Conclusion
OCZ is breaking new ground with their latest Enhanced Bandwidth series, and 3700EB extends the EB performance envelope. While rated at DDR466, we were able to reach a stable DDR524 on our Intel test bed and an even more remarkable DDR550 on our AMD nForce3-250 test platform. We purposely did not push 3700EB beyond the voltage limits of the test motherboards, which were 2.85V to 2.9V because this is what you can buy in the marketplace. But, we did some experimentation with 3700EB and found that it responds very well to even higher voltage. With motherboards that have been modified to supply 3.0V to 3.2V, DDR500 timings of 2.5-2-2 are very possible. If you decide to try this, please watch out for overheating. 3700EB can handle higher voltages but it gets very hot with increased voltage and you need to supply additional cooling for the memory.Performance curves for 3700EB on the Intel testbed were similar to those we saw with 3500EB, it is just that 3700EB reaches a higher speed at the top. It is worth noting that 3700EB performed very well at stock voltage all the way to DDR466, which is an improvement compared to 3500EB. As we found with 3500EB, the memory is not as fast as some current CAS 2 memory at DDR400, but its performance is very close to the best, even though EB is rated at CAS 2.5. However, in the DDR433 to DDR466 range, 3700EB performed neck-and-neck with the best memory that we have tested, even though the CAS latency was slower. By DDR500, OCZ 3700EB reached the highest bandwidth that we have yet seen at DDR500, the same as 3500EB, even though it ran at CAS 3 and the other fast memories were at CAS 2.5. At the highest Intel speed of DDR524, EB is performing about the same as memory tested at DDR560. This is a solid confirmation of the Enhanced Bandwidth that OCZ claims to deliver with EB. It certainly looks like the more you overclock EB, the greater the impact of the EB optimizations.
Now that high speed memory is no longer a waste on AMD Athlon 64 platforms, we were amazed at how well OCZ 3700EB performs on a Chaintech VNF-250 motherboard with the nVidia nForce3-250 chipset. 3700EB reached an even higher DDR550 on the Athlon 64, and delivered some of the best memory performance that we have ever seen in our gaming and calculation benchmarks. Future memory benchmarks will include both Athlon 64 and Intel motherboards, now that either platform can be used to test memory performance effectively. The AMD platform now offers some additional advantages with both AGP/PCI lock and adjustable ratios, and we are looking forward to seeing how other new DDR memory performs on the new AMD chipsets.
3700EB is an outstanding performer over a very wide range on both the Intel and AMD platforms. It certainly belongs on your short list if you are looking for Intel DDR memory. Frankly, for Athlon 64, we would be hard-pressed to choose any other memory over 3700EB or 3500EB for the nForce3-250/K8T800 PRO or other boards that support working PCI/AGP locks on Athlon 64. 3700EB is simply astounding on Athlon 64.
When Dual-Channel arrives with Socket 939 next month, we should see a 2% to 5% increase in these already outstanding performance results. We will then see if OCZ 3700EB is the same brilliant performer in Athlon 64 Dual-Channel that we have seen on the Single-Channel Socket 754.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
12 Comments
View All Comments
nycxandy - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
"OCZ is breaking new ground with their latest Enhanced Bandwidth series, and 3700EB extends the EB performance envelope. While rated at DDR466, we were able to reach a stable DDR524 on our Intel test bed and an even more remarkable DDR550 on our AMD nForce3-250 test platform."Does the 3500EB reach a speed higher than 510 (on the Intel platform) when paired with a nF3 or K8T chipset?
rustybx - Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - link
OCZ 4200EL was ~8% better than OCZ 3700EB on the Intel platform. Should the same be true for AMD?4200EL and 3700EB are nearly identical in price. Which will be faster on an MSI K8N (nForce3-250GB)?
Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
Good review and good to see the a64 well featured. Your o'clock/FSB results have two that are at the same HT and latency settings. So tentatively a comparison can be made. An increase of 30MHz (at the same CPU speed)on the A64 FSB shows a 262pt (12%) sandra fp (unbuffered) improvement. Unfortunately, this doesnt translate to the games (Q3 the best at 3%- 13.3fps) but your 1024x32bit setting may have been a bit harsh (I know...you get criticised if you run it at 640x480 but it is a memory test not a gpu). Intel shows better: For a 16MHz increase (DDR466 to DDR500) they get Sandra unbuf. fp increase of 258pt (8%) and a Q3 increase of 25.6 fps (7%) although this last result is also affected by cpu speed increase because the P4 is multiplier locked. You failed to include the UT and aquamark results for the Intel tests.So it is not as good as I hoped for the a64 but the memory bandwidth % increase is hopeful. If this doubles with dual bank memory and your tests are gpu restricted then this tweaking avenue may still be worth pursuing.
TrogdorJW - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
I would really like to see what sort of performance you were able to get from the Athlon 64 when using two sticks of RAM. I know that it's not a dual-channel motherboard, but in my experience, it is much more difficult to get the RAM to run at DDR400 with two DIMMs in an Athlon 64 board. If that's the case, it is imperative that we hear about it. No sense in considering OCZ or any other high-end (expensive) RAM if we're still going to be forced into running DDR333 by the motherboard.The flip side is also true: if OCZ EB RAM runs flawlessly with current Athlon 64 boards at DDR400 and even overclocked settings, I would love to hear it. I am looking at building an A64 3000+ system for a friend in the near future, and I want to know the best memory to get for A64 compatibility. Any advice would be appreciated!
ska - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
could you guys color differently the benchmarks of the curently reviewed piece of hardware? it's really great that there's so many benchmarks to compare from but after like 5 or 6 it's hard to figure out where the current motherboard/processor/RAM/video card stacks up to the rest of the benchmarks.bigtoe33 - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
If you are looking for the beta bios have a look here, http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=...Wesley Fink - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
#5 -As specified in the Atlon 64 Test Configuration on p. 11, Chaintech supplied a Beta BIOS dated 5/07/04 with multipliers in the BIOS. We will provide more information on ratios in our review of the Chaintech which will appear next week. We are working on an nF3-250 roundup of Epox, Chaintech, Gigabyte, and MSI which should post next week.
Rich5 - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
How were you able to adjust the multiplier on the Chaintech VNF3-250 motherboard? I know that it's not (yet) adjustible in the bios - did you use the Clock Gen utility from wcpuid.com? From what I could see at their website, it only appeared that they had versions for motherboards with the nforce 3 150 chipset (and nothing specifically for Chaintech boards).Wesley Fink - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
#1 -When the dust settles we will upgrade our standard test video card, but it is too early to make that decision. We use a standard video card so results are comparable to past reviews. We do not change our test hardware just because soemthing new is out this week.
We have an X800 PRO in the motherboard test lab, but we are not ready to decide which card is our future standard yet.
Illissius - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link
I've seen such benchmarks, can't remember where though (possibly xbitlabs). IIRC it was in the context of a K8T800 Pro review. At any rate, performance is equivalent at 5x (1GHz) and 4x (800MHz), takes a (small) hit in some applications at 3x (600MHz), and only really starts becoming a major bottleneck at 2x (400MHz).