• Welcome to Battlezone Universe.
 

News:

Welcome to the BZU Archive dated December 24, 2009. Topics and posts are in read-only mode. Those with accounts will be able to login and browse anything the account had access granted to at the time. No changes to permissions will be made to be given access to particular content. If you have any questions, please reach out to squirrelof09/Rapazzini.

Main Menu

Memory settings and CPU usage

Started by Red Spot, December 15, 2009, 05:55:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Red Spot

I've been setting my memory clock incorrectly to see if the better timings make a difference.
I cant see any noticable difference, both settings I tried work great, system is stable and boots in about 15sec.
What I did notice was that the CPU usage is bigger when ran at 400mhz.

400mhz:
Memory Frequency 400.0 MHz (CPU/7)
CAS# latency (CL) 5.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD) 5
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 5
Cycle Time (tRAS) 15
Bank Cycle Time (tRC) 12
Command Rate (CR) 2T


266mhz:
Memory Frequency 266.0 MHz (CPU/10)
CAS# latency (CL) 3.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD) 3
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 3
Cycle Time (tRAS) 6
Bank Cycle Time (tRC) 12
Command Rate (CR) 2T



I know this isnt a tweaking site, but I trust the people here more than what hangs around the average tweaking site ... ;)
Is there some difference between the actual settings in performance ??
Could it be that setting the memory clock incorrect but with beter timings actually makes it work beter ??
Both memory and general stress-tests runs properly, the main difference is that it seems that my CPU is used more and gets hotter when the memory is set to 400mhz.

edit: A bit easier to read:
http://members.ziggo.nl/red_spot/RED-PC.html
/edit

CPU-Z TXT Report
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Binaries
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU-Z version 1.52.2

Processors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of processors 1
Number of threads 2

APICs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processor 0
-- Core 0
-- Thread 0 0
-- Core 1
-- Thread 0 1

Processors Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processor 1 ID = 0
Number of cores 2 (max 2)
Number of threads 2 (max 2)
Name AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
Codename Brisbane
Specification AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+
Package Socket AM2 (940)
CPUID F.B.1
Extended CPUID F.6B
Brand ID 4
Core Stepping BH-G1
Technology 65 nm
Core Speed 2800.1 MHz
Multiplier x FSB 12.5 x 224.0 MHz
HT Link speed 1120.0 MHz
Stock frequency 2500 MHz
Instructions sets MMX (+), 3DNow! (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, x86-64
L1 Data cache 2 x 64 KBytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L1 Instruction cache 2 x 64 KBytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L2 cache 2 x 512 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
FID/VID Control yes
Max FID 12.5x
Max VID 1.375 V

K8 Thermal sensor yes
K8 Revision ID 6.0
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 0
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 1
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 2
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 3


Thread dumps
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU Thread 0
APIC ID 0
Topology Processor ID 0, Core ID 0, Thread ID 0
Type 02002008h
Max CPUID level 00000001h
Max CPUID ext. level 80000018h
Cache descriptor Level 1, I, 64 KB, 1 thread(s)
Cache descriptor Level 1, D, 64 KB, 1 thread(s)
Cache descriptor Level 2, U, 512 KB, 1 thread(s)

CPU Thread 1
APIC ID 1
Topology Processor ID 0, Core ID 1, Thread ID 0
Type 02002008h
Max CPUID level 00000001h
Max CPUID ext. level 80000018h
Cache descriptor Level 1, I, 64 KB, 1 thread(s)
Cache descriptor Level 1, D, 64 KB, 1 thread(s)
Cache descriptor Level 2, U, 512 KB, 1 thread(s)

Chipset
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Northbridge NVIDIA nForce 520 rev. A1
Southbridge NVIDIA nForce 520 rev. A2
Graphic Interface PCI-Express
PCI-E Link Width x16
PCI-E Max Link Width x16
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 4096 MBytes
Channels Dual
Memory Frequency 400.0 MHz (CPU/7)
CAS# latency (CL) 5.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD) 5
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 5
Cycle Time (tRAS) 15
Bank Cycle Time (tRC) 12
Command Rate (CR) 2T

