iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail






Memory Module Analysis. Part 16: A-DATA DDR2-800 Modules

We proceed with the low-level analysis of the most important characteristics of high-performance DDR2 memory modules using our RightMark Memory Analyzer. Today we are going to review memory modules from a Taiwanese manufacturer A-DATA - Vitesta series, intended for 800 MHz (in DDR2 mode).

Manufacturer Information

Module manufacturer: A-DATA Technology Co., Ltd.
Manufacturer of module chips: Elpida Memory, Inc.
Web site of the module manufacturer: http://www.adata.com.tw/en/products-d-un-ddr2-800.htm Web site of the chip manufacturer: http://www.elpida.com/en/products/ddr2.html

Module Exterior

Photo of the memory module

Photo of the memory chip

Interestingly, having removed a heatsink (quite an easy and painless procedure), the modules still looked decent. In particular, there are stickers with the part number and serial number on the heatsinks and on the modules themselves. Stickers on the modules also show the company's logo, but regular users will hardly make it out :).

Module and Chip Part Number

Module Part Number

It's nice that the module numbers on stickers and under them match (however, serial numbers are different). Nevertheless, there is no Part Number expansion for Vitesta DDR2 modules on the manufacturer's web site. The web page describing the modules contain only basic technical characteristics: each module is either 256 MB or (in our case) 512 MB, the modules are based on 32Mx8 chips, operating at CAS# = 5 and standard voltage = 1.85±0.1V.

Chip Part Number

Data sheet on 256-Mbit DDR2 Elpida memory chips: http://www.elpida.com/pdfs/E0657E20.pdf

Field Value Expansion
0   Manufacturer (n/a; "E" = Elpida Memory)
1   Type (n/a; "D" = monolithic device)
2 E Product family: "E" = DDR2
3 51 Density/Bank: "25" = 256M/4 banks
4 08 Organization: "08" = x8
5 A Power supply, Interface: "A" = SSTL 1.8V
6 B Die revision
7   Packaging code (n/a; "SE" = FBGA)
8 5C Speed: "GE" = DDR2-800 (5-5-5)
9 E Environment code: "E" = Lead free

Designation of chips in this module does not comply with the official specifications published in the data sheet on memory chips. Namely, the designation starts with a single letter "E" instead of an expected letter combination "EDE". Besides, there is no packaging type code ("SE" = FBGA packaging). However, we already came across such an approach to marking Elpida chips (for example, on Kingston DDR2 chips), so it's a rule rather than an exception.

SPD chip data

Description of the general SPD standard:

Description of the specific SPD standard for DDR2:

Parameter Byte Value Expansion
Fundamental Memory Type 2 08h DDR2 SDRAM
Number of Row Addresses on this assembly 3 0Dh 13 (RA0-RA12)
Number of Column Addresses on this assembly 4 0Ah 10 (CA0-CA9)
Number of DIMM Banks 5 61h 2 physical banks
Data Width of this assembly 6 40h 64 bit
Voltage Interface Level of this assembly 8 05h SSTL 1.8V
SDRAM Cycle time (tCK) at maximum supported CAS# latency (CL X) 9 25h 2.50 ns (400.0 MHz)
DIMM configuration type 11 00h Non-Parity, Non-ECC
Refresh Rate/Type 12 82h 7.8125 ms — 0.5x reduced self-refresh
Primary SDRAM Width (organization type) of the memory module chips 13 08h x8
Error Checking SDRAM Width (organization type) of the memory chips in the ECC module 14 00h Not defined
Burst Lengths Supported (BL) 16 0Ch BL = 4, 8
Number of Banks on SDRAM Device 17 04h 4
CAS Latency (CL) 18 38h CL = 5, 4, 3
Minimum clock cycle (tCK) at reduced CAS# latency (CL X-1) 23 30h 3.00 ns (333.3 MHz)
Minimum clock cycle (tCK) at reduced CAS# latency (CL X-2) 25 3Dh 3.75 ns (266.7 MHz)
Minimum Row Precharge Time (tRP) 27 32h 12.5 ns
5, CL = 5
~4.2, CL = 4
~3.3, CL = 3
Minimum Row Active to Row Active delay (tRRD) 28 1Eh 7.5 ns
3, CL = 5
2.5, CL = 4
2, CL = 3
Minimum RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) 29 32h 12.5 ns
5, CL = 5
~4.2, CL = 4
~3.3, CL = 3
Minimum Active to Precharge Time (tRAS) 30 2Dh 45.0 ns
18, CL = 5
15, CL = 4
12, CL = 3
Module Bank Density 31 40h 256 MB
Write recovery time (tWR) 36 3Ch 15.0 ns
6, CL = 5
5, CL = 4
4, CL = 3
Internal write to read command delay (tWTR) 37 1Eh 7.5 ns
3, CL = 5
2.5, CL = 4
2, CL = 3
Internal read to precharge command delay (tRTP) 38 1Eh 7.5 ns
3, CL = 5
2.5, CL = 4
2, CL = 3
SDRAM Device Minimum Active to Active/Auto Refresh Time (tRC) 41, 40 39h, 30h 57.5 ns
23, CL = 5
~19.2, CL = 4
~15.3, CL = 3
SDRAM Device Minimum Auto-Refresh to Active/Auto-Refresh Command Period (tRFC) 42, 40 4Bh, 30h 75.0 ns
30, CL = 5
25, CL = 4
20, CL = 3
Maximum device cycle time (tCKmax) 43 80h 8.0 ns
SPD Revision 62 12h Revision 1.2
Checksum for Bytes 0-62 63 B9h 185 (true)
Manufacturer’s JEDEC ID Code 64-71 7Fh, 7Fh,
7Fh, 7Fh,
A-DATA Technology
Module Part Number 73-90 Not defined
Module Manufacturing Date 93-94 00h, 00h Not defined
Module Serial Number 95-98 00h, 00h,
00h, 00h
Not defined

