AOA Forums AOA Forums AOA Forums Folding For Team 45 AOA Files Home Front Page Become an AOA Subscriber! UserCP Calendar Memberlist FAQ Search Forum Home


Go Back   AOA Forums > Hardware > EPoX MotherBoards

EPoX MotherBoards EPoX Intel and AMD Motherboards.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 10:38 AM
Swifty2002's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 269

Talking do you guys know about slower TRAS netting better performance??

Well I had seen this in a few forums and decided to give it a shot and test myself... This is seems to work with Nforce2 mobos... Something screwy with their timings...

System specs are in sig and I'm running at 200x11.5 with Geforce 4 Ti4400 at 300/650 (which is ti4600 speed) and using 42.51 drivers...

I only tested 3DMark2001 since I figure that gives a good estimate of system/3d performance...

RESULTS at 2-2-3-5

3DMark Score 14766
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 225.5 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 81.0 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 252.8 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 136.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 201.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 94.5 fps
Game 4 - Nature 86.7 fps

----------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-6

3DMark Score 14781
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 227.6 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 81.7 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 252.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 135.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 201.1 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 94.6 fps
Game 4 - Nature 86.7 fps

------------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-7

3DMark Score 14805
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 221.2 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 84.0 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 253.0 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 135.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 203.6 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 95.0 fps
Game 4 - Nature 86.7 fps

--------------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-10

3DMark Score 14860
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 228.0 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 82.7 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 253.6 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 136.6 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 202.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 95.1 fps
Game 4 - Nature 86.7 fps

---------------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-11

3DMark Score 14878
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 228.4 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 82.6 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 253.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 136.3 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 203.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 95.3 fps
Game 4 - Nature 86.7 fps
__________________
AMD64 Venice 3200+@2500 (250x10) || Epox 9NDA3J v2.1 || 1.5GB PC3200 RAM || Inwin Q800 case || Enermax 431w PSU || ATI Radeon X800 XL AIW || Acer 226BW 22" LCD monitor || NEC 2500A 8x DVD-R/RW || WD 120gb & 80gb 7200rpm 8mb cache || 26,462 3DMark 2001 || 12,619 3DMark 2003 || 6,016 3DMark 2005 || Folding@Home 24/7...

Last edited by Swifty2002; 29th June, 2003 at 03:13 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 11:53 AM
Swifty2002's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 269

Just to make sure I tested using the latest Sisoft Sandra... I did 3 runs from a fresh boot each time same as I did with 3dmark2001 and I averaged the 3 results...

RESULTS at 2-2-3-5

3019/2861

----------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-6

3032/2874

------------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-7

3037/2881

--------------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-10

3046/2892

--------------------------------------------

RESULTS at 2-2-3-11

3046/2894
__________________
AMD64 Venice 3200+@2500 (250x10) || Epox 9NDA3J v2.1 || 1.5GB PC3200 RAM || Inwin Q800 case || Enermax 431w PSU || ATI Radeon X800 XL AIW || Acer 226BW 22" LCD monitor || NEC 2500A 8x DVD-R/RW || WD 120gb & 80gb 7200rpm 8mb cache || 26,462 3DMark 2001 || 12,619 3DMark 2003 || 6,016 3DMark 2005 || Folding@Home 24/7...

Last edited by Swifty2002; 29th June, 2003 at 03:13 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 11:56 AM
Holst's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Leics UK
Posts: 4,528

Works for me sometimes, I run 11 all the time now.
__________________
No longer Epox Tech.