Memory SPD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIMM # 1 2 3 4
SMBus address 0x50 0x51 0x52 0x53
Memory type DDR2
Module format Regular UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) (7F7F7F5800000000)
Size 1024 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC2-6400 (400 MHz)
Part number TMS1GB264C081805AP
Manufacturing date Week 22/Year 07
Number of banks 2
Data width 64 bits
Correction None
Nominal Voltage 1.80 Volts
EPP no
XMP no
JEDEC timings table CL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-tRC @ frequency
JEDEC #1 4.0-4-4-12-18 @ 333 MHz
JEDEC #2 5.0-5-5-15-21 @ 400 MHz

Monitoring
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mainboard Model ALiveNF5-eSATA2+ (0x000004B2 - 0x8BEFB4D8)

Hardware Monitors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardware monitor Winbond W83627EHF
Voltage 0 1.39 Volts [0xAE] (CPU VCORE)
Voltage 1 1.39 Volts [0xAE] (VIN0)
Voltage 2 3.34 Volts [0xD1] (AVCC)
Voltage 3 3.34 Volts [0xD1] (+3.3V)
Voltage 4 1.70 Volts [0xD5] (VIN1)
Voltage 5 1.71 Volts [0xD6] (VIN2)
Voltage 6 1.82 Volts [0xE3] (VIN3)
Voltage 7 1.55 Volts [0xC2] (VIN4)
Temperature 0 33°C (91°F) [0x21] (SYSTIN)
Temperature 1 43°C (108°F) [0x55] (CPUTIN)
Temperature 2 42°C (107°F) [0x54] (AUXTIN)
Fan 1 2312 RPM [0x49] (CPUFANIN0)

Hardware monitor AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
Temperature 0 50°C (121°F) [0x136] (Core #0)
Temperature 1 44°C (111°F) [0x120] (Core #1)

Hardware monitor NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Temperature 0 41°C (105°F) (GPU Core)

Display Adapters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Display adapter 0
Manuf. API index 0
Display name \\.\DISPLAY1
Name NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Revision A2
Codename G84
Technology 80 nm
Memory size 256 MB
Memory type GDDR3
Memory bus width 128 bits
PCI device bus 4 (0x4), device 0 (0x0), function 0 (0x0)
Vendor ID 0x10DE (0x1043)
Model ID 0x402 (0x8243)
Performance Level 3D Applications
Core clock 540.0 MHz
Shader clock 1188.0 MHz
Memory clock 700.0 MHz


Software
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional  Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)
DirectX Version 9.0c
*Something intelligent, yet funny*

Red Spot

Benchmark results:

-- 400mhz --

Overall average framerate: 85.801 fps
Overall average framerate: 85.692 fps
Overall average framerate: 85.825 fps
======================================
======================================
-- 266mhz --

Overall average framerate: 84.239 fps
Overall average framerate: 84.321 fps
Overall average framerate: 83.063 fps


So it doesnt seem to really have much of an impact how I set my memory as long as I adjust the timings.
*Something intelligent, yet funny*

Zero Angel

It sort of doesnt make sense that things would be slightly faster with a lower memory clock speed -- however the one thing that did jump out at me is that the CAS latency is lower. CAS latency or CL is something that is prized by performance enthusiasts because it represents the actual delay (latency) before an instruction is passed through the memory. The fact that the CL is lower on the slower rated RAM might have something to do with why it seems to perform better on those tests.
QuoteAwareness, Teamwork, Discipline
Constantly apply these principles, and you will succeed in a lot of things, especially BZ2 team strat.
{bac}Zero Angel
Victory through superior aggression

Red Spot

The reason I was wondering is cause I flashed my bios by mistake after I reinstalled XP and the memory clock was set to 266 by itself.
I knew it should be 400, but couldnt notice any difference. I did notice that my CPU-usage was a bit lower when the clock was set to 266, however I think that has to do with the Core optimizer from AMD. It seems the optimizer gives some false readings in taskmanager which I didnt notice before, what I mean is that if my system uses say 10% of the cpu and other processes take 5%, it shows at the bottom a usage of about 25%, roughly doubling the cpu usage of the system. Thats what basicly made me believe that setting the clock at 266 made the cpu usage lower, but it was just a matter of not yet having installed the Core optimizer.
I've done some benchmarks, also some that push my CPU usage to over 90% usage and it now spreads the load evenly over both cores.

At first I could slap myself in the face for flashing my bios, but in the end I'm kinda happy with it as I learned a bit more about my system and how to set it up for performance as it now runs better that it ever did before. :)
Thanks for your reply though ;)
*Something intelligent, yet funny*