A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Benchmarking memory settings



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 17th 18, 06:22 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ed Cryer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,542
Default Benchmarking memory settings

My PC runs quite well with 16GB RAM at 1600MHz;and also 32GB at 1066MHz.
They feel the same, but there must be some difference.
I want to compare the two, and googling gives me lots of options.
But there's "benchmarking" and there's "benchmarking".
Obviously the extra RAM will help in some apps.

So then, I want an across the board benchmarking.

What do you recommend?

Ed
Ads
  #2  
Old May 17th 18, 09:50 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,313
Default Benchmarking memory settings

Ed Cryer wrote:
My PC runs quite well with 16GB RAM at 1600MHz;and also 32GB at 1066MHz.
They feel the same, but there must be some difference.
I want to compare the two, and googling gives me lots of options.
But there's "benchmarking" and there's "benchmarking".
Obviously the extra RAM will help in some apps.

So then, I want an across the board benchmarking.

What do you recommend?

Ed


The memtest86+ screen actually has a benchmark, in the upper left.

The various levels of cache are benchmarked, as
to how fast in GB/sec they are. The last level of cache
itself, might be considered to be the RAM sticks.

Your results should bear some proportionality to speed.
In terms of the two numbers you might get. The 1600MHz setting
has more bandwidth than the 1066MHz setting.

This is how I discovered that my RAM with its theoretical
76.8GB/sec, was actually doing pretty poorly at ~17GB/sec
measured in memtest86+. Normally memory might be 60%
efficient, and I could take 0.6 of 76.8GB/sec. But the
actual measurement wasn't nearly that good.

That's an example of a Synthetic test. Similar tests
you can run from Windows, might have the keyword "Stream"
benchmark in the name. Maybe Sisoftware Sandra has
such a bench in it.

https://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/

*******

An example of an application which is actually "sensitive"
to memory speed, is 7ZIP compression. The interval taken to
compress your goods, will be shorter on the 1600MHz RAM than
the 1066MHz RAM. While 7ZIP should have a menu item
entitled "benchmark", you can just as easily take
a standard file of some sort on a hard drive, and
run the same compression settings on it, with the
RAM at one of the two settings, and compare.

Depending on how shabby a memory implementation a platform
has, 7ZIP could be 50% slower.

Other applications hit in the caches a lot, which
requires fewer actual memory accesses per second. Intel
is especially good at hiding the details of RAM,
with AMD being slightly less good (you have an incentive
to tweak the AMD systems a bit more).

Whereas 7ZIP is a bit of a "cache buster", so the cache
is less effective at hiding the details of the RAM. And
cranking the RAM, will help a bit with 7ZIP compression.
In 7Z "Ultra" mode, the dictionary for each core running
compression, is 600MB. The 600MB figure doesn't fit in
the CPU cache (6MB to 12MB say, in size). Some parts of
each dictionary are consulted more frequently than
others. If you had 8 cores, the entire footprint is
4.8GB of memory, and definitely doesn't fit in any
cache. It's with that sort of compression job, that
the memory conditions make a difference.

So if I was the Geek Squad guy, trying to convince you
what a difference such tuning makes, I would use 7ZIP
for the "before" and "after" results. There are a *ton*
of other things, that laugh at memory optimization,
and don't budge an inch.

I had a Core2, with DDR2-533 RAM in it, and most of the
time, I couldn't tell how hellishly slow it was compared
to the system with the better DDR2 RAM in it. Only
7ZIP let out my secret :-)

https://www.7-zip.org/

Paul
  #3  
Old May 17th 18, 10:38 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ed Cryer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,542
Default Benchmarking memory settings

Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
My PC runs quite well with 16GB RAM at 1600MHz;and also 32GB at
1066MHz. They feel the same, but there must be some difference.
I want to compare the two, and googling gives me lots of options.
But there's "benchmarking" and there's "benchmarking".
Obviously the extra RAM will help in some apps.

So then, I want an across the board benchmarking.

What do you recommend?

Ed


The memtest86+ screen actually has a benchmark, in the upper left.

The various levels of cache are benchmarked, as
to how fast in GB/sec they are. The last level of cache
itself, might be considered to be the RAM sticks.

Your results should bear some proportionality to speed.
In terms of the two numbers you might get. The 1600MHz setting
has more bandwidth than the 1066MHz setting.

This is how I discovered that my RAM with its theoretical
76.8GB/sec, was actually doing pretty poorly at ~17GB/sec
measured in memtest86+. Normally memory might be 60%
efficient, and I could take 0.6 of 76.8GB/sec. But the
actual measurement wasn't nearly that good.

That's an example of a Synthetic test. Similar tests
you can run from Windows, might have the keyword "Stream"
benchmark in the name. Maybe Sisoftware Sandra has
such a bench in it.

https://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/

*******

An example of an application which is actually "sensitive"
to memory speed, is 7ZIP compression. The interval taken to
compress your goods, will be shorter on the 1600MHz RAM than
the 1066MHz RAM. While 7ZIP should have a menu item
entitled "benchmark", you can just as easily take
a standard file of some sort on a hard drive, and
run the same compression settings on it, with the
RAM at one of the two settings, and compare.

Depending on how shabby a memory implementation a platform
has, 7ZIP could be 50% slower.

Other applications hit in the caches a lot, which
requires fewer actual memory accesses per second. Intel
is especially good at hiding the details of RAM,
with AMD being slightly less good (you have an incentive
to tweak the AMD systems a bit more).