SPD contents look almost standard. The modules support all the three possible CAS# latencies — 5, 4, and 3. The maximum value corresponds to 2.50 ns cycle time (400 MHz, that is the nominal DDR2-800 mode) and the usual 5-5-5-18 timings. Reduced CAS# latency (CL X-1 = 4) is prescribed to DDR2-667 mode (3.00 ns cycle time, 333.3 MHz). Unfortunately, it's impossible to use integer timings in this case — rounding them to the nearest tenth gives 4-4.2-4.2-15, which will most likely be interpreted by BIOS as 4-5-5-15 (rounding up for stability reasons). The last value (reduced twice) tCL (CL X-2 = 3) corresponds to DDR2-533 mode (3.75 ns cycle time, 266.7 MHz). Timings for this case are also non-integer — 4-3.3-3.3-12 (that is in fact 4-4-4-12). The manufacturer's code written in SPD pleasantly corresponds to reality. Nevertheless, information on the manufacturing date, part number, and serial number is missing — it does not produce a very good impression.

Testbed Configurations and Software

Testbed 1

  • CPU: Intel Pentium 4 560, 3.6 GHz (Prescott core rev. E0, 1 MB L2)
  • Chipset: Intel 955X, 200 MHz FSB
  • Motherboard: Gigabyte 8I955X Pro, BIOS F5 dated 07/05/2005
  • Memory: 2x512 MB A-DATA DDR2-800, single/dual channel
  • Video: Leadtek PX350 TDH, NVIDIA PCX5900
  • HDD: WD Raptor WD360, SATA, 10000 rpm, 36Gb
  • Drivers: NVIDIA Forceware 77.72, Intel Chipset Utility, DirectX 9.0c

Test Results

Performance tests

For a number of reasons, we use only one motherboard for testing A-DATA DDR2-800 modules — Gigabyte 8I955X Pro. Note that this model is one of rare motherboards, which support such fast memory as DDR2-800. Like in our previous review, we carry out our tests both in the usual dual-channel mode as well as in the single-channel mode, in order to show "pure" DDR2-800 potential (bandwidth in particular).

Parameter Testbed 1
Dual channel mode Single channel mode
Average memory read bandwidth, MB/sec
Average memory write bandwidth, MB/sec
Max. memory read bandwidth, MB/sec
Max. memory write bandwidth, MB/sec
Minimum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
Maximum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
Minimum Random Access Latency*, ns
Maximum Random Access Latency*, ns
Minimum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
(without hardware prefetch)
Maximum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
(without hardware prefetch)
Minimum Random Access Latency*, ns
(without hardware prefetch)
Maximum Random Access Latency*, ns
(without hardware prefetch)

*16 MB block size

5-5-5-15 timings, set by default on this motherboard (Memory Timings: "by SPD"), is a tad different from the scheme, specified in SPD (5-5-5-18). But we can safely ignore this difference - as we have found out in the next series of tests, the modules under review are absolutely insensitive to tRAS, specified in configuration registers of the chipset, like the majority of other DDR2 modules.

Performance parameters (memory bandwidth) of the modules in dual-channel and single-channel modes are slightly different — of course, in favour of the dual-channel mode. The largest difference (just 2%) is demonstrated in the test for maximum real memory read bandwidth (6457 versus 6333 MB/s). The difference is small, but there was hardly any difference in the previous review of Corsair XMS2-8000UL modules. There is just a chance, of course, that is has to do with using different processors (Pentium 4 560 and 670) — it's quite likely that the large L2 Cache in Pentium 4 670 processor can hide the memory bandwidth differences to a larger extent. Nevertheless, the "pure" potential of the DDR2-800 under review (that is due to the real bandwidth of a single channel) is also quite good.