Best of luck in the future all my friends.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 12:58 PM
jcool
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

?!? WTF?
Does the mobo think the wrong way round (like 3 is slowest 11 is fastest) or what?
I'll try it out, too.
And what about the other timings?
MAybe the system's faster when they are set at 4-4-2,5 huh?
weird..
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 01:00 PM
Swifty2002's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 269

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
?!? WTF?
Does the mobo think the wrong way round (like 3 is slowest 11 is fastest) or what?
I'll try it out, too.
And what about the other timings?
MAybe the system's faster when they are set at 4-4-2,5 huh?
weird..
No it won't be faster with 4-4-2.5

It's something new with Nforce2 mobo's, with Intel and even KT333 or KT400 TRAS of 5 is best... Like I said though, it also may vary from board to board and RAM to RAM...
__________________
AMD64 Venice 3200+@2500 (250x10) || Epox 9NDA3J v2.1 || 1.5GB PC3200 RAM || Inwin Q800 case || Enermax 431w PSU || ATI Radeon X800 XL AIW || Acer 226BW 22" LCD monitor || NEC 2500A 8x DVD-R/RW || WD 120gb & 80gb 7200rpm 8mb cache || 26,462 3DMark 2001 || 12,619 3DMark 2003 || 6,016 3DMark 2005 || Folding@Home 24/7...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 01:09 PM
jcool
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Wow it works!
running 10x222 aggressive 5-2-2-2 I got 3321 and 3121 in Sandra.
After using 11 for TRas like Holst said, I got 3400/3190!
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 01:13 PM
New-b's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: April 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 170

Well I tried, ran 2400xp@11x200=2205
Sandra.
At 2-2-2-5=3084/2915
AT2-2-2-6=3099/2922
To make this short, anything higher(2-2-2-7/2-2-3-10 etc.)scores came back down.Guess it's just my systems sweet spot.
__________________
DFI NF2 Ultra Inf//mobile 2600+ @2561(11.5x222)
1gig Mushkin Black L2 3500 @ 11-2-2-2-2-13-15-E-E-F-E
ALX-800 + 80mm Tornado//Shin-etsu thermal pad
Radeon 9800pro-M(Tyan Tachyon)
2x WD 80gb HDD
Lite-on 52x32x52 CD-RW//Samsung 16x DVD
Antec SLK3700amd//550w True control
Yamaha TSS1-W 5.1 Dolby Digital/DTS Speakers & external decoder
Windows XP sp1//DX9.b//(Omega 4.2's)//2-17.bo1 bios
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 02:24 PM
ichorid's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 81
Send a message via MSN to ichorid

ill try that
__________________
Lithos
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 03:05 PM
ichorid's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 81
Send a message via MSN to ichorid

btw, ive read about this before.

something along the line of the slower timings allow the hdd more time, resulting in better hdd performance, so better benchies
__________________
Lithos
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 04:00 PM
Blackmyst's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: February 2003
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 268

Well, it worked for me!

Went from
7,3,3,2.5 = 3213/3009 (210fsb),

to
11,3,3,2.5 = 3298/3083 (215fsb).

It also gave me another 5fsb so I'm even happier!

Blackmyst
__________________

EPOX 8RDA3+ rev1.1, 3526 bios, vantec iceberg (nb), zalman gold (sb), heatsinks/fan (mosfets)
XP1800+ slk900 w/92mm vantec tornado, 11 x 215mhz, 1.85v
TWINMOS PC3200 ch-5 winbond, 2x256mb, dc-sync, 8,3,3,2.0, 2.63v
RADEON 9800 PRO 128mb, 380/680
WD RAPTORS 2x36gb, sata raid0
CHEIFTEC CASE enermax 550w
XP HOME sp1, nforce v3.13, catalyst v4.3
3DMARK2001se 18120

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 05:29 PM
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: las vegas-nv-usa
Posts: 213

"What is tRAS and why is it backwards and important at the same time?"

I found this at Mushkin's site a while back and it explains it to me pretty clearly, once I read it through a few times. I'd suggest reading all the info at the link, but here is the explanation.

(basically it is saying that tRCD + CAS + 2 cycles should be your tRAS, anything lower and your shooting yourself in the foot!

I like that it tells me the why(s).


"What is tRAS and why is it backwards and important at the same time?

