The component market is constantly updated with new developments and innovations with enviable regularity, which is why many users, whose funds clearly do not allow them to acquire new hardware in a timely manner, have doubts about the power and performance of their computer as a whole. At all times, the discussion of a lot of questions on technical forums about the relevance of their components never subside. Moreover, the questions concern not only the processor, video card, but even RAM. However, even despite all the dynamics of the development of computer hardware, the relevance of technologies of previous generations is not lost as quickly. This also applies to components
DDR2 memory: from the first days on the market to the decline of popularity
DDR2 is the second generation of random access memory (from the English Synchronous Dynamic random access memory - SDRAM), or, in a formulation familiar to any user, the next generation of RAM after DDR1, which has become widespread in the segment of personal computers.
Having been developed back in 2003, the new type was able to fully gain a foothold in the market only towards the end of 2004 - only at that time did chipsets with DDR2 support appear. Actively advertised by marketers, the second generation was presented as an almost twice as powerful alternative.
What is worth highlighting first of all from the differences is the ability to operate at a significantly higher frequency, transmitting data twice in one clock cycle. On the other hand, a standard negative aspect of raising frequencies is an increase in delay time during operation.
Finally, by the mid-2000s, the new type thoroughly infringed on the position of the previous, first one, and only by 2010 was DDR2 significantly displaced by the new DDR3 that came to replace it.
Device Features
Distributed DDR2 RAM modules (in common parlance, called “dies”) had some distinctive features and varieties. And although the new one was not frankly striking for its time with an abundance of variations, even the external differences immediately caught the eye of any buyer at first glance:
- Single-sided/double-sided SDRAM module on which chips are located on one or two sides, respectively.
- DIMM is the current standard form factor for SDRAM (synchronous dynamic random access memory, which is DDR2). Mass use in general purpose computers began in the late 90s, which was mainly facilitated by the appearance of the Pentium II processor.
- SO-DIMM is a shortened SDRAM module form factor designed specifically for laptop computers. SO-DIMM DDR2 dies for laptops had several significant differences from standard DIMMs. This is a module with smaller physical dimensions, lower power consumption and, as a result, lower performance level compared to a standard DIMM factor. An example of a DDR2 RAM module for a laptop can be seen in the photo below.
In addition to all the above features, we should also note the rather mediocre “shell” of the dies of those times - almost all of them, with rare exceptions, were then represented only by standard boards with microcircuits. Marketing in the computer hardware segment was just beginning to take off, so there were simply no samples on sale with radiators of various sizes and designs that are already familiar to modern RAM modules. Until now, they perform primarily a decorative function rather than the task of removing generated heat (which, in principle, is not typical for DDR type RAM).
In the photo below you can see what DDR2-667 RAM modules with a heatsink look like.
Compatibility Key
DDR2 memory by its design has an extremely important difference from the previous DDR - the lack of backward compatibility. In the second-generation samples, the slot in the contact area of the strip with the RAM connector on the motherboard was already located differently, which made it physically impossible to insert a DDR2 stick into a connector designed for DDR without breaking one of the components.
Volume parameter
For serial motherboards (any motherboard for home/office use), the DDR2 standard could offer a maximum capacity of 16 gigabytes. For server solutions, the volume limit reached 32 gigabytes.
It is also worth paying attention to one more technical nuance: the minimum volume of one die is 1 GB. In addition, there are two more variants of DDR2 modules on the market: 2Gb and 8Gb. Thus, in order to get the maximum possible supply of RAM of this standard, the user will have to install two 8 GB sticks or four 4 GB sticks, respectively.
Data transmission frequency
This parameter is responsible for the ability of the memory bus to pass as much information as possible per unit of time. Greater value frequencies - it will be possible to transfer more data, and here DDR2 memory has significantly outperformed the previous generation, which could operate in the range from 200 to 533 MHz maximum. After all, the minimum frequency of the DDR2 bar is 533 MHz, and top-end copies, in turn, could boast of overclocking to 1200 MHz.
However, with the increase in memory frequency, the timings naturally increased, on which memory performance not least depends.
About timings
Timing is the time interval from the moment of requesting data to reading it from RAM. And the more the frequency of the module increased, the longer the RAM needed to complete operations (not to the point of colossal delays, of course).
The parameter is measured in nanoseconds. The most influential factor on performance is latency timing (CAS latency), which in the specifications is designated as CL* (any number can be specified instead of *, and the lower it is, the faster the memory bus will operate). In some cases, the timings of the bars are indicated by a three-character combination (for example, 5-5-5), but the most critical parameter will be the first number - it always indicates memory latency. If the timings are indicated in a four-digit combination, in which the last value is strikingly greater than all the others (for example, 5-5-5-15), then this indicates the duration of the total working cycle in nanoseconds.
An old man who never loses his shape
With its appearance, the second generation caused a lot of noise in computer circles, which ensured its considerable popularity and excellent sales. DDR2, like the generation before it, could transfer data on both slices, but a faster bus with the ability to transfer data significantly increased its performance. In addition, a positive aspect was higher energy efficiency - at the level of 1.8 V. And if this hardly had any effect on the overall picture of the computer’s energy consumption, then it had a purely positive effect on the service life (especially with intensive work of the hardware).
However, technologies would cease to be such if they did not develop further. This is exactly what happened with the advent of the next generation DDR3 in 2007, whose task was to gradually but surely oust the aging DDR2 from the market. However, does this “obsolescence” really mean a complete lack of competition with new technology?
One on one with the third generation
In addition to traditional backward incompatibility, DDR3 introduced a number of several technical innovations to RAM standards:
- The maximum supported volume for serial motherboards increased from 16 to 32 GB (at the same time, one module could reach 16 GB instead of the previous 8).
- Higher data transmission frequencies, with a minimum of 2133 MHz and a maximum of 2800 MHz.
- Finally, reduced power consumption is standard for each new generation: 1.5 V versus 1.8 V for the second generation. In addition, two more modifications were developed based on DDR3: DDR3L and LPDDR3, consuming 1.35 V and 1.2 V, respectively.
Along with the new architecture, timings have also increased, but the drop in performance from this is offset by higher operating frequencies.
How the buyer decides
The buyer is not a development engineer; In addition to the technical characteristics, the price of the product itself will be no less important to the buyer.
At the start of sales of a new generation of any computer hardware, its cost will usually be higher. The same new type of RAM initially comes to the market with a very large price difference compared to the previous one.
However, the increase in performance between generations in most applications, if not absent at all, is simply ridiculous, clearly not worthy of large overpayments. The only right moment to switch to a new generation of RAM is the maximum drop in its price tag to the level of the previous one (this always happens in the SDRAM sales segment, it was the case with DDR2 and DDR3, the same thing has now happened in the case of DDR3 and the new DDR4). And only when the price of overpayment between the latest and previous generations is the bare minimum (which is adequate for a small increase in performance), then only in this situation can you think about replacing RAM.
In turn, for owners of computers with DDR2 memory, it is most rational to acquire a new type of RAM only with a thorough upgrade from an appropriate one that supports this newest type, and a new motherboard (and even today it makes sense to upgrade to the level of components that support DDR4 memory: its current price is on par with DDR3, and the increase between the fourth and second generations will be much more noticeable than between the third and second).
Otherwise, if such an upgrade is not planned by the user at all, then it is quite possible to get by with the same DDR2, the price of which is now relatively low. It will only be enough to increase, if necessary, the total amount of RAM with similar modules. The permissible limits of this type of memory, even today, more than cover all the needs of most users (in most cases, installing an additional DDR2 2Gb module will be enough), and the performance lag with the next generations is completely uncritical.
Minimum prices for RAM modules (only samples of proven brands Hynix, Kingston and Samsung are taken into account) may vary depending on the region of residence of the buyer and the store he has chosen.
Testing high-speed DDR2 modules: is there any point?
When most users hear the word "overclocking" or overclocking, they immediately imagine increasing the processor clock speed. But an equally important factor is the FSB frequency, which can be easily increased without any problems, providing a performance gain equal to several additional MHz on the CPU. However, the benefits of overclocking components are not always obvious, especially in Pentium 4 systems, where the benefits, for example, of high-speed memory are not noticeable every time.
In principle, there is nothing fundamentally bad about using the fastest memory itself. The maximum possible frequencies and associated delays are what distinguish elite modules. In the case of the Athlon 64, this means using DDR400 DIMMs, which support ideal CL2-2-2-5 latencies.
