Speed Problems

[Bo2k]

Hello,

I have a problem with speeds, as i see on the website examples :
http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fanc ... k-cdm.html speeds of 7 gb/s are reached in test with configuration of 8gb ddr3 1600.
Also i see some screenshots on forum with speed of 5 - 6 gb/s.
My config is 16 GB ram 1600 (4x4gb corsair vengence), on a gigabyte ga-ma790fxt-ud5p with phenom II X4 955 and 5 x 7200rpm in RAID 0 as strorage.
I have tried on windows 7 x86 and x64 with different ram timings in bios, with or without invisible memory (on 32 bits) but the crystaldiskmark show me sequential speeds only ~ 3gb/s and random 4k ~ 600 mb/s. What should be the problem !?
Also i have measured notepad.exe , iexplorer , warcraft3 etc.. loading times with AppTimer, the loading times are the same with or without cache. Disable/Enable prefetch/superfetch other windows cache mechanism, also makes no difference in loading times.
What should be the problem !?
Other users, please post some of yours sequential read, and some loading time on notepad.exe with/without fc.
My loading times on notepad is ~0.0300 (30ms) and iexplore.exe ~0.05 (50ms) kind of much for RAM that i think it have ~80ns access time.
Excuse my English. Thanks

[mobiuspizza]

One question I can answer is:

Quoting from Wikipedia

However, similar to the way the original Phenom handled DDR2-1066, current Phenom II platforms limit the usage of DDR3-1333 to one DIMM per channel; otherwise, the DIMMs are underclocked to DDR3-1066.

It is possible that by populating all 4 channels of RAM, you saturate the memory controller and that it has to now underclock the RAM.

Going from 1600 to 1066 represents about 40% bandwidth drop, and that's possibly what you are seeing there.

Also, I don't trust launching small apps like notpad not even iexplorer. The margin of error is too high. The access time of RAM is not the bottleneck. The shuffling of CPU commands and request of data through storage channel as well as FancyCache's calculation and handling are also factors
These are my results for load times of notepad:
0.0635
0.0635
0.0646
0.0635
0.0765
0.0626
0.0765
0.0626
0.0636
0.0636
You are even quicker than my i5 2500k and SSD.

Maybe try something like Photoshop
Slow loading games like Civilization V, Sims, etc

[Support]

A simple cache can't speed up the first time loading applications, becasue it also needs to access the disk in order to load apps.

[Bo2k]

Hello again,
Yes, the motherboard underclock the DIMMs at 1333
I made some tests on ram with Everest and the benchmark values are :
Latency : 60.7ns
Copy : 9406 MB/s
Write : 6787 MB/s
Read : 7714 MB/s
Also found an simple msdos utility that says : "The STREAM benchmark measures "real world" bandwidth sustainable from ordinary user programs -- not the theoretical "peak bandwidth" provided by most vendors." , so i tried with this too and the result was :
Copy : 9269 MB/s
Scale : 9358 MB/s (i do not know what this means)
Add : 9176 MB/s (i do not know what this means)
Triad : 9038 MB/s (i do not know what this means)
So, i am kind of shure that my RAM is really running at those speeds.
The question is .. why can't Fancy Cache deliver those speeds !?
CrystalDiskMark shows me only 2800 - 3000 MB/s sequential read.
Current OS is Windows 7 x64.

[BikeHelmet]

Because software with an actual purpose isn't perfectly efficient.

It's quite possible the people getting 7GB/sec in CrystalDiskMark would get 18GB+/sec in these benchmarks.

Also keep in mind that the test system is an i7. I'm on a Phenom II as well, and get this:



Overall I'm happy, though - previously unzipping Sun Javadocs took about 30-40 seconds. Now it takes closer to 4.

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/ ... 55137.html

Edit: Hey, how do you time how long it takes for something to start?

[Support]

The bench testing results in Windows XP might be much higher than that in Windows 7.