AM2 memory controller

G

gwai lo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
1,690
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/ddr2-800-am2.html

Not sure if these was widely known information, but I just read through the article today (well, I just got the newsletter today :p). New memory controller seems to be able to support DDR2 and then stops there. Maybe we all knew this and I didn't, but I figured it can't hurt to post this...right? Yes, I already knew that we shouldn't be expecting all THAT much..

I'm still decoding parts of the thing, so don't cut my head off if I read something wrong. It's a little bit of thick reading for me. ;)
 
Yeah its called AM2. From what I hear, its being released tomorrow. Its basically a new socket, that allows the support for DDR 2 ram. That is all I can tell you. Im sure someone else who follows AMD more can tell you.
 
Yeah I know about the AM2 bit, just the memory controller thing was a bit of a mystery to me. I read how it's the main difference (well, support for DDR2 that is), but nothing beyond that.

Wow..tomorrow? *checks calendar*

Holy crap, it's May 22nd....aaahhh time's going so fast....I have a presentation on Thursday :(

I thought I had another week. :cry:
 
dual cores. 1mb per core, I think. Not sure, I know the main thing is the DDR2. It suppost 800mhz right? or did they push it to 1066mhz?
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
still ddr2-800
Click to expand...

Then there's this.

The Battle of the DDRs

DDR-II 533 on AMD: 8.16 GB/s
DDR-II 533 on INTC: 8.58 GB/s
DDR-II 667 on AMD: 9.98 GB/s
DDR-II 667 on INTC: 10.67 GB/s
DDR-II 800 on FX-62: 12.80 GB/s
DDR-II 800 on "FX-60": 12.48 GB/s
DDR-II 800 on INTC: 12.80 GB/s

Comments?
 
Of course we have Donnie trolling in here posting irrelevent crap.

Donnie..... It has everything to do with the FSB, and WHERE the memory controller is located.... While it is true that the memory controller will be able to achieve those bandwidths... It is also true that the CPU will never be able to use it. Then there is latency...

http://www.gomeler.com/pic/Conroe/sis+mem.jpg

The thread title says it all Donnie.... This is about AM2.... Not Intel....
 
Donnie27 said:
Then there's this.

The Battle of the DDRs

DDR-II 533 on AMD: 8.16 GB/s
DDR-II 533 on INTC: 8.58 GB/s
DDR-II 667 on AMD: 9.98 GB/s
DDR-II 667 on INTC: 10.67 GB/s
DDR-II 800 on FX-62: 12.80 GB/s
DDR-II 800 on "FX-60": 12.48 GB/s
DDR-II 800 on INTC: 12.80 GB/s

Comments?
Click to expand...
i guess you aren't aware of how amd's memory controller works ;)
it's perfectly normal, and is nothing new. put a ddr333 kit into a rig with a 3700+ and the ram will be running at 157mhz.



also, those are theoretical bandwidth numbers. let me know what the effective bandwidth is and we can talk
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
i guess you aren't aware of how amd's memory controller works ;)
it's perfectly normal, and is nothing new. put a ddr333 kit into a rig with a 3700+ and the ram will be running at 157mhz.

also, those are theoretical bandwidth numbers. let me know what the effective bandwidth is and we can talk
Click to expand...

On the contrary. I do, I just linked to this story, hehehehe! I have a 3500+ and know for sure. But I'll be glad to tell how Conroe works in a couple months. :)
 
Donnie27 said:
On the contrary. I do, I just linked to this story, hehehehe! I have a 3500+ and know for sure. But I'll be glad to tell how Conroe works in a couple months. :)
Click to expand...
then you should realize that what you posted is a non-issue to everyone except the uninformed, and shouldn't be posted, cause nobody gave a damn with amd's ddr controller, why now with ddr2? ;)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
then you should realize that what you posted is a non-issue to everyone except the uninformed, and shouldn't be posted, cause nobody gave a damn with amd's ddr controller, why now with ddr2? ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, it was the whole story, of please take any of them with a grain of salt ;) They're quoted and when folks like their misinformation by slapped other wise. It will have similar Futzes with DDR2. At their price levels, many wan't give a damned about their AM2/DDR2 as well.
 
duby229 said:
Of course we have Donnie trolling in here posting irrelevent crap.

....
Click to expand...

So it is irrelevant crap that AM2 memory controller can't properly use DDR2 533 and 667 , which go figure , account for probably 80% of the DDR2 market. ?
;)
 
savantu said:
So it is irrelevant crap that AM2 memory controller can't properly use DDR2 533 and 667 , which go figure , account for probably 80% of the DDR2 market. ?
;)
Click to expand...


Says who? The review on the front page shows that it works fine.... hmmm If it smells like a troll, and walks like a troll, then it must be a troll.
 
duby229 said:
Says who? The review on the front page shows that it works fine.... hmmm If it smells like a troll, and walks like a troll, then it must be a troll.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is as good as your manners.

Nobody said it isn't working well , just that it runs some DDR2 speedgrades ( 533 and 667 ) outside the JEDEC standard.

As for the front link , it is using DDR2 800 which as you couldn't figure it out is 4x 200 base clock.. :rolleyes:
 
savantu said:
Your reading comprehension is as good as your manners.

