ASUS ROG Rampage Formula: Why we were wrong about the Intel X48
by Kris Boughton on January 25, 2008 4:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
The Rules of Working with tRD: What's Allowed and What Isn't
We mentioned earlier that there are a few rules pertaining to the modification of the default tRD value for a particular memory subsystem configuration. These rules are actually more of a set of equations that we have derived in order to assist the user in pre-determining whether or not a system will POST and operate given the settings in question. They can also be used to explain after the fact why certain configurations refuse to function.
In actuality, there is only one requirement that must be satisfied when setting tRD: The MCH must have a minimum amount of time to complete the clock crossing procedure for each data bit translated from one clocking domain to the other. We have shown the equation below for those that care to know. Unfortunately it does not lend itself well to being solved as the input variables ("t0" and "tckxss") are not readily obtainable.
"t0" is the total time it takes data being returned to the CPU as read in memory to cross from the memory bus domain to the system data bus domain. This is dependent on a number of variables, including memory burst length (4 or 8 cycles), Command Rate (1N or 2N), the memory divider in use, CAS (tCL) timing, and the current FSB. "tckxss" is a little more esoteric in nature and is outside the scope of this discussion; the value is generally very small when compared to "t0". The difference in these times, rounded to the lowest integer plus one, bounds the lowest potential tRD setting necessary for data to be properly transferred from one bus to the other.
Because the first expression is too difficult to warrant everyday use, we spent many hours populating a large test matrix table created for recording the POST (Power On Self Test) results of every strap/divider/FSB/CAS setting combination that our test bench was physically capable of supporting. Using this data, we then developed the method and equation you see above, which can determine whether or not a desired memory subsystem configuration will work. It is possible, and rather probable, that there is another step discontinuity in the logic for FSB speeds in excess of the high value in our test range (466MHz). We will leave the discovery of some such value up to others - unless Intel is kind enough to send us additional 45nm dual-core processors, in which case further testing on our part might be justified.
Entering arguments for the use of the "POST Test Equation" are as follows: tRD, in clocks; tCL (CAS), in clocks; FSB, in megahertz (MHz); N, the memory divider in use, expressed in fractional form (i.e. 3:2 would be 3/2); and "x", which should be chosen from the options provided, depending on the FSB in use. Evaluate the left and right side of the equation separately. The expression is satisfied if the left (actual margin) is greater than but not equal to the right (the minimum required margin).
There are no units purposefully associated with these numbers, as this equation is intended as nothing more than a test to determine whether a system will POST using the desired parameters. If the expression is false, the configuration/system will fail to boot; if it is true then the configuration is allowed and the POST event should at least occur. Keep in mind that this equation provides absolutely no assurance that the system will be stable at the settings provided - just because you want to run your memory at DDR2-1200 CAS 3 and the equation says this is possible, does not mean that your wish will be fulfilled. Let's go through a quick exercise of what we have learned regarding the proper use of the "POST Test Equation" with a few practical examples.
If you can follow these examples then you are ready to move on to the next step - determining optimal system performance points and then validating your results. There are many choices when it comes to deciding how to configure a system for the best possible experience. Some choices are clearly better while other decisions may come to down to personal preference. For instance, some users may be willing to subject their expensive hardware components to higher voltages, creating an environment of accelerated wear and earlier failure. Others may be far less concerned with the consequences of their choices; in either case the trade-offs will be clear. We will now take what we have learned and provide our rationale for why we would feel one overclocking approach to be superior to another. After all, overclocking should always be based on an intelligent decision making process and not the clumsy application of brute-force.
73 Comments
View All Comments
kjboughton - Sunday, January 27, 2008 - link
The rules as defined may not apply exactly as provided for P35. The equations have been tested to be true for X38/X48 but additional testing is still needed on P35 in order to validate the results.Super Nade - Saturday, January 26, 2008 - link
Hi,I love the technical depth of the article. Outstanding writeup! I hope you will NOT dumb down future articles as this is how, IMO a review should be written.
S-N
Eric Rekut - Saturday, January 26, 2008 - link
Great article! I have a question, is x48 faster in super-pi than p35/x38?Rajinder Gill - Saturday, January 26, 2008 - link
Hi,In general the X38/X48 chipset outscores the P35 in Super Pi. The x48 can/will pull ahead of the X38 very marginally IF it can handle a lower overall tRD with a higher FSB combination and tighter memory sub-timing ranges - within an available level of Northbridge voltage.
regards
Raja
Rob94hawk - Saturday, January 26, 2008 - link
I would love to see you guys do benchmarking and overclocking with the QX9770+DDR3 1800 with this mobo.Rajinder Gill - Saturday, January 26, 2008 - link
Hi Rob,Kris will be testing the Rampage Extreme soon (with DDR3). The 9770's only show a little more prowess than QX9650's under LN2 cooling (in some instances - not always). With cascade/water/air cooling there's little to separate the QX9650 from the QX9770 (at least in my experience with both processors thus far).
regards
Raja
enigma1997 - Saturday, January 26, 2008 - link
Another excellent article after the QX9650 O/C one. Congratulations!!I have a few questions: What ram did you use to achieve the amazingly high bandwidth result (the one that goes with the 450FSB and tRD 5)? I understand you are using a divider of 3:2 and CAS5, so I expect the DDR2 speed should be at 10800!!
Also, I am not sure how you can get a memory read of >9000MB/s with tRD 5. I have a pair of G.Skill F2-8000PHU2-2GBHZ 4-4-4-5 and a DFI X38-T2R motherboard. I set it up with a QX9650 with tRD/FSB/ram timing identical to yours, but I only get around 8800MB/s. Note that the CPU runs at 3000Mhz.
Thanks for the article and your answers to my questions :)
kjboughton - Sunday, January 27, 2008 - link
Memory used for the incredible 450FSB/tRD 5 result was OCZ DDR2 PC-9200 Reaper (2GB kit).Regarding the testing you did at equivalent speeds, contrary to popular belief, CPU speed does influence both system memory read latency and bandwidth (add 16 clocks of whatever the CPU's Tcycle is to total system latency - about an extra 1.33ns going from 4GHz, where I tested, down to 3GHz uses in your system). This is certainly enough to reduce your BW results down below 9GB/s.
Jodiuh - Saturday, January 26, 2008 - link
"we feel there is nothing that needs modification by the end user as long as overclocking aspirations are within reason."The current Maximus series requires a bit of work (heatgun, fridge) to pull this off and replace with TIM of choice. Also I noticed a 7C drop on the bench when adding a 5CFM 40mm to the NB. Would you mind fleshing out the comment a bit more?
Thanks for the very thorough information in the article!
jedisoulfly - Friday, January 25, 2008 - link
there is a patriot viper ddr3 1600 cl7 kit at newegg for $295 (out of stock at time of this post) that is dramatically higher than good 800 ddr2 or even 1066 but just over a year ago ddr2 800 2gb kits were going for that price. I think once NV and AMD start making chip sets that support ddr3 the prices will start to come down...hopefully