Whereas 7ZIP is a bit of a "cache buster", so the cache
is less effective at hiding the details of the RAM. And
cranking the RAM, will help a bit with 7ZIP compression.
In 7Z "Ultra" mode, the dictionary for each core running
compression, is 600MB. The 600MB figure doesn't fit in
the CPU cache (6MB to 12MB say, in size). Some parts of
each dictionary are consulted more frequently than
others. If you had 8 cores, the entire footprint is
4.8GB of memory, and definitely doesn't fit in any
cache. It's with that sort of compression job, that
the memory conditions make a difference.

So if I was the Geek Squad guy, trying to convince you
what a difference such tuning makes, I would use 7ZIP
for the "before" and "after" results. There are a *ton*
of other things, that laugh at memory optimization,
and don't budge an inch.

I had a Core2, with DDR2-533 RAM in it, and most of the
time, I couldn't tell how hellishly slow it was compared
to the system with the better DDR2 RAM in it. Only
7ZIP let out my secret :-)

https://www.7-zip.org/

** Paul


My memory sticks have 1600Mhz in the name. They seem to do quite well,
so I was wondering if I might try upping the Mhz to the next level.
I guess I can only try. I've been tinkering with memory for some days
now and I haven't fried anything. When Windows has hit a problem it just
shows a message saying that it's got an error, is taking a system dump,
and will then restart.

Do you think your idea of zipping up a large bundle of files would be
better than, say, ripping a large DVD or using Handbrake to convert
something large?

Ed

  #4  
Old May 17th 18, 10:56 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,313
Default Benchmarking memory settings

Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
My PC runs quite well with 16GB RAM at 1600MHz;and also 32GB at
1066MHz. They feel the same, but there must be some difference.
I want to compare the two, and googling gives me lots of options.
But there's "benchmarking" and there's "benchmarking".
Obviously the extra RAM will help in some apps.

So then, I want an across the board benchmarking.

What do you recommend?

Ed


The memtest86+ screen actually has a benchmark, in the upper left.

The various levels of cache are benchmarked, as
to how fast in GB/sec they are. The last level of cache
itself, might be considered to be the RAM sticks.

Your results should bear some proportionality to speed.
In terms of the two numbers you might get. The 1600MHz setting
has more bandwidth than the 1066MHz setting.

This is how I discovered that my RAM with its theoretical
76.8GB/sec, was actually doing pretty poorly at ~17GB/sec
measured in memtest86+. Normally memory might be 60%
efficient, and I could take 0.6 of 76.8GB/sec. But the
actual measurement wasn't nearly that good.

That's an example of a Synthetic test. Similar tests
you can run from Windows, might have the keyword "Stream"
benchmark in the name. Maybe Sisoftware Sandra has
such a bench in it.

https://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/

*******

An example of an application which is actually "sensitive"
to memory speed, is 7ZIP compression. The interval taken to
compress your goods, will be shorter on the 1600MHz RAM than
the 1066MHz RAM. While 7ZIP should have a menu item
entitled "benchmark", you can just as easily take
a standard file of some sort on a hard drive, and
run the same compression settings on it, with the
RAM at one of the two settings, and compare.

Depending on how shabby a memory implementation a platform
has, 7ZIP could be 50% slower.

Other applications hit in the caches a lot, which
requires fewer actual memory accesses per second. Intel
is especially good at hiding the details of RAM,
with AMD being slightly less good (you have an incentive
to tweak the AMD systems a bit more).

Whereas 7ZIP is a bit of a "cache buster", so the cache
is less effective at hiding the details of the RAM. And
cranking the RAM, will help a bit with 7ZIP compression.
In 7Z "Ultra" mode, the dictionary for each core running
compression, is 600MB. The 600MB figure doesn't fit in
the CPU cache (6MB to 12MB say, in size). Some parts of
each dictionary are consulted more frequently than
others. If you had 8 cores, the entire footprint is
4.8GB of memory, and definitely doesn't fit in any
cache. It's with that sort of compression job, that
the memory conditions make a difference.

So if I was the Geek Squad guy, trying to convince you
what a difference such tuning makes, I would use 7ZIP
for the "before" and "after" results. There are a *ton*
of other things, that laugh at memory optimization,
and don't budge an inch.

I had a Core2, with DDR2-533 RAM in it, and most of the
time, I couldn't tell how hellishly slow it was compared
to the system with the better DDR2 RAM in it. Only
7ZIP let out my secret :-)

https://www.7-zip.org/

Paul


My memory sticks have 1600Mhz in the name. They seem to do quite well,
so I was wondering if I might try upping the Mhz to the next level.
I guess I can only try. I've been tinkering with memory for some days
now and I haven't fried anything. When Windows has hit a problem it just
shows a message saying that it's got an error, is taking a system dump,
and will then restart.

Do you think your idea of zipping up a large bundle of files would be
better than, say, ripping a large DVD or using Handbrake to convert
something large?

Ed


The benchmarks should be the most sensitive, with 7ZIP.

Handbrake will have a dependency too, but at a guess,
not quite as severe.

Your progression of "non-windows" tests, were supposed
to prevent Windows throwing an error. (Like running
Prime95 under Linux, before booting back to Windows.)

The worst case corruption in Windows, comes from carrying the
Registry portions in RAM and writing them back at
shutdown. That's a "magnet" for errors, and you don't
really want to run Windows if the system is unstable,
for fear of borking the Registry.

A System Restore point keeps a copy of the Registry,
and you can use that as a fallback if you don't have
any other backups handy.

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.