But qualitative comparative characteristics are certainly much more interesting to look at.

Well, we finally managed to get as close as possible to the announced BW value of DDR2-533, the new memory type. Its real maximal BW was 4287.2 MB/s in read operations (note that memory bus frequency was overstated by 2-3 percent in both cases, which is clearly seen from DDR-400 test results). We can say that it reached its peak value (which is, in fact, 4266.7 MB/s = 533.3 MHz x 64 bits), even though the memory mode was asynchronous. The efficiency of DDR2 write operations is somewhat lower, but it's probably due to some microarchitectural peculiarities of Prescott CPUs as we got almost the same value in our previous tests carried out in the dual-channel mode.

Memory latency

The methodology we use to measure latency in the case of Pentium 4 CPUs was thoroughly developed, explained, and described before. That is why we'll only mention it briefly: we use the pseudo-random mode to read a quite large memory block (4 MB). The steps are 64 bytes (a real size of Pentium 4 CPU L2 cache lines) and 128 bytes (the so-called effective size related to hardware prefetch of the adjacent line in all read modes).

To illustrate this, here's graphs of L2-RAM bus offload received on Prescott/DDR2 with a 128-byte step.

Prescott/DDR2, memory latency, 128-byte line size

Speaking about qualitative estimates, we should mention that latency values were invariably lower in the single-channel mode than in the dual-channel one. However, it's no surprise as dual-channelness implies increased memory access latency (on the chipset level). And by the way, that is why memory latency values received in the single-channel mode should be considered the most correct ones (i.e. the closest ones to the original characteristics).

^* no L2-RAM bus offload

It hardly makes any sense to compare "incorrect" and besides, very close values received at a 64-byte step. It is much more interesting to compare more objective ones received at 128 bytes. The results come as no surprise: DDR2 is clearly worse than DDR in what concerns latency. This time around, the difference is within 8-11 percent in favour of DDR (if we don't take into account the middle values, where there was no bus offload). It is a bit less than was in the dual-channel mode (15-16 percent), which means dual-channelness has more impact on DDR2 than DDR latency.

Conclusions

The results can hardly be called sensational. Maximal real bandwidth of DDR2-533 memory really matches the announced 4.3 GB/s in the single-channel mode and exceeds DDR-400 memory bandwidth in it. However, it can't be referred to its indisputable advantages at least because current Intel i915/i925 chipsets supporting DDR2 can also work perfectly in the dual-channel mode. And that makes the single-channel DDR2 absolutely unattractive compared to the same dual-channel DDR. Thus, the main previously-made conclusion holds good: the use of DDR2 will not be appropriate at least until the appearance of the first CPUs with bus frequency of 1067 MHz and higher. This will enable to overcome the restriction imposed by CPU bus speed on real bandwidth of the memory subsystem in the dual-channel mode.