Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2
by Wesley Fink on August 26, 2003 11:11 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Does Memory Speed really matter in the Real World?
There have been skeptics in the computer industry who have boldly stated that Dual-Channel 266 memory will give performance as fast as you can get — in the real world — with a Canterwood or Springdale motherboard. Another popular variation of this is that memory over DDR400 (PC3200) will make no difference in real-world performance of an 875/865 system. To determine whether these statements held any validity, we decided to first take a look at the influence of memory speed alone on our chosen benchmarks.
We wanted to isolate performance variation as much as possible to Memory. The very design of the Intel 875/865 chipsets makes this difficult, since we have very limited settings for memory ratio. We finally decided to test stock 800FSB settings with different memory speeds, and to also test the highest standard CPU FSB setting we could run at different memory timings. To keep variables at a minimum, we looked at our benchmark results for memory that would perform at both 533 and 400 at the same timings. We settled on two 512 MB DS OCZ 4000 DIMMs. We ran the memory at stock 2.4GHz at 2.5-3-4-6-1 and at a high overclock of 1066FSB at the same 2.5-3-4-6-1 timings. Since we required 2.75V for stable operation at 1066FSB at these timings, we decided for consistency to set the vDimm to 2.75V for all tests. At each setting, we varied only the memory speed at the available 1:1, 5:4, and 3:2 ratios.
Double-Sided Memory
Standard 800FSB (2.4Ghz) Performance at Varied Memory Speeds — 2 x 512 MB DS DIMMs |
||||||
Memory DDR Speed | Quake3 fps | UT2003 Flyby fps | UT2003 Botmatch fps | Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered | Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
266 MHz | 300.30 | 188.66 | 65.55 | INT 1854 FLT 1814 |
INT 3759 FLT 3787 |
144 |
320 MHz | 313.70 | 193.26 | 67.57 | INT 2138 FLT 2123 |
INT 4254 FLT 4256 |
138 |
400 MHz | 328.07 | 198.27 | 69.16 | INT 2594 FLT 2640 |
INT 4700 FLT 4724 |
132 |
1066FSB (3.2GHz) Performance at Varied Memory
Speeds — 2 x 512 MB DS DIMMs |
||||||
Memory DDR Speed | Quake3 fps | UT2003 Flyby fps | UT2003 Botmatch fps | Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered | Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
355 MHz | 382.67 | 235.82 | 85.13 | INT 2415 FLT 2394 |
INT 5043 FLT 5039 |
107 |
426 MHz | 403.56 | 239.96 | 87.82 | INT 2924 FLT 2875 |
INT 5711 FLT 5688 |
104 |
533 MHz | 424.5 | 249.24 | 91.53 | INT 3532 FLT 3542 |
INT 6308 FLT 6252 |
100 |
Since there is much confusion about when and whether Intel’s PAT is activated, and its effect on performance, each setup was checked with CPU-Z 1.18C. Under the “Memory”’ tab, with this version of CPU-Z, there is a box for “Performance Mode”, which will indicate “enabled” or “disabled”.
In all configurations, except one, with the ASUS P4C800-E with 800FSB or higher selected, both Synchronous and Asynchronous, CPU-Z indicated Performance Mode “enabled”. We will talk more about the exception later.
As you can clearly see from the tables above, gaming performance continues to improve as memory gets faster on the Intel 875 motherboard. As we move from an 800FSB CPU running 266 memory to the CPU running the same speed with DDR400 memory, we see Quake3 frame rate increase a bit over 9%, while UNBuffered Sandra increases about 40% in memory bandwidth. At 1066 constant CPU speed with memory increasing from 355 to 533, we see a larger increase of 11% in Q3 frame rate, while Sandra UNBuffered increases about 46%. The increase in Quake3 frame rate from 800/266 to 1066/533 — which admittedly includes a large boost in CPU speed — is significant, at 41%.