The word latencies is generally used to describe a delay. However, Merriam-Webster defines the word’s origin as period of dormancy and in technical parlance, latency is often used to describe simply the duration of any event. One example is the PCI latency which describes the time any device has access to the PCI bus before it will be automatically disconnected to allow other devices access to the same resources.

Why are we talking about this? Very simple, the access latencies of any device to the PCI bus are usually eight cycles, but the total latency can be set from 16-256 cycles. This shows that the same word is used to describe two entirely different parameters, the first being the time until any transactions can start, the second referring to the time that is available for transactions (minus the access latencies). As an example, a PCI latency of 32 will carry a penalty (access latency) of 8 cycles which leaves 24 cycles for actual data transfers. Therefore, decreasing this latency will not increase performance, on the contrary.

The exact same is true for tRAS short for the RAS Pulse width. Historically, tRAS was defined as the time needed to establish the necessary potential between a bitline pair within the memory array until it was safe to write back the data to the memory cells of origin after a (destructive) read. Pay attention to the word read here.

Memory, in many ways is like a book, you can only read after opening a book to a certain page and paragraph within that particular page. The RAS Pulse Width is the time until a page can be closed again. Therefore, just by definition, the minimum tRAS must be the RAS-to-CAS delay plus the read latency (CAS delay). That is fine for FPM and EDO memory with their single word data transfers. With SDRAM, memory controllers started to output a chain of four consecutive quadwords on every access. With DDR, that number has increased to eight quadwords that effectively are two consecutive bursts of four.

Now imagine someone closes the book you are reading from in the middle of a sentence. Right in your face! And does it over and again. This is what happens if tRAS is set too short. So here is the really simple calculation: The second burst of four has at least to be initiated and prefetched into the output buffers (like you get a glimpse at the headline in a book) before you can close the page without losing all information. That means that the minimum tRAS would be tRCD+CAS latency + 2 cycles (to output the first burst of four and make way for the second burst in the output buffers).

Any tRAS setting lower tRCD + CAS + 2 cycles will allow the memory controller to close the page “in your face!” over and again and that will cause a performance hit because of a truncated transfer that needs to be repeated. Along with those hassles comes the self-explanatory risk for data corruption. That one is not a real problem as long as the system is kept running but in case it is shut down and the memory content is written back to the hard disk drive, the consequences can be catastrophic. For the drive, that is.

What does this spec mean?

Take for example 2.5-4-4 as the latency rating for a module. Latency is a measure of delay, that means the 2.5 rating in 2.5-4-4 indicates a 2.5 clock cycle delay. And the 4 ratings mean a 4 clock cycle delay. The clock cycle delays that these ratings are measuring is what determine how long it takes your CPU to write or remove data from memory. So the lower these latencies are, the less time your CPU spends idle waiting for data which results in higher performance.

The position of the rating in 2.5-4-4 determines what latency the rating is referring to. The ratings, in order, represent the latency ratings for CAS, tRCD (RAS-to-CAS delay), and tRP (RAS Precharge). It would take a long time to explain what each of these latency ratings means, so to make a long story short the lower the latency the higher the performance of your CPU."

http://www.mushkin.com/mushkin/pop-up/latencies.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
edit - So, in Blackmyst's case , 2.5 + 3 + 2 = 7.5 therefore a tRAS of 8 would be called for , not his original 7.

Now I wonder if 2.5-3-3-8 would be better than his current 2.5-3-3-11

Not sure 11 is in his best interest. The tRAS of 8 would satisfy the latency requirements ( whereas the original 7 didn't ) and very well may be better than 11.

I'd still think you want it as low as possible, yet compliant with the latency requirements. 8 would fill that bill.



