ASRock 775Dual-VSTA: Does DDR2 matter?
by Gary Key on August 8, 2006 6:35 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Application Performance
We decided to test some real world applications that typically stress the CPU, memory, and storage systems to see if the results from our synthetic memory tests carry over to the desktop. Based upon those results, our DDR2-533 memory settings should outperform both the DDR2-667 and DDR-400 configurations, with all three outperforming DDR-333.
Our tasks include three activities that are common on the desktop. Our first test was to measure the time it takes to shrink the entire Office Space DVD that was extracted with AnyDVD into a single 4.5GB DVD image utilizing Nero Recode 2. Our second test utilizes WinRAR 3.6 and measures the time it takes to compress our test folder that contains 444 files, 10 folders, and 602MB of data.
Our third test consists of utilizing Exact Audio Copy as the front end for our version 3.98a3 of LAME. We set up EAC for variable bit rate encoding, burst mode for extraction, use external program for compression, and to start the external compressor upon extraction. (EAC will read the next track while LAME is working on the previous track, thus removing a potential bottleneck with the drive). Our test CD is INXS Greatest Hits, a one time '80s glory masterpiece containing 16 tracks totaling 606MB of songs. The results of our tests are presented in minutes/seconds with lower numbers being better.
We see that our DDR2-533 memory setting places first in all applications but the largest margin of victory is a 16 second advantage in the Nero Recode 2 test over the DDR-333 setting (a 3.9% performance advantage). Our DDR-400 results are impressive as they finish slightly ahead of the DDR2-667 settings, though both come close to the DDR2-533 configuration. The effects of the other platform components have basically negated the pure performance advantage of our DDR2-533 setting in the synthetic memory tests. While this particular ratio still offers the best overall performance, it would be difficult to tell the actual performance difference between it and our other memory without a benchmark.
We decided to test some real world applications that typically stress the CPU, memory, and storage systems to see if the results from our synthetic memory tests carry over to the desktop. Based upon those results, our DDR2-533 memory settings should outperform both the DDR2-667 and DDR-400 configurations, with all three outperforming DDR-333.
Our tasks include three activities that are common on the desktop. Our first test was to measure the time it takes to shrink the entire Office Space DVD that was extracted with AnyDVD into a single 4.5GB DVD image utilizing Nero Recode 2. Our second test utilizes WinRAR 3.6 and measures the time it takes to compress our test folder that contains 444 files, 10 folders, and 602MB of data.
Our third test consists of utilizing Exact Audio Copy as the front end for our version 3.98a3 of LAME. We set up EAC for variable bit rate encoding, burst mode for extraction, use external program for compression, and to start the external compressor upon extraction. (EAC will read the next track while LAME is working on the previous track, thus removing a potential bottleneck with the drive). Our test CD is INXS Greatest Hits, a one time '80s glory masterpiece containing 16 tracks totaling 606MB of songs. The results of our tests are presented in minutes/seconds with lower numbers being better.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
We see that our DDR2-533 memory setting places first in all applications but the largest margin of victory is a 16 second advantage in the Nero Recode 2 test over the DDR-333 setting (a 3.9% performance advantage). Our DDR-400 results are impressive as they finish slightly ahead of the DDR2-667 settings, though both come close to the DDR2-533 configuration. The effects of the other platform components have basically negated the pure performance advantage of our DDR2-533 setting in the synthetic memory tests. While this particular ratio still offers the best overall performance, it would be difficult to tell the actual performance difference between it and our other memory without a benchmark.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - link
That was overboard after reading through it again. ;-) Let's say in the future we use a different phrase. :)
johnsonx - Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - link
I looked at the charts in that review. 'Dismal' was the right word. It would be one thing if ALL value boards scored 10% lower than high-end boards; then it would be wrong to call such performance 'dismal'; that would be 'value' or some other word that respects the bargain price of the board. However, when many value boards come within a percentage or two of high-end boards (at least when considering stock performance), then 'dismal' is a great word for the perfomance that board exhibited.johnsonx - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
or maybe even an NForce 4 DDR2 board:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
johnsonx - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
oh, nevermind that NForce4 board, it doesn't support Conroe anyway.Nevertheless, my general point stands.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
We've looked at this board with high-end components, and users expressed interest in knowing more. As stated in the article, this is part one of three where we look at some interesting budget options. We've now established that DDR-400 and DDR2-533 perform acceptably on this system, for a budget configuration. Next up is a look at how the AGP and PCIe options fare, followed by a final article with comparisons to other similar boards (including an 865 and 915 model - not sure about the 945 though). 945 will require DDR2, of course, so it's in a bit different category.johnsonx - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
Oh, here's one, and same price too:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
Kougar - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
I never asked for it, but I sure as heck was wanting this EXACT article! Thank you! I already have purchased a E6300 and this same ASrock motherboard and received both, except the corner is bady bent from shipment so I haven't dared try to power the mainboard up and am awaiting a NewEgg claim to run through. Grrrr.The only thing this article didn't cover was my curiosity if the different types or RAM and the AGP vs PCIe graphics could possibly have any affect on the ~300FSB OC this board was able to attain in your previous article? Considering it OCs on the heels of any nForce chipset out there I think $57 is a exceptional value right now as I use a Northwood based system. My 9600XT won't handle games, but I'll at least get some serious folding@home work done... ;)
artifex - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
I think the question for someone looking to upgrade on a budget isn't "will I efficiently use the new motherboard and CPU with my old peripherals," but "will I see a real performance increase by keeping all my old gear except the motherboard and CPU?"You could be using the new board efficiently when compared to DDR2, but still not see enough difference to make upgrading worth the cost. Or, alternatively, your memory could be wildly inefficent in the new architecture compared to DDR2, but the new gear still brings you a huge performance increase. It all depends on the existing gear.
Right now, I have a Socket A TBred 2600+, 1GB of Mushkin DDR-333, and a Geforce 550 8x AGP card w/256MB, all on an Asus a7n8x deluxe 2.0 (I think). So in my world, the question is, if I have only $200-250 to spend to upgrade, is it better to get the cheap mobo and a cheap CPU, or invest in more memory, or what? It's quite possible that I won't see a real performance increase with the new board and CPU for that price, so it would be pointless to upgrade. In fact, it might even make sense to go buy an eMachines or something like it offered for $200-300, with some Celeron D processor in it, instead.
Of course, this is a lot harder to gauge, not least of which because it's a lot more subjective :)
Kougar - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
You should probably read through the rest of their Conroe articles then, especially the Feeding the Monster article where they have some hard numbers on this motherboard with a Core 2 Duo you were looking for. ;)AkumaX - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link
Did you try any overclocking (heaven forbid!)If you did, how high did you get :D