Modern P4 systems use DDR2 RAM. It is capable of operating at higher frequencies than conventional DDR, and latency is gradually improving. Today, the most common memory is DDR2-533 (266 MHz), which is gradually being replaced by 333-MHz modules (DDR2-667). Higher frequencies today are only available through overclocking, although chipset manufacturers are completely immersed in improving their products.
One might assume that the higher potential for “overclocking” DDR2 RAM will translate into a corresponding increase in performance, but, unfortunately, in reality the situation is different. A P4 system with DDR2-533 memory will be only slightly faster than with DDR400. And the transition to DDR2-667 gives less effect than one might expect.
At the same time, everything larger number Manufacturers including A-Data and Corsair are bringing DDR2-667 modules to market that can handle low latency and high frequencies. We received modules from both manufacturers and installed them in an "overclocked" P4 system to see what happens at DDR2-1066 frequencies.
Memory "overclocking" is always relative
On an Intel system, the RAM bus always operates at some ratio relative to the FSB frequency. Most modern motherboards provide some flexibility in this regard, allowing you to select more than one ratio. North Bridge The 945 and 955x chipsets offer four frequency ratios: 1:1, 3:4, 3:5 and 2:1. If we take the base FSB frequency of 200 MHz (FSB800) as a basis, we can get DDR2-400, DDR2-533, DDR2-667 and DDR2-800. The latter option has been possible for quite some time, but unofficially.
If you want to “overclock” the system without increasing the memory frequency, then increase the FSB frequency while simultaneously switching to a lower factor. Of course, you should also make sure that the CPU frequency does not exceed the permissible parameters, since it depends on the FSB frequency. For example, a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 640 gets its specified frequency on a 200 MHz FSB through a multiplier of 16. If the FSB reaches 240 MHz, the CPU will have to run at 3.84 GHz. Very few processors are capable of handling this frequency.
To get DDR2-1066 memory without overclocking the system, we used a 1:1 ratio (memory bus to FSB), and increased the FSB frequency to 266 MHz. We used the 3.73 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition as the processor.
We chose the 3.73 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition because it runs at a 266 MHz FSB (FSB1066). If the memory bus/FSB frequency ratio is 1:1, the memory will operate in DDR2-1066 mode.
High frequency or low latency?
AData labels its DIMMs as DDR2-800, while Corsair is limited to 675 MHz. In any case, the delays CL3-2-2-8 work.
We decided to test both low and high memory latencies. Our experience with DDR1 memory shows that the choice should often be made in the direction of low latencies. This is precisely the reason why AMD delayed the introduction of the M2 socket and DDR2 memory until CeBIT 2006 - the company's engineers consider the advantages of DDR2 at 800 MHz to be too insignificant to change the system today.
At the same time, memory manufacturers are moving in different directions. AData indicates that its DDR2 DIMMs are capable of operating at 800 MHz. And it must be said that this statement is confirmed in practice. But for such frequencies it is necessary to increase memory delays. Corsair took a different route: the top DDR2 memory modules have a maximum frequency of 675 MHz, but at the same time the optimal latencies CL3-2-2-8 are given. This allows Corsair to achieve higher performance compared to DDR2-800 modules.
More power less time life
Since process limitations do not allow the production of commercially viable 400 MHz chips, the supply voltage must be increased to increase clock speeds. DDR1 modules require a nominal 2.5 V, so overclockers “overclock” them to 3.0 V and higher. But for DDR2 the base frequency is 1.8 V. In principle, 2.0 V for modules is not too high a load, and even more high levels Voltages are also sometimes set. This topic is hotly discussed on forums today.
Increasing the input voltage increases the memory's tolerance, resulting in higher clock speeds and aggressive latencies. But you have to pay for everything: increasing the voltage reduces the lifespan of memory modules.
Although AData has a strong position in the US market, it originated from Taiwan. AData's product portfolio is similar to that of other manufacturers and includes many types of SDRAM and flash memory.
On the company's website you can find various types of DDR2 modules, up to DDR2-1066, which AData powers from 1.95 V. However, the DIMMs sent to our laboratory were able to achieve DDR2-1066 mode only when the voltage was raised to 2.4 Q. Unlike many other manufacturers, AData products are aimed at extremely high frequencies, which is why the modules are certified for a CAS latency of 5 cycles. While lower latencies may also work, AData does not guarantee them.
We tested the AData modules, and each time we set the delays manually. In the DDR2-1066 class, 1 GB modules turned out to be the fastest, since they supported CL4-5-5-10 latencies. DDR2-800 mode worked with CL4-4-4-8, DDR2-709 with CL4-3-3-8 and DDR2-533 with CL3-3-3-8.
Corsair guarantees the operating frequency of the modules is 675 MHz. We launched the modules in DDR2-1066 mode, but it cannot be called completely stable. Unlike AData, Corsair chose the minimum latencies: CL3-2-2-8 for DDR2-667 are the most best delays that we have met. In addition, our tests show that performance at low latencies is often better than at higher clock speeds (and higher latencies). To provide better compatibility SPD-ROM values are set to CL4-4-4-12. That is, the modules will work on all motherboards. If you wish to set larger delays, you must enter them into CMOS yourself.
Corsair modules also work in DDR2-800 mode. Although the manufacturer recommends a voltage of 2.1 V for DDR2-667, which provides CL3-2-2-8 delays, for DDR2-800 we had to raise the voltage to 2.2 V. By raising the voltage to 2.3 V, we were able to get 533 MHz (DDR2-1066), but the resulting level of stability no longer improved with increasing voltage. It should be emphasized that at 333 MHz (DDR2-667), these DIMMs are capable of competing with higher frequency competitors.
We chose Corsair DIMMs for our project mainly due to their low latency. Corsair's results in our charts are labeled with the manufacturer's name, and all other results are AData DIMM specific.
Impressive Corsair memory latencies.
| CPU | |
| Single-core CPUs | Intel Pentium 4 Processor 660 (3.6 GHz, 2 MB L2 cache) |
| Memory | |
| Intel platform (DDR2-667) | 2x 512 MB - DDR2-667 (333 MHz) Corsair CM2X512A-5400UL (XMS5400 V1.2) (CL3-2-2-8-1T @ 333 MHz) 2x 256 MB - DDR2-800 (400 MHz) A-DATA M2OEL6F3G3160A1D0Z (CL4-5-5-10 @ 533 MHz) |
| Motherboard | |
| Intel platform | Gigabyte 8I955X Royal Intel 955X chipset |
| System hardware | |
| Graphics card (PCIe) | nVidia Geforce 6800 GT (reference board) GPU: nVidia GeForce 6800 GT (350 MHz) Memory: 256 MB DDR-SDRAM (500 MHz) |
| HDD | Western Digital WD740 Raptor 74 GB, 8 MB cache, 10,000 rpm |
| Net | 3Com 3C905B |
| DVD-ROM | Gigabyte GO-D1600C (16x) |
| power unit | Tagan TG480-U01, ATX 2.0, 480 W |
| Software | |
| Chipset drivers | Intel Inf 7.0.0.1019 |
| Graphics driver | nVidia Forceware 71.84 |
| DirectX | Version: 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) |
| OS | Windows XP Professional 5.10.2600, Service Pack 2 |
Tests and settings
| Tests and settings OpenGL |
|
| Doom III | Version: 1.0.1262 1280x1024, 32 Bit Video Quality = High Quality demo1 Graphics detail = High Quality |
| Wolfenstein Enemy Territory |
Version: 2.56 (Patch V 1.02) 1280x1024, 32 Bit timedemo 1 / demo demo4 Geometric detail = high Texture detail = high |
| DirectX 9 | |
| FarCry | Version 1.1 Build 1378 1280x1024 - 32 Bit quality options = High |
| Video | |
| Pinnacle Studio 9 Plus | Version: 9.4.1 from: 352x288 MPEG-2 41 MB to: 720x576 MPEG-2 95 MB Encoding and Transition Rendering to MPEG-2/DVD no Audio |
| Auto Gordian Knot DivX 5.2.1 XviD 1.0.3 |
Version: 1.95 Audio = AC3 6ch Custom size = 100 MB Resolution settings = Fixed width Codec = XviD and DivX 5 Audio = CBR MP3, kbps 192 182 MB VOB MPEG2-source |
| Audio | |
| Lame MP3 | Version 3.97.1 Multi-threaded Alpha Wave 17:14 minutes (182 MB) to mp3 32 - 320 kbit VBR = level 3 |
| Applications | |
| WinRAR | Version 3.40 283 MB, 246 Files Compression = Best Dictionary = 4096 kB |
| 3DS Max 7 | Characters "Dragon_Charater_rig" 1600x1200 Rendering Single |
| Synthetic | |
| PCMark 2004 Pro | Version: 1.3.0 CPU and Memory Tests |
| SiSoftware Sandra Pro | Version 2005, SR1 CPU Test = Multimedia Benchmark Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
Conclusion: The advantage of high memory frequencies is small
Synthetic tests give a good difference between different DDR2 frequencies.