Scott
__________________

Last edited by serlv; 29th June, 2003 at 05:41 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 06:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: June 2003
Posts: 15

wow, very informative, and it makes sense. I was running at 2-2-2-3, and after reading this post I noticed that my sweet spot was 2-2-2-6, just like Mushkin describes. Although 2-2-2-10 gives a tiny bit better performance. At a TRAS between 6 and 10 I actually get lower performance. Go figure. Thanks for posting this.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 08:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: las vegas-nv-usa
Posts: 213

Quote:
Originally Posted by brens
wow, very informative, and it makes sense. I was running at 2-2-2-3, and after reading this post I noticed that my sweet spot was 2-2-2-6, just like Mushkin describes. Although 2-2-2-10 gives a tiny bit better performance. At a TRAS between 6 and 10 I actually get lower performance. Go figure. Thanks for posting this.
Yeah, I love it when manufacturers add informative stuff to their sites! Value added.

Interesting that a tRAS of 10 would give a miniscule improvement. Still the overall, formula is one that I can remember easily. Have 17 crunchers to go through and check.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 29th June, 2003, 11:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: June 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 50

Got one point in sisoft sandra at 11 compared with 6.

WooHoooo!!!

Seriously though they all gave similar results (within 5 points) which I reckon is within margin of error.

Gonna go with 6-2-2-2 as it fits formula best...
__________________
Silence is golden...

XP1700+ 0310 | 200*12.5 @ 1.775v | Miro Maxxpert Watercooled - all fans @ 5v | Epox 8RDA+ - Vanteq & ram sinks | Corsair XMS3200LL 6-2-2-2 | Radeon 8500 - 310/630 - Ram sinks | Yamaha sw1000xg | Maxtor 30gig | IBM 60GXP (has failed on me twice) | Modded Enermax 350w PSU

XP2200+ 11.5*145 @ 1.4v | Retail Cooler | Abit KR7a Raid | Crucial PC2100 4 bank, cas 2, 2-5-2, 1T | ATI Rage IIc | Maxtor 30gig | Alcatel 330 USB Modem | No name 400w psu
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 30th June, 2003, 12:27 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cumbria, UK
Posts: 44

Bloody hell, just changed my timings from 6,3,3,2.5 to 9,3,3,2.5 and gone from 3087/2853 in Sandra to 3218/3043


I cannnnnnnnnoooooot believe it lol




andyw
__________________
Epox 8RDA+ 1.1 Rev C1 400FSB Ultra Edition
Athlon XP 2400+ at 11x211 (Now stable at cpu 1.9v)
2 x 512MB TwinMos PC2700 syncd 10,3,3,2.5 Aggressive
Connect3D Radeon 9500pro 128MB 334/304
80GB Maxtor Plus 9
120GB Hitachi Deskstar
Toshiba SDR5002 DVD Writer
LiteonDVD 163
XP Pro SP1


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 30th June, 2003, 01:08 AM
GREEKRAGE's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Greece
Posts: 97

I posted this find about 2 months ago on another board and they thought i was nuts or a noob.

I did the same 8 benckmarks using sandra and got a better mark as i finaly reached 11 where the best result was obtained.

Cool thing is from what i see is that this setting works on all mem types so at least all can enjoy it.

I wonder if it only works using dual channel though?

Did anyone try it on a single channel config ?
__________________
AMD 2600+Tb @2400 MHz (12.x200 )
Cooler: Thermalright SLK-800U (37c idle-43 load)
Epox 8RGA+ A2
2x256 PC400 DDR Kingston(11-2-2-2)(valueram)
Club3D Radeon 9700pro cooled by a GIANT2 by Thermaltake
HDD Maxtor 133 8mb cache
Case: highly modded YY cube
PSU: Levicom 420
Latest 3dmarks = 2K3 5313 and 2k1 16137
OS:Win2k(sp3)-WinXP pro
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 30th June, 2003, 02:01 AM
timbob2469's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: Pa. USA
Posts: 805