Nobody said it isn't working well , just that it runs some DDR2 speedgrades ( 533 and 667 ) outside the JEDEC standard.

As for the front link , it is using DDR2 800 which as you couldn't figure it out is 4x 200 base clock.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
nobody cares that ddr333 and ddr266 don't always work properly with the current K8's.. really, as i asked before, who gives a damn? it's not like it's something new, and it's not like it has any noticeable effect on performance.

and no, it doesn't run it outside the JEDEC standard. that would be running it higher than stock speed. it's downclocking them a bit ;)
 
duby229 said:
Of course we have Donnie trolling in here posting irrelevent crap.

Donnie..... It has everything to do with the FSB, and WHERE the memory controller is located.... While it is true that the memory controller will be able to achieve those bandwidths... It is also true that the CPU will never be able to use it. Then there is latency...

http://www.gomeler.com/pic/Conroe/sis+mem.jpg

The thread title says it all Donnie.... This is about AM2.... Not Intel....
Click to expand...

Shakes head. The thread is about AMD, not Intel, why did you bring up Intel. Oh I get it, you truely love Intel and are just faking the Hate uh? ;) I just linked to the story LOL, I didn't write it. If it is indeed crap or "irrelevent", then just skip replying it. Or just post why it is bogus.
 
savantu said:
Your reading comprehension is as good as your manners.

Nobody said it isn't working well , just that it runs some DDR2 speedgrades ( 533 and 667 ) outside the JEDEC standard.

As for the front link , it is using DDR2 800 which as you couldn't figure it out is 4x 200 base clock.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He probaly didn't read this either uh?

[H said:
]The true comparison we need to look at here is the difference between the Intel and AMD memory numbers. AMD is pulling ahead by a large margin even with the crippled 5000+ DDR2 clocking in at 746MHz. The limitations of the current Front Side Bus of the Intel processor and its less efficient design is simply holding it back.
Click to expand...

Let's see, [H] is full of it too uh?
 
we all know you just cannot stand to have a conversation without bringing up conroe.. dont be coy. :eek:
 
Jason711 said:
we all know you just cannot stand to have a conversation without bringing up conroe.. dont be coy. :eek:
Click to expand...

It was a memory controller question, not processor per-say. I don't call AM2 an upgrade because IMHO, it most certainly is NOT. Eclipse knows I'm going with Conroe and my comment was in line with that. Coy, who me?

Message boards were meant for the Good, the Bad and teh $uck! That goes for Intel and AMD.
 
Donnie27 said:
It was a memory controller question, not processor per-say. I don't call AM2 an upgrade because IMHO, it most certainly is NOT. Eclipse knows I'm going with Conroe and my comment was in line with that. Coy, who me?

Message boards were meant for the Good, the Bad and teh $uck! That goes for Intel and AMD.
Click to expand...

The way it is right now. The FX62 is the fastest chip on the market. so your implication is entirely moot..
 
duby229 said:
The way it is right now. The FX62 is the fastest chip on the market. so your implication is entirely moot..
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that, there's still that Just as fast Yonah that costs almost half as much. That makes your point Moot! FX-62 uses as much power as a 965-EE, doesn't that bother you?
 
Stock Donnie... Stock...

I also have a 160, that OC's to 2.9ghz..... My 160 also is faster....

See Donnie you can keep grasping at straws all you want.
 
duby229 said:
Stock Donnie... Stock...

I also have a 160, that OC's to 2.9ghz..... My 160 also is faster....

See Donnie you can keep grasping at straws all you want.
Click to expand...

It must be really painful for you to see how the Dark Side Leaps Ahead ?? ;)
 
savantu said:
Where do you see a 965 there ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
no, but i was assuming that a 965 will draw at least as much power as an 820. i guess that logic is flawed though because the 90nm intel chips were heat monters

however, if you're gonna :rolleyes: at me for asking a question, why don't you :rolleyes: at donnie for stating something without any proof? ;)

edit: fine, answered my own question
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2762&p=11
 
duby229 said:
Stock Donnie... Stock...

I also have a 160, that OC's to 2.9ghz..... My 160 also is faster....

See Donnie you can keep grasping at straws all you want.
Click to expand...

TDP or max is 125W, 115W is why I didn't go with Prescott/Smithfield. Presler looks better but if it weren't for Conroe, I'd wait for Sept and buy AM2.
 
duby229 said:
Stock Donnie... Stock...

I also have a 160, that OC's to 2.9ghz..... My 160 also is faster....

See Donnie you can keep grasping at straws all you want.
Click to expand...

P.S. I'm only grasping for Conroe, I now know will be cooler, run faster, cost less (than AM2), use less power and no need for straws or overclocking to be faster than what you have now, hehehe!
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
no, but i was assuming that a 965 will draw at least as much power as an 820. i guess that logic is flawed though because the 90nm intel chips were heat monters

however, if you're gonna :rolleyes: at me for asking a question, why don't you :rolleyes: at donnie for stating something without any proof? ;)

edit: fine, answered my own question
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2762&p=11
Click to expand...

Not FX-62 and it's Anand hehehe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top