But even if AData and Corsair DIMM frequencies are impressive, the performance results are not so much.
In our opinion, moving from DDR-533 to DDR2-667 only makes sense if you maintain low latency (Corsair). Switching to DDR2-800 gives minimal performance gains, and DDR2-1066, with even higher latencies, is also not impressive. Moreover, the price of high-speed modules does not at all justify the performance increase that they provide.
For business applications, installing high-speed DDR2 DIMMs is not worth it for price reasons, and even for gamers, we recommend that the money be better spent on a high-end graphics card. In any case, we recommend buying branded memory modules, since reputable manufacturers pay more attention to testing and certification of their products.
I received a question from Alexander Shilin:
Folks, I have this question, but if my mother’s ceiling says 600+, then 667 strips will do? I didn’t see anything with a frequency of 600 at all, I only saw 667 and higher.
To be honest, it was not possible to find a motherboard that supports memory with an operating frequency of no higher than 600 MHz, and RAM with a frequency of 667 MHz has almost disappeared from sale.
But we were able to find motherboards whose specifications stated support for DDR2 667/533/400, but not a word about DDR2 800. One of these boards is ASUS P5LD2 based on the Intel 945P chipset.
The chipset is old, and, most likely, when a computer with such a motherboard was assembled, no more than 1GB of memory was installed in it, or even only 512MB. However, no one has canceled the desire to increase computer performance by increasing the amount of RAM.
Only memory stores with the required characteristics of DDR2 667/533/400 are not available in stores, but only DDR2 800. Is it possible to install it? Will it work?
Can.
To verify this, let’s run the CPU-Z program, which I already praised when I wrote about it. Only this time we’ll open the SPD tab.
Here is an example for DDR2 PC2-5300, 667MHz:
DDR2 PC6400, 800MHz:
And here is the memory, officially labeled as DDR2 PC6400, 800 MHz, but supporting operation at 1066 MHz:
The most interesting thing for us is in this case is the Frequency line in the Timings Table section. Only the frequency value must be multiplied by 2 to obtain the values indicated in the price lists and manuals for the mat. boards
In general, SPD is a system of profiles hardwired into RAM, which tells the motherboard through the BIOS at what frequency a given stick is capable of operating.
And then it is clear that DDR2 PC2-5300, 667 MHz can operate not only at 667 MHz, but also at 533 MHz, and even 400 MHz.
The same can be said about DDR2 PC6400, 800MHz. The lack of mention in the plate about the possibility of operating at a frequency of 667 MHz is caused, I believe, to save space.
I think that the latest bar will work even at a frequency of 400 MHz. But from an economic point of view, buying in this case is very strange.
So buy DDR2 PC6400, 800MHz and feel free to install it on a motherboard that only supports DDR2 667/533/400. Everything will work great and even more reliably, because... such a bar will have a noticeable margin of safety, instead of working at the limit. 🙂
28 comments
- Ilya(29 July 2009, 15:56)
- (29 July 2009, 16:01)
- Anton Molodoy(30 July 2009, 11:30)
- (30 July 2009, 13:40)
- Igor(27 August 2009, 00:56)
- (27 August 2009, 07:01)
- Igor(28 August 2009, 09:51)
- (28 August 2009, 09:55)
- Igor(30 August 2009, 04:06)
- Igor(30 August 2009, 04:09)
- (30 August 2009, 08:33)
- Igor(30 August 2009, 15:49)
- Igor(1 September 2009, 19:30)
- Sergey(November 18, 2009, 20:50)
- (18 November 2009, 20:57)
- Sergey(19 November 2009, 21:14)
- Igor(24 November 2009, 16:58)
- Sergey(February 25, 2010, 00:57) 2. But here it’s more difficult. There is a possibility that the manufacturer played it safe. Or during the development of the motherboard and writing the documentation, it was simply not possible to install more than 4GB of memory. For example, there were only 1GB modules. And then he can earn more than 4GB.
- Artyom(September 15, 2010, 12:51)
- Anton(31 January 2013, 14:05)
- (January 31, 2013, 2:09 pm)
- Vas!(19 May 2013, 19:34)
- Opana(23 October 2015, 15:43)
- Tony(27 March 2017, 16:29)
- Guest(2 July 2018, 10:22)
- Vadim(10 October 2018, 12:08)
On boards that support only slow memory, you can install fast memory - it will simply work on the maximum supported motherboard. speed board (i.e. low).
Ilya, in fact, wrote about this, only in order not to be unfounded, he added several images. 🙂
>ASUS P5LD2 on Intel 945P chipset.
I have exactly such a mother :)
>when a computer with such a motherboard was assembled, no more than 1GB of memory was installed in it, or even only 512MB.
I'm probably ebony. but I have 3GB. I love it when there is a LOT of memory.
Anton, geeks don't count. 🙂
I meant the standard configs that are sold to people.
In general, I'm one radish confused in this memory. The laptop supports 533MHz, there was a double bank of 512MB PC4200 running at 266MHz. I installed the PC6400 (800) and thought it would work at 533 MHz. But it is not at all like that - 399 MHz. In short, I “clicked” the screenshots and pasted them here: http://komp-kompyuterov.narod.ru/index.html What’s what? Or is everything right 400x2=800.=)…I guess my enlightenment is later. Then why are they fooling people with eight hundred megahertz?
Igor, 800 is, obviously, when the two-channel mode is activated: 2 channels of 400 MHz in total give 800.
In the case of laptops, it's even trickier. This screenshot clearly shows that the maximum frequency (RAM Max support) is 533 MHz. Those. in the case of one bracket - 266 MHz.
But there is no need to be upset. 🙂 2GB is in any case much better than 512MB, and 800MHz is now no more expensive than 533.
Well, at least the issue with “grabbing” from the swap has now been resolved. And sometimes it slowed down like a child. :)
Well, in short, I didn’t manage to indulge myself enough in the innovation. A terrible thing happened to the laptop. (I didn’t shed my mother’s blood, but..) By the way, as a result of what happened, when I tried to open an MP3 with Windows, MP writes that “the operation could not be completed due to lack of memory.” Well, isn’t it a mockery? :) And the classic player opens Fine. And there are still a lot of bad things present. Well, this already applies to Windows or security problems. Maybe there is a relevant topic here somewhere? Or are we going off-topic here? Then I’ll write about the problem globally.
Well, as they say, once such a p... uh... sorting out began. 🙂 First, the total of the 1st episode; objects (folders, shortcuts, etc.) seemed to be nailed down and were not moved by any click, the “insert” context menu stopped working (always inactive), these same errors were not clicked in the error logs to see the description, when logging into accounts there was an empty window without choosing something, in the task manager, the absence of a loved one in the users tab and generally loss of administrator rights, partial or complete xs (message when trying to launch an application on drive D), processes in the task manager instead of +50 remained 30+, periodic reboots with a blue screen (quickly scrolling, you don’t have time to look at what’s written there), later we managed to figure out the error code
Error code 10000050, parameter1 8f640cec, parameter2 00000001, parameter3 805b641a, parameter4 00000000.
