Dual DDR Ram and SATA HDs

[Lanthanide]

Posting this here since I am a newbie and there doesn't seem to be any other forums where this type of question fits nicely.

Does anyone have any links to tests that compared Dual DDR Ram vs regular DDR ram of the same speed? I've found several tests that compare between Dual DDR ram types, but none that actually compare to regular ram. What I want to know is whether it's really worth paying ~40% more for the same amount of ram if it's not really going to be that much faster.

Same goes for SATA hard drives vs PATA, anyone know of any tests that compared SATA HDs vs PATA HDs?

[dumass]

go to the apple site.

They have nice graphs showing how fast their SATA is to PC's PATA. there are quiet alot of reviews out though.

pata = ~40megs sustained
sata = ~55megs sustained

[whetu]

as far as I know, "dual DDR" kits are just a marketing gimmick.. they're solely dependant on the motherboard having dual memory controllers (such as nForce2.) Basically "dual DDR" ram is exactly the same as normal DDR ram.

On the nForce2 the difference between single channel and dual channel operation is roughly 10% tops. On an Intel box however, it's a different story...

as for the SATA vs PATA question...

www.storagereview.com

check out some of their reviews of SATA drives... they have comparisons to competitors options.

Just be sure that you compare apples with oranges.. there's no point putting a Western Digital PATA up against a Seagate SATA. Make sure you compare <brand x><model y> PATA with <brand x><model y> SATA... for example only compare a Seagate cuda V PATA with a cuda V SATA

[Lanthanide]

I'm currently looking at getting an intel, either a 2.66 533 FSB or a 2.6 800 FSB.

Any idea how useful dual DDR on an intel board would be (looking at the Asus P4P800)?

I've sort of come up to a choice with the amount of money I've got to spend: I can either get 1024 meg regular ram and 160 gig SATA or dual 1024 meg total ram and 160 gig PATA.

Wondering which of the two options is better overall (and whether one is just a dud, like I suspect D-DDR is) or whether I should bite the bullet and get both.

[Tiggerz]

Personally I see no real benifit from sata at the moment.

However the dual channel ram on an Intel based board will make a huge difference. I gained over a 30% increase in switching to dual channel.

The reason the ram kits for dual channel are slightly more expensive, is that both sticks have been hand tested to work together in that configuration. Basically you are paying a few dollars extra for a bit more quality controll.

If you run in single channel mode then your ram will have a maximum thru-put of about 3.2Gb/s. The P4 requires 4.2Gb/s to run nicely. Go dual channel and you have optimum of 6.4Gb/s.

If you mis-pare the ram, that is use two sticks that are slightly different, then the board will run in single channel mode, no matter what you do with it.

Note that many manufacturers re-use the brand and part number but change the internal config of the ram. So even if you buy separately using the same serial number, you may not end up getting the same type of ram.. Hence they sell kits which guarantee this.

[Lanthanide]

Hmm. Ok.

I was looking at that storagereview website (is it just me or is that site really hard to navigate?) and found some comparisons of the barracuda SATA to regular PATA and it didn't seem much better at all, and it also compared them to the western digital 200 gig PATA and both of them performed worse than it did in almost every single test, often by a large margin.

Couldn't find any comparisons of WD SATA vs WD PATA though, and several companies on pricespy are advertising WD SATA (not the raptor) so don't know what's going on there.

I'd like a raptor, but I can't really afford high-speed 36 gig that costs more than a single 120 gig. Oh well, that's life.

However it looks like I won't be getting me a barracuda under any circumstance if the PATA WD's beat them anyway.

So whetu says SATA over D-DDR (for an Athlon anyway) and Tiggerz recommends D-DDR over SATA.

Keep the opinions coming, the more the merrier.

[whetu]

ummm no i never said sata over d-ddr...

right now sata is still in its infancy... wait till the next revision when its up to 300...

Personally what I would do is this:

Buy a pair of the exact same "normal" DDR sticks at the same time. There will be a VERY high chance of them being from exactly the same batch. Then buy a PATA IDE HDD. With the savings get a faster cpu, or the next model up of video card... or half a years' supply of mcdonalds.. whichever you fancy.

[Ragnor]

In my opinion.... ;)

SATA vs PATA
If you're buying a new drive it might aswell be SATA, unless you need to pinch pennies, or have a low budget for this machine... or want to resuse PATA drives you already have.

With hard drives what seems to be more important currently is cache size... the 8mb cache drives (both PATA and SATA) significantly outperform the 2mb cache drives.. but you pay a price premium for it but it seems worth it.

Dual DDR
I would get matched Dual DDR tested/certified ram. The performance of a P4 with Dual Channel enabled is significantly better then just Single Channel.

Corsair TwinX, Mushkin Dual pack or the Kingston HyperX would be my preference. You pay more but quality brand name ram will generally prove it's worth over no-name generic most days of the week.

