS non-ECC 16-Bit 184-Pin (MR16R1628DF0-CT9).
RickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-01-14, 02:28   #16
Angular
 
Aug 2002

2·33 Posts
Default

What happened to the 32-bit Rambus RAM that was hyped in the news?
Angular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-01-19, 00:27   #17
RickC
 
Mar 2003

32·5 Posts
Default

SiS has an RDRAM chipset:

http://www.sis.com/products/chipsets...tium4/r659.htm

It will be interesting to see if Intel ever goes back to RDRAM. It's too bad it hasn't caught on enough to bring the price down.

Rambus came out with a new kind of memory called XDR DRAM:

http://www.rambus.com/products/xdr/
RickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-01-24, 13:47   #18
RickC
 
Mar 2003

32×5 Posts
Default hard to find

The first 3 places I ordered from ended up not being able to get them to me even though they claimed to have them in stock. They then took it off their websites and don't sell it anymore. I ended up getting them from zipzoomfly.com for $95 each.

Interesting that no timings are reported in SPD info for RDRAM.

SPD info:

CPU-Z version 1.20a
Memory Modules Serial Presence Detect (SPD)

Module #1

General
Memory type RDRAM
Manufacturer (ID) Samsung (CE59414532453030)
Max bandwidth PC1066 (533 MHz)
Part number MR16R 1628DF0-CT9

Attributes


Module #2

General
Memory type RDRAM
Manufacturer (ID) Samsung (CE59414532453030)
Max bandwidth PC1066 (533 MHz)
Part number MR16R 1628DF0-CT9

Attributes


Module #3

General
Memory type RDRAM
Manufacturer (ID) Samsung (CE48414330463059)
Max bandwidth PC1066 (533 MHz)
Part number MR16R 1628DF0-CT9

Attributes


Module #4

General
Memory type RDRAM
Manufacturer (ID) Samsung (CE48414330463059)
Max bandwidth PC1066 (533 MHz)
Part number MR16R 1628DF0-CT9

Attributes
RickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-01-24, 13:50   #19
RickC
 
Mar 2003

558 Posts
Default 2 benchmarks with only two modules in (and two continuity modules)

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz
CPU speed: 2386.59 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 8 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 version 23.8, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 14.891 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 17.628 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 20.082 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 24.039 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 29.315 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 34.824 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 39.079 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 51.067 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 63.074 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 74.860 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 84.957 ms.

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz
CPU speed: 2386.24 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 8 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 version 23.8, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 14.906 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 17.644 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 20.052 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 24.023 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 29.213 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 34.742 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 38.989 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 50.953 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 62.899 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 74.811 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 84.821 ms.
RickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-01-24, 13:51   #20
RickC
 
Mar 2003

32×5 Posts
Default 2 benchmarks with all 4 modules in

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz
CPU speed: 2386.60 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 8 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 version 23.8, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 14.981 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 17.761 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 20.210 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 24.258 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 29.358 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 34.891 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 39.276 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 51.338 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 63.220 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 75.079 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 85.432 ms.

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz
CPU speed: 2386.47 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 8 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 version 23.8, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 14.957 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 17.731 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 20.179 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 24.205 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 29.366 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 34.912 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 39.215 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 51.401 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 63.358 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 74.921 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 85.429 ms.
RickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-01-24, 13:59   #21
RickC
 
Mar 2003

1011012 Posts
Default prime slower but machine runs better

It looks like more RDRAM modules might make prime a little slower. I did all the benchmarks exactly the same: rebooted Windows 2000 and made the sure the boot and log in completely finished. Made sure nothing else was running and then ran the benchmark.

The computer is much more responsive now. It looks like any unused memory gets used as "System Cache" according to Windows Task Manager.
RickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
256 MB PC100 SDRAM masser Hardware 10 2009-04-28 18:42

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:31.

Mon Sep 28 09:31:00 UTC 2020 up 18 days, 6:41, 0 users, load averages: 1.26, 1.41, 1.37

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.