Error code 10000050, parameter1 c399ff20, parameter2 00000000, parameter3 bf80dd9b, parameter4 00000000.
something like this, when I try to scan for viruses, there are also reboots (in fact, I tried to fight them for 3 days), messages about a damaged file system in C, and so on and so forth. The main problem was to remove texts with passwords/logins. I was already mentally ready to rewrite it manually, but remembering about the Windows disk, I successfully used the file transfer wizard. (fine-soft ones are not as bad as they really are =))) I don’t remember how it all started, but definitely after that As soon as I started manipulating the memory, I still remember there was something freezing, scandisk and off we go. I tried to restore the system - again an error and a reboot. (now in the pad I write Ctrl+S after each sentence, because the bastard regularly reboots:(). Everything described was running with home editing, the second XP (cut off which was game editing) also almost didn’t start at all, complaining about the broken C. With safe nothing sensible came of the regime either. After being pushed around, I brought up heavy artillery and Acronis True Image Home 11.0 restored logical C sector by sector. Everything seemed to work normally (although right now there is such confusion in my head that I can’t guarantee anything :)) And the second axis started working. I exchanged the memory (goodram) I think maybe the bracket was buggy. I inserted it, everything seemed to be fine in PC Wizard 2008, I even tested it, it showed something like my old 4200. Oh well, I connected to DSL and let’s download new things. The image of Acronis was already in October 2008, albeit with almost all the necessary programs. Well, here I am sitting here, stuffing an iron friend... and bam. Again the old song. There hasn't been a reboot... mother... for a long time. Similar codes, application error log is already corrupted. Something was freezing (again, beyond my memory:), Scandisk was checking something there. True, this time there was no folder on the disk where there is 000 at the end.
So I'm back again after the reboot. :) Some crap wanted to go to the Internet (it's disabled), I banned it in Komodo. Then I went into it to see in more detail what it was, clicked in the log... an error window and a reboot. After the error message savedump.exe and now there is no record of this event. Somehow I don’t even know what to think. Maybe it really is some kind of virus. Maybe some idiot (I can’t hold back anymore) registered in the MBR? Well, Acronis is registered there (recovery at boot). True, launching it with the choice F11 (recovery) 2-3 times yesterday, and even now displays MBR error 2. Maybe there’s something wrong here? In short, I have no strength. I lay it out and go to bed. Tomorrow (today) I’ll restore it again with aronise and see how it develops with the old memory. PS By the way, the day before I fitted the mouse with a double-click button... Maybe there’s something here? =)))))) ZYY I’m stuck, I can’t tear myself away. Overloaded again. And again I got into some kind of small-soft synchronizer. Something like this. ZYYY I couldn’t go into reboot with firelis, I spat and installed my RAM. It seems to last for some minutes. :) That memory was so hot...even though it’s a laptop.
How do I feel about banning unique content? :) True, I didn’t make any paragraphs...
The peephole test turned out well. :))
Igor, this doesn’t look like a memory anymore, especially considering its replacement.
It looks like:
1. Virus. It would be nice to boot from some Live CD and check “Dr.Web CureIt!”, since it doesn’t need installation.
2. But it looks even more like death hard drive. Again, it’s better to run the check from a Live CD, but as a last resort, you can just try a Windows one. And look for a utility from the HDD manufacturer.
3. And it also looks like a poltergeist. :)
In short, it’s memory, Goodram’s RAM. Probably some kind of incompatibility. Now on its native Hyundai Electronics, a real branded Korean, with civil stamping everything works without failures already in the morning. Even from the night - as established. And the other system started without problems - I ran through Perfect World. True, the remaining damage will have to be repaired. For the first time I regained my memory by much more dead system therefore there was no visible result.
Tested the system - no failures. The event log remains damaged
day. In Comodo Firewall, everything is also normal in its log. Dawes-
I installed some updates on my computer and after that the following appeared:
fight. msfeedssync.exe is breaking into the network. Firefox using IE
not running at all. Why the hell does it bother checking news feeds?
or whatever. Well, as for the HDD, my health is 88%, but before the crisis it worked fine in my opinion. Maybe he felt bad
When new memory adjusted? In general, I will restore it somehow
OS, I will update all the other hardware and the disk image in Acronis. Then maybe I’ll stick it in with goodram if I don’t give it back before then. And I need to think about what kind of memory to look for, or rather, find at least something that works for my machine. At that point, this is the only one in stock for laptops. And we know and use CureIt, since literally half a month ago I picked up “something” (Neshta) and tried to treat it on two computers. Now I checked with CureIt - everything is clean.
True, he always swears at Giljabi.exe from my lg_swupdate directory. But I think everything is fine here. :)
PS I wonder if there might be a virus in my memory that was already stored before me? (type from the manufacturer) :))
Heh, in the chaos, such a detail as the amount of memory was not noticed
in one slot. Now I installed 1GB Kingston and so far everything is ok. And thinking
that it will continue to be ok. Now it’s M1 and M2 and not like in the “PC Wizard 2008 physical memory_2Gb” screenshot. With another M1 Yes
and I remember that I support 2GB, 1GBx2. Those. in two slots.
All that remains is, if necessary, to put another one in the “bottom” and voila - two-channel
Naya. Well, those who came here according to the subject will now know what horrors
may follow after a seemingly routine operation.
Hello, Vladimir! I'd be glad to hear your advice.
The memory stick is DDR1 3200, 512 MB. What is better, installing another stick with the same characteristics (DDR1 3200, 512 MB) or a 1 GB stick (to get 1.5 GB)? By the way, the motherboard (Foxconn P4M800P7MA-RS2) has 2 slots for DDR1 and two slots for DDR2. Does it make sense to install DDR2?
Sergey, it’s better to install another 1GB and get 1.5GB in total.
You most likely will not notice the difference between DDR1 and DDR2, and in most cases it is impossible to install both types of memory at the same time.
Thank you. What is the probability that the new 1GB stick will work with the old 512MB? I heard that strips with the same parameters, plus a double channel, work better with each other.
Absolutely nothing prevents them from working together if the mother supports such a number and in such slots. Memory needs to be increased for running applications. There will be no significant difference between 1.5 and 2 GB if, for example, 1 GB is consumed during operation of the most capacious one. The difference will be if it costs 1 GB and when the program is running, 1.5 GB is taken, i.e. “grabbed” from the swap and, accordingly, slows down due to access to the HDD. See: task manager->performance->peak. How much, when your favorite heavy machine is working, is how much RAM is needed. =) A two-channel system gives an increase of less than 10%, if I’m not mistaken, which is not the point, as important as described above. Well, as they say, this is my opinion, although it rules at noob-level users. =)
But maybe the manufacturer had some technical problems, due to which the volume was limited.
Or look for reviews about your mat. payment throughout the Internet, or try. 🙂
mat. My board is exactly from the series that is mentioned in this article, Asus soket 775 P5LD2 SE. Thank you, Vladimir) I’ll try.
Hello, the following question:
The ASUS P5LD2 motherboard in its description says that the maximum RAM memory can be installed with a frequency of 667 MHz, but I bought 2 sticks of 2 GB and a frequency of 800 MHz, installed the computer and I really liked it because Previously there was 1GB OP.
But after that, space on the hard drive began to disappear, namely on drive “C” (Windows XP is installed on it)
Could this be due to a Motherboard limitation?
Or did I catch some kind of virus? because At the moment, Kaspersky without a license is not paid for = does not work.
Anton, is there a lot of space missing?
Windows has a page file, it can sometimes depend on the size of the RAM.
There is a sleep mode when all the contents of the RAM are stored on HDD— and the system always reserves an amount equal to the amount of memory. You can turn it off and the place will return.
Or maybe it's just some kind of coincidence.
Hello! Can you tell me: the Asus motherboard supports memory up to 800 MHz, now it costs 2 x 512 at 533 speed (pc-4300). Is it possible to expand by adding 1 or 2 GB but 800th memory? Zs-4300 is nowhere to buy. Will this combination of 2x512 MB on 533 and 1 or 2 GB on 800 work??? Thank you.
Hello, I have slots for DDR3 and DDR4 on my motherboard, is it possible to add another 8Gb*2 DDR3@2133MHz to the 8Gb*2 DDR4@3200MHz?
My question is, will this work in the Toshiba Satelit A 215 laptop? There the frequency will definitely be 667 hertz at the 800 hertz bar, and is there a risk that it won’t start at all? And in general, can you cram more than 4 gigs of RAM there? Or is there 4, the maximum?
Ha, P5RD2-VM does not start with 800 memory (officially the ceiling is 667). But she found a crutch - if you stick one 667 and the other 800 together, then everything works.
asrock 945gcm-s does not support 800 MHz memory
The power supply system has its own small high radiator that cools the power elements.
Let's now take a look at the board itself, which in design resembles the older Radeon HD 6870.