I'll bet it only works with dual channel. Here I was trying to run the timings as tight as I could, I figured go till unstable then back it off, I even hosed Winxp once running too tight. I made the switch and went from 200FSB to 210FSB.
xp2400+@200FSB X 11=2195MHz.
7, 3, 3, 2.5 2981/2808
11, 4, 4, 2.5 3031/2841

xp2400+@210FSB X 11=2309MHz.
11, 4, 4, 2.5 3089/2897
Knocked 2 seconds off of superpi 45 seconds for 1m.
Now I think I need a better cpu cooler.
Bob
__________________
EP-8RDA+ v1.0 3827 bios
XP1700+ JIUHB 175 x 12.5=2187MHz. 1.75v
2 x 512MB Crucial pc3200 10, 2, 2, 2.0
THERMALRIGHT SLK900u 92mm Zalman fan, Enlight 420 watt, AIW 9000 Pro 64mb DDR agp4x, voltage mod 1.85v
Home made NB cooler
AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 30th June, 2003, 11:19 AM
Swifty2002's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 269

Welp, I decided to roll back to the 3129 BIOS because I was bored... and my hunch that it varies from BIOS to BIOS is correct...

With the 3129 BIOS 10 and 11 is not the best anymore... 6 is the sweetspot with my config...

So only way to know for sure what will be best setting for you is to benchmark..
__________________
AMD64 Venice 3200+@2500 (250x10) || Epox 9NDA3J v2.1 || 1.5GB PC3200 RAM || Inwin Q800 case || Enermax 431w PSU || ATI Radeon X800 XL AIW || Acer 226BW 22" LCD monitor || NEC 2500A 8x DVD-R/RW || WD 120gb & 80gb 7200rpm 8mb cache || 26,462 3DMark 2001 || 12,619 3DMark 2003 || 6,016 3DMark 2005 || Folding@Home 24/7...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 30th June, 2003, 12:04 PM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by serlv
I found this at Mushkin's site a while back and it explains it to me pretty clearly, once I read it through a few times. I'd suggest reading all the info at the link, but here is the explanation.
Nice find there. This is definately something that people need to know, so I've put it up on the FrontPage!
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 30th June, 2003, 12:29 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Latvia
Posts: 85

Don't know about benchmarks but while I was testing my kingston ram which finally turned out to be incompatible with my 8rda3+ (didn't run 200 fsb dual channel at all, several sticks tested), in memtest I noticed that with 2-2-2-6 timings I got some 30 mb/s less memory bandwidth compared to 2-2-2-7 timings at the same fsb (both in dual and single channel configuration)

Then I stumbled on that text on mushkin's site as well, and you, guys, just confirmed my suspicion. So from this moment, my timings won't be lower than 2-2-2-7, I guarantee.
__________________

Epox 8RDA3+ v1.1, 3827 bios, 1.6v Vdd, stock cooling on nb, sb
XP Barton 2500+ @ 200x11 = 2200 mhz, 1.725v Vcore
2x256 Mushkin pc3500 Black Level1 @ dc sync, 2-2-3-8, 2.63 Vdimm
Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro @ stock
WDC HDD 80 gig, 7200rpm, 8 mb cache
WDC HDD 20 gig, 7200rpm, 2 mb cache
300 W noname psu & case one side open, no other cooling
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ECC Memory and slower performance.. cloasters General Hardware Discussion 3 25th April, 2005 04:27 PM
Another gig in my AV8/A64 3000+...= slower? tianlian AMD Motherboards & CPUs 4 31st March, 2005 07:26 PM
nForce2 Higher tRAS yields better performance and higher overclocks? Evc AMD Motherboards & CPUs 9 23rd July, 2003 10:42 PM
2x256mb =slower fsb doctoromeo EPoX MotherBoards 2 20th October, 2002 10:41 PM
RAID0 performance on VIA Raid Performance Patch PFD105 r0l0e EPoX MotherBoards 5 7th July, 2002 04:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums
Don't Click Here Don't Click Here Either

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0