Besides, we can enjoy quite low (noticeably lower compared to Corsair XMS2-8000UL) memory access latencies, even with the standard timings. Nevertheless, it's not a direct advantage of these modules over the others — in these tests we actually used different motherboard models (and also most importantly — different BIOS versions) and different processors (the effect of this factor is much less probable, but nevertheless it shouldn't be ignored). So the final answer to the question whether the modules under review really feature lower latencies requires additional analysis.

Stability tests

Timing values, except for tCL, were adjusted "on the fly" due to the built-in RMMA feature that allows to change dynamically memory settings supported by the chipset. Memory operating stability was evaluated with an auxiliary utility RightMark Memory Stability Test, included into RMMA.

We set a tad higher memory voltage in order to get minimal timings — 2.2V. Of course, the experiment might have been carried out with the standard (for these modules) voltage of 1.85V. But, firstly, the result would have hardly been that illustrative, and secondly, it couldn't have been compared directly to the Corsair XMS2-8000UL results.

Minimal timings supported by the modules under review in DDR2-800 mode without losing stability — 4-4-4 (further attempts to reduce tRP and/or tRCD resulted in immediate system freezes). Of course, it obviously ranks below the previous records, broken by Corsair modules (4-3-3 for XMS2-8000UL and even 4-3-2 for XMS2-5400UL). At the same time, an option to set the timing scheme, more typical of DDR2-533 (standard) and DDR2-667 modules (actual) in high-speed DDR2-800 mode looks very good.

Parameter Testbed 1
Dual channel mode Single channel mode
4-4-4 (2.2V)
4-4-4 (2.2V)
Average memory read bandwidth, MB/sec
Average memory write bandwidth, MB/sec
Max. memory read bandwidth, MB/sec
Max. memory write bandwidth, MB/sec
Minimum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
Maximum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
Minimum Random Access Latency*, ns
Maximum Random Access Latency*, ns
Minimum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
(without hardware prefetch)
Maximum Pseudo-Random Access Latency, ns
(without hardware prefetch)
Minimum Random Access Latency*, ns
(without hardware prefetch)
Maximum Random Access Latency*, ns
(without hardware prefetch)

*16 MB block size

Overclocking timings brought predictable changes into the test results: memory read bandwidth was slightly increased (insignificantly), random access latency dropped a little. The gap between the results in dual-channel and single-channel modes got narrower (maximum difference is in the maximum real memory read bandwidth — just 1.7%), which is only natural.

Bottom line

A-DATA DDR2-800 Vitesta modules under review proved themselves high-performance modules, which can reveal the full potential of this memory type (tests in the single-channel mode). Besides, they offer very low latencies (at least in our tests). Overclocking potential of these modules is also very good — with the voltage of 2.2V (typical of high-end modules "for enthusiasts") these modules operate steadily with 4-4-4 timings — this scheme is more typical of entry-level DDR2-533 and high-end DDR2-667 modules. Like in our previous reviews, it's too early to judge about the compatibility of DDR2-800 modules with various motherboards, as the motherboards supporting these fast memory modes can be still counted on the fingers of one hand.

Dmitri Besedin (dmitri_b@ixbt.com)
November 9, 2005.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!

Article navigation:

blog comments powered by Disqus

  Most Popular Reviews More    RSS  

AMD Phenom II X4 955, Phenom II X4 960T, Phenom II X6 1075T, and Intel Pentium G2120, Core i3-3220, Core i5-3330 Processors

Comparing old, cheap solutions from AMD with new, budget offerings from Intel.
February 1, 2013 · Processor Roundups

Inno3D GeForce GTX 670 iChill, Inno3D GeForce GTX 660 Ti Graphics Cards

A couple of mid-range adapters with original cooling systems.
January 30, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1

An external X-Fi solution in tests.
September 9, 2008 · Sound Cards

AMD FX-8350 Processor

The first worthwhile Piledriver CPU.
September 11, 2012 · Processors: AMD

Consumed Power, Energy Consumption: Ivy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge

Trying out the new method.
September 18, 2012 · Processors: Intel
  Latest Reviews More    RSS  

i3DSpeed, September 2013

Retested all graphics cards with the new drivers.
Oct 18, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, August 2013

Added new benchmarks: BioShock Infinite and Metro: Last Light.
Sep 06, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, July 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and AMD Radeon HD 7730.
Aug 05, 2013 · 3Digests

Gainward GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST 2GB Golden Sample Graphics Card

An excellent hybrid of GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GeForce GTX 660.
Jun 24, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

i3DSpeed, May 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780.
Jun 03, 2013 · 3Digests
  Latest News More    RSS  

Platform  ·  Video  ·  Multimedia  ·  Mobile  ·  Other  ||  About us & Privacy policy  ·  Twitter  ·  Facebook

Copyright © Byrds Research & Publishing, Ltd., 1997–2011. All rights reserved.