Two visible from the side seats for power connectors, but only one is wired, as it should be. The Radeon HD 6850 consumes 127 W at maximum load, so there is no need for a second connector. In terms of idle power consumption, the video card is also a record holder - only 19 W.
The core power system is similar to that of its older brother, but instead of four phases there are three. 59901M chips from Texas Instruments are used, made using DrMOS technology. Control functions are assigned to the Chil CHL8214 PWM controller.
The HD 6850 series graphics adapters use a stripped-down version of the Barts graphics chip with two SIMD cores disabled. The number of stream processors has been reduced from 1120 to 960, and texture units from 56 to 48.
Eight Hynix H5GQ1H24AFR T2C memory chips with a total capacity of one gigabyte are soldered.
Operating frequencies are standard for representatives of this series - 775/4000 MHz. When idle, core and memory frequencies are reduced to 100/1200 MHz.
If the HIS 6870 Fan 1GB disappointed us a little general level turbine noise, then this map It turned out to be very quiet in game mode. In our standard 12-minute Crysis Warhead test at maximum quality settings with anti-aliasing at a resolution of 1920x1200, the core temperature reached 77 °C (23 °C indoors).
When loaded with the FurMark “stability test,” the temperature rose to 84 °C. At the same time, the cooling system fan spun up to 80% of its maximum, creating a noticeable hum.
When using the Chil CHL8214 controller, softvolt mode should theoretically be supported. But at the time of testing, the latest available version of MSI Afterburner did not have such capabilities for the Radeon HD 6850/6870, so we limited ourselves to overclocking without raising the voltage. Although we wouldn’t need a softvolt mode, the core was overclocked to 960 MHz without any problems, but full stability was achieved at 930 MHz.
At higher frequencies, the card could not withstand long-term loads. Most likely, the power system overheated. The radiator on the 59901M chips is poorly ventilated, because it is located in a confined space and the air flow from the fan is directed perpendicular to the board. Even at these 930 MHz we had to manually set the fan speed to 100%. The memory did not show good results; the maximum was 1140 (4560) MHz. The Radeon HD 6870 video adapter we reviewed earlier had approximately the same overclocking. Whether such low memory overclocking results are due to a feature of the corresponding controller in the Barts GPU or is it a flaw in the BIOS of the first video cards is still difficult to say. But Hynix chips are rated at 5 GHz, and we couldn't even reach their rating. Other test participants
Let's briefly look at the other video cards that took part in this comparison.
Radeon HD 6870
We reviewed this video card from HIS quite recently. 1120 stream processors, 56 texture units and high frequencies of 900 MHz for the core and 4000 MHz for memory.
Our copy overclocked to frequencies of about 1015/4520 MHz.
Radeon HD 5850
This is the most popular model from the Radeon HD 5800 line among buyers. This version of the RV870 chip already boasts 1440 active stream processors, 72 texture units, 32 rendering units. The operating frequencies are modest - 725/4000 MHz, but given the good overclocking potential of Cypress, this is easily compensated for by overclocking.
Our testing involved a reference adapter. Its overclocking is 1000/4912 MHz at increased voltage and maximum turbine cooler speed.
Radeon HD 5830
Junior model based on the RV870 graphics chip. The GPU is cut in terms of computational units by more than 40%, and the number of rendering units has been halved compared to the flagship HD 5870. In this case, the RV870 has only 1120 active stream processors, 56 texture units and 16 ROPs.
Our testing involved a card that features a non-reference design and an improved cooling system. Operating frequencies - 800/4000 MHz. The core frequency is 75 MG higher than the more powerful Radeon HD 5850, which should partially compensate for the significant lag in the number of computing units. Our sample was overclocked to 915/5200 MHz.
Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4890
Both video adapters differ only in frequencies, so one plays the role of Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4890. But it is worth remembering that the younger cards were produced with both one gigabyte of video memory and 512 megabytes, which had a very noticeable effect on performance in certain applications.
Frequencies Radeon HD 4870 - 750/3600 MHz, Radeon HD 4890 - 850/3900 MHz. Overclocking of the video card is 1000/4836 MHz with softvolt mode and maximum fan speed of the stock cooling system.
Another reference video adapter, this time made by ASUS. The GPU has 448 stream processors, 56 texture units and 40 ROP units. The memory bus width is 320 bits, the memory capacity is 1280 megabytes.
Operating frequencies are standard - 608/1215/3348 MHz. The overclocking of our sample was 800/1600/4060 MHz at maximum turbine cooler speed.
GeForce GTX 465
Junior video adapter based on the GF100 graphics chip. The number of active stream processors is 352, texture units are 44. The reference version is a copy of the GeForce GTX 470, just like the card we used.
The core operates at 608/1215 MHz, GDDR5 memory at 3206 MHz. Although the frequencies are lower than that of the GeForce GTX 460, the performance of this adapter is no lower, and in some cases even higher by several percent. This solution is inferior in power consumption (200 W) and requires a more powerful cooling system. Overclocking - 825/1650/4040 MHz.
GeForce GTX 460 1GB
The gigabyte version of the GeForce GTX 460 has 32 ROP units and a 256-bit memory bus. The number of universal stream processors is 336, texture units are 56.
The card that took part in the test has standard operating frequencies - the core operates at 675/1350 MHz, GDDR5 memory at 3600 MHz. The video card itself completely replicates the reference design, but is equipped with a different cooling system. Overclocking is quite typical - 850/1700/4280 MHz.
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
The 192-bit version of the GeForce GTX 460 has a reduced number of ROP blocks and a small amount of memory of 768 megabytes. Our testing involves the Gigabyte GV-N460OC-768I video card, equipped with a dual-fan cooling system. This is one of the best models in this series and we will devote a separate review to it.
For the test, frequencies were reduced to the recommended 675/1350/3600 MHz. Overclocking was 890/1780/4560 MHz, which can be considered an outstanding result.
GeForce GTX 260
A popular video adapter in the past based on the GT200 graphics chip with 216 stream processors, 72 texture units and 28 ROPs. Memory capacity - 896 MB, bus width - 448 bits. The standard version operates at a core frequency of 576 MHz (shader domain at 1242 MHz), GDDR3 memory at 1998 MHz.
differs in frequencies increased to 666/1404/2304 MHz. The performance of the video adapter is close to that of the GeForce GTX 275, although the older model still wins a few percent. This copy is still based on the old 65-nm core, the final overclocking is small - 713/1458/2538 MHz. Newer versions with a 55nm GPU often have better potential.