CPU
If you're getting the P4P800 I would definately get an 800mhz FSB P4 rather then a 553mhz P4

[Lanthanide]

Got confuzzled there, meant Maxtor SATA, not WD.

Think I'm just going to go with a regular PATA WD, SATA doesn't look that much better (from other brands) and there are no SATA WD's yet.

What are my chances of getting 2 ram sticks that world in dual channel without explicetly buying dual channel?

I don't think the shop would be very impressed with me returning the ram and saying "sorry, it didn't dual-channel like I wanted it too, can I've another pair?" when they have proper dual channel kits on sale.

As for penny pinching, my budget is basically unlimited (I -could- buy the best of everything if wanted to) but I don't see the point in spending 40% extra for a specific product if it's only going to perform 10% better, might as well just save the money for upgrading later when prices are more reasonable.

For the ram, Geil Golden Dragon or Mushkin? I've found decent prices on both, which do you think is better? Read the update about Geil being a bit dodgy sometimes so I'm leaning more towards Mushkin ATM.

[Grrr!!]

Originally posted by Lanthanide
Got confuzzled there, meant Maxtor SATA, not WD.

Think I'm just going to go with a regular PATA WD, SATA doesn't look that much better (from other brands) and there are no SATA WD's yet.

What are you on?

Everyone has SATA WD's.

eg: Ascent:
http://www.ascent.co.nz/mn-product-template.asp?cname=Hard+drives

Caviar WD1200JB-SE, 120 GB, 7,200rpm, 8192K cache, SATA-150 $397.53 Buy 5 Jul
Caviar WD2500JB-SE, 250 GB, 7,200rpm, 8192K cache, SATA-150 $923.45 Buy
Raptor WD360GD, 36 GB, 10,000rpm, 8192K cache, SATA-150 $353.43 Buy

[Lanthanide]

Ok, I have no idea what I'm talking about then :P

[whetu]

"What are my chances of getting 2 ram sticks that world in dual channel without explicetly buying dual channel? "

very high if you buy at the same time.

"geil or mushkin?"

hmmmm the unproven tacky one or the one that has long held a reputation of excellence? a kia sportage or a porsche? decisions decisions (yes, I'm saying go with mushkin)

[Lanthanide]

And if I did decide to buy 2 'regular' ram sticks and hope they work in dual channel, how would I tell if they were or not? Is the only way to pop it open and swap the ram over and see if it runs slower on benchmarks?

[whetu]

most motherboards equipped with dual channel mode should tell you on POST... if they dont, it should come along in a bios update...

If they dont inform you however, I'm sure some smart cookie has made an app, or knows of an existing app that will help you out...

Failing that your benchmark comparision should be an ok indicator...

[Bung]

Matched pairs may or may not be "matched" but they probably have their SPD data set at values likely to work in the intended host. has anyone checked what the SPD is set for in ordinary and paired DDR. Assuming that the MB pays any attention:)

[astro-g]

There is little or no gain in performance due to serial over Parallel ATA.

the raptors performance gain is mainly due to it being a 10k rpm drive.

If you want Good performance, get a high RPM drive,
with a large cache, on PATA, and just leave it on its own - dont put any other drives on the same channel.
and make sure its jumpered correctly, dont put the IDE cable in backwards, or anything else that will ruin ata133
- use a good ribbon cable instead of a round cable
round cables are almost allways ata100, not 133.

dual ddr definite yes for Intel systems,
the new kt600 single channel mobo's are suposed ot be
faster than nforce 2 boards,
are the nforce 2 400 ultra's single channel as well?

[Agent666]

ok.........

SATA and the same drive in PATA WILL RUN AT THE SAME SPEED........
is that clear.........
they are the same drive........
is that clear........
they are simply a different interface..........
is that clear.........
different drives from different manufacturers will proform differently.......
is that clear........
this is because they are different drives..........
is that clear......
you cannot compared the pros and cons of SATA vs PATA based on different manufacturers.........
is that clear........
because they are different drives and the drives speed has nothing to do with the INTERFACE.......
is that clear.......
Its like saying your cars performance is different on different roads.... cobblers........
is that clear.........
If you have the choice between SATA and PATA go with the SATA drive.......
the standard has distinct advantages over PATA.....
is the clear......


So to sumup DONT judge a drives speed based on a SATA vs PATA argument........ it is fundamentally FLAWED........
is that clear.........
Base it on the drive itself........
Case in pt........ barracudda 5s ... first SATA drive to make it to market...... complete dog when it comes to performance......... beaten by EVERY other manufacturers existing PATA drives in raw performance .....
is that clear........

also dont base your decision on 8mbs of cache is better than 2mbs of cache...... see all of the above, the same reasoning applies.......
is that clear.......

class dismissed.......;)

[Bung]

Originally posted by astro-g
- use a good ribbon cable instead of a round cable
round cables are almost allways ata100, not 133.



AFAIK the 80 wire cable design that came in at ATA66 hasn't changed and is still good for ATA133. Agree that a flat cable is better.