Well, the issue there is that I can't benchmark an i7 with DDR2
and as I've said already, due to the FSB bottleneck, it really is
completely useless on a Core 2
On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:30, Stan Zaske wrote:
Can you get me a link to a good hardware review that show these real
world performance improvements that you're talking about? As I said,
I've been reading hardware reviews for many years on this subject
and see no hard evidence to back what you're saying. Synthetic
benchmarks always show an improvement in bandwidth but when you use
practical software applications and do comparisons there is minimal
if any difference in speed. Certainly nothing that a human beings
perception could detect.
James Boswell wrote:
On 2 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Stan Zaske wrote:
SDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2--->DDR3=more bandwidth, more latency, lower
voltage and lower heat. After a decade and dozens if not hundreds
of hardware reviews that show minimal to no real world performance
improvements (synthetic? Uh huh!) DDR3 is another solution to a
problem that doesn't exist. Only when speeds get well above DDR3
2500 will there be significant and noticeable speed improvement.
DDR3-1600 is a very significant improvement over DDR2-800... the
issue is that Core 2's are hooked up to memory controllers the
other side of the an FSB, the IMC in the i7 delivers... heroic
bandwidth from DDR3
The problem does exist, but the memory always always ALWAYS comes
before its needed, in this case it came in the middle of the Core 2
generation, when it wasn't needed or useful until i7
One exception to this is DDR memory coming with the Athlon (huge
performance kick)
-JB