Characteristics AMD video cards
| Video adapter | Radeon HD6870 1024MB |
Radeon HD6850 1024MB |
Radeon HD5850 1024MB |
Radeon HD5830 1024MB |
Radeon HD4890 1024MB |
Radeon HD4870 1024MB |
| Core | Barts XT | Barts Pro | RV870 (Cypress) | RV870 (Cypress) | RV770 | RV770 |
| 1700 | 1700 | 2154 | 2154 | 959 | 956 | |
| Technical process, nm | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 55 | 55 |
| Core area, sq. mm | 255 | 255 | 334 | 334 | 282 | 263 |
| 1120 | 960 | 1440 | 1120 | 800 | 800 | |
| Number of texture blocks | 56 | 48 | 72 | 56 | 40 | 40 |
| Number of rendering units | 32 | 32 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| Core frequency, MHz | 900 | 775 | 725 | 800 | 850 | 750 |
| Memory bus, bit | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory capacity, MB | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 |
| Memory frequency, MHz | 4200 | 4000 | 4000 | 4000 | 3900 | 3900 |
| 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10.1 | 10.1 | |
| Interface | PCI-E 2.1 | PCI-E 2.1 | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| 151 | 127 | 170 | 175 | 190 | 160 |
Characteristics of NVIDIA video cards
| Video adapter | GeForce GTX470 1280MB |
GeForce GTX465 1024MB |
GeForce GTX460 1024MB |
GeForce GTX460 768MB |
GeForce GTX260 896MB XFX Black |
GeForce GTX260 896MB |
| Core | GF100 | GF100 | GF104 | GF104 | GT200 | GT200 GT200b |
| Number of transistors, million pieces | 3200 | 3200 | 1950 | 1950 | 1400 | 1400 |
| Technical process, nm | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 55 | 65/55 |
| Core area, sq. mm | 526 | 526 | 367 | 367 | 576 | 576/487 |
| Number of stream processors | 448 | 352 | 336 | 336 | 216 | 216 |
| Number of texture blocks | 56 | 44 | 56 | 56 | 72 | 72 |
| Number of rendering units | 40 | 32 | 32 | 24 | 28 | 28 |
| Core frequency, MHz | 608 | 608 | 675 | 675 | 666 | 576 |
| Stream processor frequency, MHz | 1215 | 1215 | 1350 | 1350 | 1404 | 1242 |
| Memory bus, bit | 320 | 256 | 256 | 192 | 448 | 448 |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Memory capacity, MB | 1280 | 1024 | 1024 | 768 | 896 | 896 |
| Memory frequency, MHz | 3348 | 3206 | 3600 | 3600 | 2304 | 1998 |
| Supported DirectX Version | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 |
| Interface | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Declared peak power consumption, W | 215 | 200 | 160 | 150 | n/a | 182 |
Test stand
The test bench configuration is as follows:
- processor: Core 2 Quad Q9550 ([email protected] GHz, 465 MHz FSB);
- cooler: Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme;
- motherboard: ASUS Rampage Formula (Intel X48 Express);
- memory: OCZ OCZ2FXE12004GK (2x2GB, DDR2-1200@1162 MHz with timings 5-5-5-15);
- sound card: Creative Audigy 4 (SB0610);
- hard drive: WD3200AAKS (320 GB, SATA II);
- power supply: Seasonic SS-850HT (850 W);
- operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate x64;
- HD 6850 and HD 6870 video card drivers: Catalyst 10.10;
- drivers for other video cards: ATI Catalyst 10.7, NVIDIA GeForce 258.96.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
In this game, the Radeon HD 6850 is inferior to the HD 5850 quite a bit, and the maximum advantage of the old video card (up to 11%) is in modes without anti-aliasing, which is not very relevant. In terms of average fps, the newcomer outperforms the GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465, but in terms of minimum fps, NVIDIA cards have an advantage. The GeForce GTX 470 is slightly inferior to the Radeon HD 6870 on average, but at a minimum it shows an advantage of up to 29%, which cannot be compensated by any Radeon overclocking. The lag of the 192-bit version of the GeForce GTX 460 from its 256-bit counterpart is from 5 to 7 percent.
Borderlands
In this application based on Unreal Engine 3, GeForce graphics adapters traditionally demonstrate the best results. At a resolution of 1680x1050 the difference in results is small, but this is explained by the high processor dependence of the game and this benchmark. The Radeon HD 6850 is almost as good as the Radeon HD 5850, but loses even to the 192-bit GeForce GTX 460. But the Radeon HD 6870 is second only to the GeForce GTX 470. Note that in this game the overclocked GeForce GTX 460 768MB manages to slightly outperform all older AMD video cards at higher frequencies, although in terms of minimum fps a tiny advantage remains with the Radeon HD 5850.
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction
This is another processor-dependent game, so at lower resolutions the difference between older video cards is small and the gain from overclocking is in some cases very modest. The advantage of the Radeon HD 6870 over the Radeon HD 6850 is minimal - no more than 9%. The junior card is on par with the GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465 in simple modes, but is inferior to them with active anti-aliasing. Overclocked Radeon HD 6850 reaches performance levels highest card, but is inferior to overclocked competitors from NVIDIA. In nominal modes, the leader is the GeForce GTX 470; when overclocked, this card shares first place with the Radeon HD 5850.
Split/Second
IN this application fps is limited to 30 frames, so at 1680x1050 we see how most video cards level out when overclocked.
The situation in the game is quite interesting. The older Radeon HD 4890 and GeForce GTX 260 solutions have a fairly significant advantage over some new models. Even at standard low frequencies, the GeForce GTX 260 outperforms the gigabyte version of the GeForce GTX 460. If in other games the performance of the GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465 differs very little, then in this case the latter has an advantage of almost 20 percent, but this is not enough to beat overclocked version of GeForce GTX 260 from XFX.
Among AMD video cards, the balance of power is more adequate; the old HD 4890 and HD 4870 are second only to the Radeon HD 5830; older cards demonstrate higher fps. The difference between the Radeon HD 6850 and HD 6870 is less than 10%, and the advantage of the HD 5850 over the younger Barts is absolutely negligible. All these three seem to outperform the GeForce GTX 470 in terms of average, but in terms of minimum fps the older card from the green camp turns out to be better. In a real game on the GeForce GTX 470, the game actually runs more smoothly and comfortably. There is something similar in the confrontation between Radeon HD 5830 and GeForce GTX 465 at a resolution of 1680x1050. The average frame rate seems to be higher with the Radeon, but according to subjective feelings, playing on this video adapter is absolutely uncomfortable. It's all about the huge performance drops (up to 13 frames per second) in each scene, rich in visual effects. But the GeForce GTX 465, despite drops of up to 19-20 frames, produces a quite smooth picture at nominal value. With acceleration, no discomfort is felt. And the overclocked GeForce GTX 465 turns out to be no worse than the overclocked Radeon HD 6850 and HD 6870, being inferior to them only in average frequency, but winning slightly in terms of minimum fps.
Sniper: Ghost Warrior
In this game, the lower-end NVIDIA cards are noticeably inferior to their rivals; only the GeForce GTX 470 looks pretty good and is slightly ahead of the Radeon HD 5850, inferior to the Radeon HD 6870. But with overclocking, the GeForce GTX 470 has no equal. The overclocked Radeon HD 5850 takes second place, followed by the overclocked Radeon HD 6870. Its younger brother, the Radeon HD 6850, is second only to the GTX 470 among NVIDIA video cards, but when overclocked it is on par with the GeForce GTX 465, operating at higher frequencies. The older GeForce GTX 460 is slightly inferior to the Radeon HD 5830, and the 192-bit version is inferior to the Radeon HD 4890.
Another processor-dependent game, and even at maximum resolution the difference between competing solutions is negligible. There is an interesting situation when, at a resolution of 1680x1050, all GeForces hit the “ceiling” of 84 frames, and the older Radeons reach the level of 85-86 frames. The situation is approximately the same in 1920x1200, only the results there are slightly lower. At the same time, the minimum fps on AMD cards is also higher. Although in nominal terms everything is exactly the opposite, and even the GeForce GTX 460 outperforms the Radeon HD 5850 and Radeon HD 6850. And the GeForce GTX 470 has the same result, both in nominal and overclocking. In this test scene, everything clearly depends on the processor's capabilities, but despite this, AMD still wins several frames. This lower processor dependence, however, does not indicate the advantages of these solutions. In any case, where CPU performance is very critical, these cards will not allow you to achieve higher fps. And the fact that we see the advantage of GeForce in nominal modes indicates the overall dominance of NVIDIA solutions in this game, with the exception of the Radeon HD 6870, which is second only to the GeForce GTX 470.
A simple GeForce GTX 260 turns out to be more productive not only than the Radeon HD 4870 and HD 4890, but even the Radeon HD 5830. With overclocking, the old man catches up with the Radeon HD 6850 operating in nominal mode.
A demo version was used for testing this game. The game does not support full anti-aliasing; the corresponding item in the menu activates post-processing effects that blur the edges of objects, but do not remove the effect of ladders during a contrast transition from dark to light. But this “smoothing” loads the system quite heavily, so we included in our testing the results with the parameter activated and deactivated.
With active anti-aliasing, the gap between the Radeon HD 6850 and its older brother reaches 20%. And although the increase in GPU frequency during overclocking reaches the same figure, it is possible to compensate for this by overclocking the video card to 930/4560 MHz only in a resolution of 1920x1200. The Radeon HD 6870 is inferior to the GeForce GTX 470 in low resolution, but when moving to heavier modes it catches up and is already a leader at 1920x1200 with active anti-aliasing. The Radeon HD 5850 is similar - it is inferior to its rival GeForce in low resolution and gradually catches up with it as the settings are increased. The performance of the GeForce GTX 460 is higher than that of the Radeon HD 5830, but less than that of the Radeon HD 6850. The Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4890 performed very poorly, which were inferior even to the simple GeForce GTX 260. And the overclocked XFX adapter is even slightly ahead of the 192-bit GeForce GTX 460.
Let's now look at the results when we turn on APEX PhysX effects.
