Quick Take

It became obvious to us during testing that a user's choice of memory on this particular platform is not going to make a huge difference in the performance of the system. The age old rule about utilizing the highest speed memory at the lowest possible latencies still holds true. This rule was especially evident in our synthetic benchmark testing, but results in our application and game testing told us another story.

This story told us the choice of components like the CPU, motherboard, or graphics card is far more important to the overall performance of the system than our memory selection on this platform. While this is not surprising and certainly not unexpected, it just reinforces the fact that at this price point you can certainly extend the life of your existing DDR memory.

In the future you can worry about major improvements such as an upgraded video card or motherboard and then add higher performing DDR2 memory that will take advantage of these additions. If you have a very limited budget and want to move to the Intel Core 2 Duo processor now, then rest assured that your DDR-400 memory is more than capable for a system like the one tested today.

Game Performance Comparison
Comments Locked

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • preacherman - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    What would be intresting would be a maybe running at least the synth benchmarks on another C2D mobo.. with the same CPU,HDD;DDR2 etc etc.

    This would show us if the mobo as a whole runs at a performance handicap to others mobo or.. as I would hope.. basicly its up or near there in performance with most other C2D mobos with or without DDR2.

    If that is the case then the mobo is truly very good for those of us not wanting to shell out 250e+ for 2x1Gb DDR2 when we already have 2x512Mb DDR sat in our current rigs so we could spend that money on CPU/GPU as you wrote in your atricle and maybe get DDR2 later as and when funds become available.
    thanks.
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    quote:

    What would be intresting would be a maybe running at least the synth benchmarks on another C2D mobo.. with the same CPU,HDD;DDR2 etc etc.


    You will see this in the final comparison article. The general performance of the board is about the same as we reported in our Conroe Buying Guide. However, the 1.5 bios has improved performance in some areas.
  • yacoub - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    I am surprised how little advantage DDR2 has over DDR memory. Very interesting. Was the difference greater from SDR to DDR? I forget.
  • Locutus465 - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    I'm guessing a higher end board with a better memory controller might show DD2 in a better light.
  • retrospooty - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    The same can be said for DDR.

    MY DFI Lanparty NF4 runs my Corsair BH-5 chips at 260mhz@ 2-2-2-7 timings. DDR2@ 1000mhz@5-5-5 cant even beat that.
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    We did a top-end DDR vs DDR2 on the AM2 at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?.... Of course, DDR2 bandwidth on the AM2 is huge, even though it doesn't always translate into real-world performance gains. Conroe is not nearly as efficient as AM2 on memory but still outperforms by a wide margin. In the AM2 article we found fast DDR400 and DDR2-533 roughly equivalent, with faster DDR2 speeds providing a bit more performance.

    It appears with Conroe on a VIA chipset DDR2-533 gains more, but real-world is still in the ball park with DDR400. That may be a commentary on the VIA chipset and may not apply to Intel or nVidia or ATI. However, this VIA board is the first to allow a DDR/DDR2 comparison with Conroe.

    There are other boards for Dore 2 Duo coming that will support DDR on Core 2 Duo. For the value builder, it will be interesting to see how this board compares to some of those.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    In some instances DDR was quite a bit faster than SDR. I think it gave about a 10% performance boost on average, and up to 20% in a few special cases. It's also worth noting that the ASRock does offer lower performance than other high-end DDR2 boards, but the price tradeoff makes it justifiable.
  • yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link

    Well, if you go by pure synthetic benchmarks, DDR is 5x faster than SDRAM most of the time. Actual application performance, may be different.
  • Calin - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    DDR was quite a bit faster than DDR - just the way it is now with DDR2 and SDR. However, in the budget side of the equation, the processors weren't starved enough for bandwidth, so the difference was very small.
    I wonder what the results would have been if a faster processor would have been used.

    Oh, and maybe the chipset/BIOS isn't optimized for DDR2 performance (as for DDR, all the performance that could have been squeezed in about three-four years of building chipsets was already there).
  • Jedi2155 - Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - link

    Did you mean DDR was quite a bit faster than SDR and now with DDR2 with DDR?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now