UT2003 also shows a similar pattern of increases over the same range, with increases over the whole range of 32%-39%. Sandra UNBuffered measurement of memory bandwidth shows a 90% increase over the same range from 800/266 to 1066/533. As we would expect, both UT2003 and Quake3 appear to respond more to a CPU speed increase than a memory increase, but alone, the increases in game benches from memory speed increases are real and significant.
Our pure number-crunching benchmark, Super PI, is shown to be more sensitive to memory speed than you might expect. We saw increases of 7% to 9% in the “memory only” increases at a fixed CPU speed. These increases are only a little smaller than those found in our Quake3 tests.
It is conclusive from these benchmarks that Memory Speed does matter in real-world performance on Intel 875/865 motherboards. Game benchmarks, Super PI, and Sandra Memory Tests all benefit from increases in memory speed. This was true up to the highest memory speed that we tested — DDR533. The differences, when we looked at just the effect of memory alone, varied from 9% to 11% at a given CPU speed, with the limited memory ratios Intel has provided us on the 875/865 chipsets. You will have to decide if the increases in performance from using faster memory are worth the cost of that speedier memory. For some, these increases will matter a great deal, while for others, they will not be worth the cost.
77 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
I am tired of setting the memory timing and bench mark all the time. Is there a program there which can tell me what kind of results I would get? Say if I can increase my CPU by 5 MHz but have to set back my memory timing a bit, which way should I go?oldfart - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
Here are some reviews comparing tight timings Vs loose:http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2003/ddr400_roun... (need language translator)
http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=articles/c...
http://www.3dxtreme.org/Corsair_xms3700_twinx_p1.s...
Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
I think this was an extremely helpful and thorough review. There was one comparison, though, that I would find most helpful and haven't found anywhere. I'm currently debating the importance of running synchronously, and thus found the section "Does memory speed really matter in the real world" extremely interesting. However, I would have greatly preferred one additional test -- running 1066FSB at 3:2 and 5:4 with memory with tight timings (2-2-2-5), since my real debate is whether to buy PC3200 or PC3500 with tight timings and run at 5:4 or 3:2, or PC4000 with loose timings and run at 1:1. While I expect that the synchronous memory would result in better performance, I'd really like to know how much better, since PC4000 memory is expensive!Thanks,
Steve
Dennis Travis - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
Great Review Wes. Keep Em coming. I am not "PAID" to say this either. I wanted to. I am getting nothing for it either. Just the satisfaction of telling Wes I loved his review.Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
Great review Wesley. Nah I'm not paid to say this, I just enjoyed the review!Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
I have tested Kingston HyperX RAM at 1:1 3-4-4-8 @ DDR500, and 5:4 2-2-2-5 @ DDR400 at the same FSBs on a P4P800, with MAM Enabled and Turbo performance mode in both cases. While the 1:1 gets about 3-5% better Sandra bandwidth scores (buffered and unbuffered), SuperPI completes about 1.5% sooner at the 5:4 settings.So real-world performance may be slightly better at 5:4, but you won't win any Sandra bragging rights with it.
--MeowChow
Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
oldfart - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Wow, looks I'm not the only guy who wants to see250 FSB
1:1 3-4-4-8
5:4 2-2-2-6
type of testing. I've seen several reviews that show the lower latency ram @ 5:4 to be faster.
Part 3??
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Hey Wesley,Thanks for all the good info...
Any chance you could test Various FSB's
5:4 2-2-2-5 vs the same FSB at 1:1 2.5-4-4-7
It would be great to show the readers how the new PC4000 REALLY compares to older slower low latency RAM, Mushkin PC3500 level2 would be perfect for that.
Now that would be a seriously good Anandtech caliber review. :D
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#32 and #40 -Mushkin did not have a product in our hands when the review was done. In fact I completed a review of Mushkin PC3500 Level II just a couple of days ago, and compared it's performance to ALL the memory in this review at DDR400. I also tested Adata DDR450, which did not meet our requirement of running at DDR500, but DID perform well at DDR400.
The reviews should be up here shortly. The Mushkin did VERY well at DDR400 to DDR450. Mushkin is also about to release DDR500 - but they did not have a product ready in time for our review. We WILL be testing it as soon as it is available if time allows.