When using AMD video cards, quite predictably, we get very poor results. This is typical for games using PhysX. The only exception is Metro 2033, in which, with the calculation of advanced physical effects Powerful processors handle it without any problems. In this case, our processor cannot cope with the load, and therefore the final result is the same, which is not affected in any way by the performance of Radeon video cards. But with GeForce, by the way, the processor also plays an important role. On all higher cards, the minimum fps is the same and does not increase above 26 frames. And in terms of average, the difference between the GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 470 is small. The gain from overclocking is also small. So even powerful video NVIDIA card does not guarantee you complete comfort in the game with PhysX enabled if you have an insufficiently powerful processor. Ideally, it should be a Core i7; on it we reached 29 frames at the minimum fps in this benchmark.
In synthetics we see the most big difference between Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 6870 - 27 percent. The advantage of the older card over the Radeon HD 5850 is simply negligible, but the latter easily achieves leadership with overclocking. The GeForce GTX 470 outperforms the HD 6870 by hundredths of a percent in nominal terms and demonstrates great superiority when overclocked.
Far Cry 2
The only case where there is a qualitative increase in fps in the HD 6800 series cards in comparison with the Radeon HD 5850. This mainly concerns, of course, the anti-aliasing mode. According to this criterion, the Radeon HD 5850 is inferior even to the Radeon HD 6850, and with the Radeon HD 6870 the difference is simply huge - up to 30%. Considering that in other games the difference in performance is more modest, we can conclude that the reason for this increase is more likely to be new drivers than any features of the Barts architecture. The game is not new, but all the old video cards always showed not the best results in it when anti-aliasing was activated, and it seems that AMD tried to correct this situation. Previously, we have noted more than once that when running a test on Radeon, frequent picture twitches and fps “jerks” are noticeable, which was the reason for the low results. Although the performance of the Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 6870 has increased, these jerks have not completely disappeared.
In terms of minimum fps, the Radeon HD 6850 is inferior only to the GeForce GTX 470 in simple modes, but with anti-aliasing it is also inferior to the GeForce GTX 460. The Radeon HD 6870 is inferior to the older NVIDIA card only with active anti-aliasing. The GeForce GTX 460 with a 192-bit memory interface demonstrates similar performance to the GeForce GTX 465 and even outperforms the Radeon HD 5850.
James Cameron's Avatar: The Game
AMD's newcomers look pretty good in this game. The Radeon HD 6850 is on par with the Radeon HD 5850, losing some fractions of a percent only in lower resolution. The Radeon HD 6870 outperforms the GeForce GTX 470, although with overclocking the latter takes the lead in overclocking. The GeForce GTX 460 is inferior to the Radeon HD 6850 by up to 10%, but easily makes up for this when frequencies increase, bypassing both the HD 6850 and HD 5850 operating at nominal frequencies. Between the 256-bit and 192-bit versions the difference in performance is about two percent in simple modes and up to seven percent with active anti-aliasing.
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Another game that has high CPU requirements. In this case, we are not seeing a situation where all video cards demonstrate identical results, but are hitting a certain “ceiling”, which is becoming more and more difficult. Please note that in different modes the minimum fps on the GeForce GTX 470 is almost the same, and the average differs by several percent; a more or less noticeable drop in performance is manifested in the maximum resolution with anti-aliasing. At the same time, with the Radeon HD 6870 the difference between the lightest and heaviest modes reaches 35% in average frame rate. And if at 1680x1050 the AMD card is the leader, then at 1920x1200 with MSAA it is even inferior to the older GeForce by 1%. And from overclocking, the increase in fps for GeForce is tiny, three times less than the increase in GPU frequency. And with a thirteen percent overclock of the Radeon HD 6870 core, we get a 10% increase in frame rates. It seems that, as in StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, AMD cards are less dependent on the processor, and in this case this allows for an impressive lead. Perhaps on a more powerful platform, all the graphics would be similar to the last one, with the Radeon HD 6870 and GeForce GTX 470 showing similar results.
The GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465 are inferior to the Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 5850, but with overclocking they easily outperform them. The lag of the 192-bit version from its brother is no more than 2.6% in simple modes and 6% with active multisampling. With overclocking, they show the same results, although the frequencies of the GeForce GTX 460 768 MB are noticeably higher.
Just Cause 2
Dominance of Radeon graphics adapters. In simple modes, the GeForce GTX 470 is inferior to the Radeon HD 6870, HD 6850 and HD 5850, and when anti-aliasing is enabled, only one Radeon HD 6870. The GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465 can only compete with the Radeon HD 5830 and Radeon HD 4890.
If in terms of performance AMD video cards are more preferable for Just Cause 2, then GeForce may provide a more attractive picture thanks to the possibility of “advanced” water simulation using CUDA. Water really looks better, this can be seen even in static screenshots (you can find a comparison in the game review on our website), and this has a negligible effect on the final performance.
Crysis: Warhead
This game no longer poses a particular problem for older single-chip video cards. Radeon HD 6870 and GeForce GTX 470 demonstrate decent fps at a resolution of 1680x1050. The older AMD card has up to a 6% advantage over the GeForce GTX 470, but when overclocked, the GTX 470 takes the lead. The Radeon HD 5850 takes third place in nominal modes, at frequencies of 1000/4912 MHz it is only a couple of percent behind the overclocked GeForce GTX 470.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat
First, let's look at the results of video cards when rendering under DirectX 10. Let us remind you that we present data on the heaviest SunShafts scene from the S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat benchmark.
A huge superiority of all AMD video cards and very low results with anti-aliasing enabled. But if you move to DirectX 11, the picture changes dramatically.
There has been a huge increase in the performance of NVIDA graphics adapters. GeForce GTX 460 at a resolution of 1920x1200 demonstrates higher performance than older Radeons at the same resolution under DirectX 10.1. The results of the GeForce GTX 470 are completely unattainable for AMD solutions. Radeon cards also improve performance, but not as much. The Radeon HD 6850 is already inferior to the GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465, and the Radeon HD 5850 is on par with them, losing ground when anti-aliasing is turned on.
Considering the nicer picture and higher fps in DirectX 11, these results play a fundamental role for the player. So in this game NVIDIA video cards are more preferable. Perhaps the GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465 at nominal value will not be enough for high resolutions, but when overclocked they cope adequately even with anti-aliasing at 1920x1200.
One of the first games to support DirectX 11, under which all maximum quality settings are available. Of the old APIs, only DirectX 9 is supported. The test was carried out only in the highest resolution, because in this mode the game is very unpretentious to the video system and performance is already heavily limited by the processor.
Indeed, when moving to DirectX 11, the GeForce GTX 470 confidently takes the lead. And the GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465, although inferior to the Radeon HD 5850 and HD 6850, are capable of overclocking the Radeon HD 6870. If we compare exclusively overclocked cards , then the Radeon HD 6850 is inferior to the 192-bit version of the GeForce GTX 460, and the Radeon HD 6870 and Radeon HD 5850 are slightly superior to the GeForce GTX 465 and are not able to compete with the GeForce GTX 470.
Aliens vs. Predator
For testing in this game, a special benchmark was used, which does not work under older DirectX, so there will be no comparison with video cards of previous generations. Let's immediately move on to the current mode in DirectX 11.
Without anti-aliasing, the Radeon HD 6850 barely outperforms the Radeon HD 5830 and demonstrates up to a 10% advantage over the GeForce GTX 460. The older GeForce GTX 470 is inferior to the Radeon HD 6870 and Radeon HD 5850. But once you turn on anti-aliasing, the GeForce GTX 470 already has a slight advantage. But The GeForce GTX 460 and GeForce GTX 465 are inferior to the Radeon HD 6850 even in this mode. But with overclocking, these video cards reach the performance level of older models. The GeForce GTX 465 even outperforms the overclocked Radeon HD 6850 at higher frequencies. As for the difference between the 192-bit and 256-bit versions of the GTX 460, it is most significant during overclocking, when, despite the higher frequencies, the lower-end card loses up to five percent in performance .
Metro 2033
The most resource-intensive game, the results of which we saved for last. With Catalyst 10.10 drivers, Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 6870 graphics cards experienced lighting rendering errors and incorrect shadow display. All this could affect the reliability of the final results, in particular, increase the final fps. So we present the test data for these video cards more for informational purposes than for comparison with other graphics adapters.
