Home || News || Reviews || Articles || Contact || Store || Forums || Dumbass Database
Home
News
News Archive
Reviews
Articles
Contact
Store
Forums
Dumbass DB

» I need good web hosting
» Tired of spam
» Scholarships
» Hi! signature question...
» i forgot windows xp password.....

TwistedMods.com
Canada Forums
Explosive Labs
FindProductReview
HardAvenue.com
IceTeks
Kirba
Legion Hardware
MaXit Mag
OCIA
Overclockers Club
RipNet-UK
Rizenet
ThinkComputers
Ultra X
ViperLair
Virtual Hideout
VoidedWarranty
Syndicate:
XML
Crucial PC3200 256MB DDR
Page 2 - Benchmark Results
Author: Dan Podhola (WebMasterP)
Date: October 10, 2003
Category: Hardware
Options: Printable Version 12 pt Times New Roman 10 pt Times New Roman 12 pt Tahoma 10 pt Tahoma


Moving on to the performance of the RAM, let me first layout how the tests were performed. The benchmarks run were Quake 3 Arena (1.32 Point Release), SiSoft Sandra, and Super PI. The only oddity to point out is that Unbuffered Integer/Float Point performance in SiSoft Sandra. I borrowed this testing method from AnandTech.com. Basically, it is the standard memory test with all the special instruction sets and buffering disabled.

As for the test system, I would like to apologize for the dated video card. The Hercules card is all I had laying around during test time. It definitely presents a problem during the Q3A tests. It is listed in the specifications below, but I thought I should make it clear that the Corsair used for comparison is a XMS module PC2700 rated at CAS 2. However, at CAS 3 it can run at PC3200 (DDR400), which matches the Crucial memory specifications.

Test Machine Setup
Processor Athlon XP 1800+
Motherboard EPoX 8RDA (08/27/2003 BIOS)
RAM 1x Crucial PC3200 3-3-3-8
1x Crucial PC3200 2.5-3-3-6
2x Crucial PC3200 3-3-3-8
2x Crucial PC3200 2.5-3-3-6
1x Corsair PC2700 (@ PC3200) 3-3-3-8
Video Card Hercules GeForce2 MX400
Operating System Windows XP

I also tested the Crucial RAM at the highest timings I could achieve at 200MHz (400MHz DDR), which I found to be limited to 2.5-3-3-6. All the timings are clearly marked in the bar graphs.

Quake 3 - Demo FOUR
Normal - 640x480 - Frames Per Second
Crucial Dual Channel 2.5-3-3-6
Crucial Dual Channel 3-3-3-8
Crucial 2.5-3-3-6
Crucial 3-3-3-8
Corsair 3-3-3-8
126.6
126.5
126.2
126.2
126.1
 |
0
 |
22
 |
44
 |
66
 |
88
 |
110
 |
132

Obviously, most of these results are within the margin of error and are restricted by the GeForce2 MX400. On the other hand, it should be noted that the results fall into order one would expect from the configurations and timings. If this graph demonstrates anything at all, it would be that if you think getting dual channel RAM is better than upgrading an old new video card for increasing your gaming experience you are wrong.

SiSoft Sandra MAX3!
Unbuffered Integer Performance (MB/sec)
2x256MB Crucial Dual Channel 2.5-3-3-6
2x256MB Crucial Dual Channel 3-3-3-8
256MB Crucial 2.5-3-3-6
256MB Crucial 3-3-3-8
256MB Corsair 3-3-3-8
1049
1048
909
905
905
 |
0
 |
180
 |
360
 |
540
 |
720
 |
900
 |
1080

Here we see clear separation between the dual channel setup and the single DIMM configuration. The comparable sticks of Corsair and Crucial run neck and neck here.

SiSoft Sandra MAX3!
Unbuffered Floating Point Performance (MB/sec)
Crucial Dual Channel 2.5-3-3-6
Crucial Dual Channel 3-3-3-8
Crucial 3-3-3-8
Corsair 3-3-3-8
Crucial 2.5-3-3-6
1112
1111
970
970
969
 |
0
 |
191
 |
382
 |
573
 |
764
 |
955
 |
1146

Again, we see the obvious increase in performance with the memory in dual channel mode. Aside from that, everything is fairly close (considering the margin of error involved).

SiSoft Sandra MAX3!
Buffered Integer Performance (MB/sec)
Crucial Dual Channel 2.5-3-3-6
Crucial Dual Channel 3-3-3-8
Corsair 3-3-3-8
Crucial 2.5-3-3-6
Crucial 3-3-3-8
2031
2030
2019
2001
2000
 |
0
 |
348
 |
696
 |
1044
 |
1392
 |
1740
 |
2088

The Crucial memory cannot keep pace with the Corsair memory in this test which, interestingly enough, came close to the dual channel performance.

SiSoft Sandra MAX3!
Buffered Floating Point Performance (MB/sec)
Crucial Dual Channel 3-3-3-8
Crucial Dual Channel 2.5-3-3-6
Corsair 3-3-3-8
Crucial 2.5-3-3-6
Crucial 3-3-3-8
1904
1904
1885
1875
1874
 |
0
 |
326
 |
652
 |
978
 |
1304
 |
1630
 |
1956

This test tells the same story as the buffered integer performance test does: the Corsair memory performs better under buffered tests than the Crucial memory (even with more aggressive timings).

Super PI
2 Million Places - Elapsed Time in Seconds (lower is better)
Crucial Dual Channel 3-3-3-8
Crucial Dual Channel 2.5-3-3-6
Crucial 3-3-3-8
Crucial 2.5-3-3-6
Corsair 3-3-3-8
155
155
156
156
156
 |
0
 |
27
 |
54
 |
81
 |
108
 |
135
 |
162

Only a second is gained by running in dual channel mode. The rest of the pack (single DIMM configurations) is in a dead heat.

Page 1
Conclusion



Join Xtreme Tek's Mailing List


Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Xtreme Tek. All rights reserved.