NF4 SLI is here.........

S

slats

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2000
Messages
1,660
Yeah, that is a bit on the xtreme end of price (albeit the wrong end). I'll wait till they come out with s754 mobos with PCI-E. They will most likely never have SLI, but I just need PCI-E.I see no reason to chuck my A64 3000 (s754) and vid card(which I will have to chuck/ebay) when I upgrade.
 
sure its pricey, and I might not be able to afford it ( :( ), but the performance would make every cent worthwhile :) . You really could make an ultimate system, and im sure there are people out there who could afford it and will build it. Would love to see it in action too.
 
Ive read a couple of reviews of DDR systems so far, Every one has concluded that the performance benefits are negligable, around 1 to 2%. But the price isnt htat insane anymore.
 
Well if you can get the DDR 2 Memory to 667MHz (DDR) then you've got something that will kick DDR 400 in the nutZ. That being said I've yet to get my board to do that even though my ram can supposedly do it.
 
So, comparing overclocked DDR2 to non-overclocked DDR is fair?

Please realize this is just my opinion, but DDR2 is useless for Athlon 64. Why would you wait for a technology that is more expensive and would likely only hurt the performance?

It did absolutely nothing for the 800 FSB P4:
DDR vs DDR2

There is virtually no performance difference, but DDR leads DDR2 in most of the comparisons.

Even cranking the FSB of the (bandwidth-starved) P4 to 1066 didn't really change things:
Comparing 3.2GHz at 800 and 1066 FSB

The average increase was less than 1%, which is about enough to make it perform on par with DDR.

Now, looking at the Athlon 64, even doubling memory bandwidth (moving from single-channel to dual-channel) only helped performance by roughly 5 to 10%. Increasing bandwith by another (tiny) amount while sacrificing memory timings won't do anything for Athlon 64.
 
Tanclearas said:
So, comparing overclocked DDR2 to non-overclocked DDR is fair?

Please realize this is just my opinion, but DDR2 is useless for Athlon 64. Why would you wait for a technology that is more expensive and would likely only hurt the performance?

It did absolutely nothing for the 800 FSB P4:
DDR vs DDR2

There is virtually no performance difference, but DDR leads DDR2 in most of the comparisons.

Even cranking the FSB of the (bandwidth-starved) P4 to 1066 didn't really change things:
Comparing 3.2GHz at 800 and 1066 FSB

The average increase was less than 1%, which is about enough to make it perform on par with DDR.

Now, looking at the Athlon 64, even doubling memory bandwidth (moving from single-channel to dual-channel) only helped performance by roughly 5 to 10%. Increasing bandwith by another (tiny) amount while sacrificing memory timings won't do anything for Athlon 64.
Click to expand...

QFT. DDR2 isn't doing SHIT for Pentium 4 performance, but costs 50% more money, and has latencies TWICE as high. Why in God's name would you want to use DDR2 in an Athlon 64, where low latency is more important than sheer theoretical bandwith anyway? DDR2 P4 systems are getting their asses beat in memory benchmarks to Socket 939 A64s using low-latency DDR400. Pay more money for less performance? Are people on crack or something?
 
But DDR2 must be better than DDR...I mean...it has bigger numbers and stuff...

*cough*

Anyway, calling a hardware setup "lame" is pretty silly. Mockery is the only thing that can result in a word choice like that. (Aside from maybe Chaintech's $200 nForce2 board that didn't have DualNet or Soundstorm, but that's for another thread. :p)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top