The new series looks just great and even the Radeon HD 6850 outperforms the Radeon HD 5850 and GeForce GTX 470, but, as mentioned above, this result cannot be said to be completely reliable. In a confrontation between the Radeon HD 5850 and the GeForce GTX 470, the former has an advantage in simple modes, while the latter has an advantage when anti-aliasing is turned on. The GeForce GTX 460 is inferior to the Radeon HD 5850 by 15 to 25%, but compensates for this by increasing frequencies.
DirectX 11 preserves all the “bugs” with shadows and lighting on Radeon HD 6850/6870 video cards, so we will leave their results without comment. The GeForce GTX 470 is again inferior to the Radeon HD 5850 in simple modes, but wins in anti-aliasing. But the NVIDIA card is no longer able to cope with this mode, so there is little practical benefit from superiority in this mode. As for the GeForce GTX 465 and GeForce GTX 460, they are not enough for the most simple mode at maximum DirectX 11 settings. By the way, in this game there is a huge lag between the 192-bit version of the GeForce GTX 460 and its older brother when anti-aliasing is turned on - from 25 to 94%. Of course, the older card is not able to provide decent fps in such modes; this only shows the sharp lack of video memory and the low relevance of the SLI combination of 768 MB GeForce GTX 460.
conclusions
We will start summing up with comments on the Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 6870 video cards. The new models turned out to be quite successful, combining excellent performance with low power consumption. The older Radeon HD 6870 is more productive than the Radeon HD 5850, but the “old man” easily compensates for its small ten percent lag when overclocked. The advantage of the new card is largely due to high frequencies - 900 MHz versus 725 MHz, and this is a strong argument in favor of the HD 6870. But with such a difference in frequency (24%), the performance advantage no longer seems impressive. The computing potential of the RV770 is greater, so with overclocking the Radeon HD 5850 maintains the lead. However, the native cooling system is not enough for significant overclocking. And in order to gain just a hundred megahertz from the Radeon HD 6870, a native turbine is also not enough. For a simple user who ignores overclocking, best choice will become the Radeon HD 6870. But if you are the owner of a Radeon HD 5850, then you shouldn’t change your card to an HD 6870; it’s better to wait for the HD 6900 series video adapters. We also note that although Barts is a little more economical, the reference Radeon HD 6870 was noisier than the Radeon HD 5850 .
The younger Radeon HD 6850 is inferior to its brother by 15 to 25 percent in performance. In some cases, the speed of this card is as close as possible to the Radeon HD 5850. Quite good for a card whose graphics chip is reduced by 16% in the number of stream processors, and its frequency is lower by the same 16%. It is possible to compensate for the lag from the older card by overclocking the GPU by 20%. The advantage over the GeForce GTX 460 is from 5 to 15 percent, in rare cases it is more than 20 percent. There is a huge lead in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat when rendering in DirectX 10, but under the more current DirectX 11, the GeForce GTX 460 is faster. In addition, the Radeon HD 6850 is inferior to its opponent only in FarCry 2, StarCraft 2 and Borderlands. With overclocking, the performance of the NVIDIA card scales a little better and in some cases this helps achieve identical results when overclocking both cards where the NVIDIA card was slightly slower at nominal. Perhaps the reason for this is the slight overclocking of the memory on the Radeon HD 6850, which limits the potential of the GPU. But overall, the Radeon HD 6850 is without a doubt the more powerful and attractive product. It is not surprising that immediately after the announcement of the new HD 6800 series, NVIDIA began a hasty reduction in prices for its video cards. The recent mid-range leader GeForce GTX 460 cannot compete with the Radeon HD 6850, and even the GeForce GTX 470 is inferior to the Radeon HD 6870 in some cases.
As for our specific copy of the HIS HD 6850 Fan 1GB, the video card pleased us with its minimal noise level in game mode. Its overclocking potential is not bad, but it will not be possible to implement it using native cooling while maintaining a low noise level due to insufficient cooling of the power subsystem.
The GeForce GTX 470's position has been shaken since the release of the Radeon HD 6870. The new rival turns out to be a little faster in many applications. Fermi has good performance at the highest resolutions and with anti-aliasing. The card also has good overclocking potential, which allows it in most cases to outperform the overclocked Radeon HD 5850 and Radeon HD 6870. However, to implement such overclocking, you cannot do without replacing the cooling system.
The GeForce GTX 460, which lost ground under the pressure of the newcomer, has not lost its relevance thanks to its reduced price and widespread availability. Plus, the cards have excellent overclocking potential and among all the models we visited, there was not a single one that could not overcome 800 MHz at the nominal voltage. In such conditions, you can do without replacing the cooler and, perhaps, you won’t even have to greatly increase the fan speed of the original CO. In such conditions, the GeForce GTX 460 can still compete with the Radeon HD 6850, especially since the market is full of models with factory overclocking and powerful cooling systems. In the near future we will look at several of these video adapters and find out whether they will defeat the younger Barts.
We will also comment a little on the results of the 192-bit version of the GeForce GTX 460. The maximum lag of this model from its older brother with anti-aliasing turned on is from 10 to 15 percent. In certain situations, these numbers are even higher, but this is only in those modes where the performance of the 256-bit version is sorely lacking. Once you disable antialiasing and lower the resolution, both versions of the GeForce GTX 460 are separated by 5%, or even less. This gap is easily compensated by overclocking. If you don't have anti-aliasing and your monitor supports a resolution of 1680x1050, then you can save a lot of money by purchasing the GeForce GTX 460 768 MB. For monitors with a resolution of 1280x1024 this is the most optimal choice. But this card is not suitable for high resolutions and SLI. When combining a pair of such adapters, you can gain performance only in light modes; a small amount of memory will not allow you to achieve comfort at maximum settings (a striking example of this is the latest Metro 2033 graph). It also makes no sense to switch to this video card from a GeForce GTX 260 or GeForce GTX 275, unless solely because of DirectX 11, the performance gain will be negligible.
And a little about the GeForce GTX 465. This video adapter did not last long on the market; now it is no longer available for sale, although its performance is good. In most applications, the GeForce GTX 465 is slightly more productive than the GeForce GTX 460, and where it is inferior junior card in nominal terms, it still turns out faster when overclocked. The downside is quite obvious - high power consumption and heat dissipation, which is a consequence of using the power-hungry GF100.
It is worth noting the general tendency towards lower results for NVIDIA video cards in processor-dependent applications. In StarCraft 2, this results in a meager one-frame advantage for AMD video cards. But in Bad Company 2 with a GeForce GTX 470, a generally unusual situation arises when in all modes the card demonstrates approximately the same fps. But in another processor-dependent game, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction, it is the GeForce GTX 470 that beats all rivals.
You should not understand such results in StarCraft 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 as an indication that on some Athlon processor the game will slow down with a GeForce and will run perfectly on a Radeon. In cases where the final fps will depend primarily on the processor, you will get “brakes” on any video card. This is just an indicator of the need to use a powerful modern CPU for the most powerful single-chip video adapters. In some applications, the full potential of such graphic solutions simply will not be revealed with a weak processor, and the difference between them will be so minuscule that the investment in an expensive card will not justify itself. That's it, you can go have tea.
Test equipment was provided by the following companies:
- DCLink - Sapphire HD 5830 video card, ASUS Rampage Formula motherboard;
- Eletek - OCZ memory OCZ2FXE12004GK;
- Elko - Inno3D GTX 465 video card (N465-1DDN-D5DW);
- HIS - video cards HIS HD 5850 1GB, 6850 Fan 1GB, 6850 Fan 1GB GDDR5;
- PCShop - Gigabyte GV-N460OC-768I video card;
- Syntex - Seasonic SS-850HT power supply (S12D-850);
- — hard drive WD3200AAKS;
- Zotac - video card Zotac GeForce GTX 460 1GB (ZT-40402-10P).
All currently known technical data on HD 6800 series video cards were studied. But what about the rest? There is no specific information on them yet.
As you can see, AMD company plans to replace the HD 5800 series with new video cards based on the Barts and Cayman GPUs. Nothing is known about the latter yet. But just above, we see an image of two video processors. This probably means a new dual-processor flagship, which is now the HD 5970.
The last slide for today partly brings some clarity to this question. The HD 6000 series is planned to include a full-fledged HD 6900 subseries. This means that it will include not only a dual-processor giant, but also two more graphics accelerators. But we can already say that the most powerful video card of the new generation from AMD will be the HD 6990. It’s a pity, but there is no data on the release dates or technical characteristics of future products, we can only wait.
