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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Interesting review....I've been waiting for this one. As for the criticism, I would say don't just look at this one review. There seem to be plenty of reviews from other sites listed in the memory news section here. Why not check out what other sites have to say about the memory listed in this review...unless you think they are all shills for a particular product. IMO I think Wesley and AT are on the level...but if you have doubts there are other reviews out there. I'm still dissapointed tho...It seems that most of the 500mhz modules are just overclocked 400mhz modules with poor timings...I wonder if there are going to be true 500mhz modules with better timings in the works or is this the last stop before we see DDR2.artifex - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Ok, I stopped being lazy. It's me!Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
hey 43/44, you must be a stringer for Mushkin, because you're cheering at the end (Mush! Mush!)Just kidding. I usually post as "artifex" but am too lazy to find my password right now. You'll see I've mentioned them before. Also comments about Anandtech being the site (along with SharkyExtreme) that I rely on heavily...
I bought my first ever Asus mobo (a7n8x deluxe) a couple months ago because of the reviews here (my first and last Soyo had just died from some bad capacitors, I won't trust them again) so what I want now is to see a shootout of the best memory for dual-channel nforce2 boards (especially mine :) )
Speaking of, I'm running one of the new weird 333FSB 2600+ XPs that's still a Tbred B, and I'm wondering, would I really benefit from memory that's pc3200 (probably not) or even pc2700, or are my current 2 512mb sticks of 2-3-3 pc2100 memory fine?
p.s. ironically, I also bought the Soyo based on reviews, but reviews don't make up for long-term experience with hardware (when cheap components fail). It'd be cool to see a follow up article or two, even just anecdotal, from the reviewers about how their own personal systems are working a year or so after they assemble them... and see if that changes their views about the vendors.
retrospooty - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Cool, Muskin rocks...I would REALLY like to see some Mushkin PC3500 at 5:4 2-2-2 against all those other PC4000 at 1:1 3-4-4-8... I know the PC3500 would win, I would just like to see it in print. !
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Good points #42. I should have included similar in my last comment as I feel exactly the same. A quick explanation (by name) of which major manufacturers did not make the deadline or will be reviewed later would satisfy my curiousity on why large manufacturers weren't present. I cannot wait to see what the Mushkin stuff rates at and THEN I will choose between them, OCZ, Geil, and Corsair. Just in case I did not make it clear before, I do feel that when AnandTech does put out new articles they are often very good. The basis of the general readers scrutiny comes from how things look overall with the manufacturers listed on the same page as their reviews. Since the use of META data has become so prevailent in page content, it is easy to believe that all advertisements for memory would show up on a memory review. One would think that was a good idea, right?! As to the integrity of AnandTech, I still think you guys are unbiased and professional. Just remember to foster that perception in bold stroke so the goobs who cannot fathom the idea that any one company can be in it's prime and actually BE producing the best product on several reviews. That said, I still want you guys to make more content and faster. Come on! Get to work! Make it 60... No. 80 hours a week each!! Mush! Mush!Cheers,
Wiley
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
cool. thanks for saying that about Mushkin.I hadn't seen much of them in Anandtech reviews or advertising on the site lately, so I was wondering.
I used to be a big Crucial.com fan until they started slipping (recommending wrong types and amounts of memory, customer service, etc), and then went with Mushkin when the chance presented itself, based entirely on seeing their name associated with good things here in the past. My first set of sticks from them actually gave errors about a year into use, and I had bought them at Fry's (stupid, I know), but Mushkin overnighted me replacements anyway, so I'm definitely loyal to them now (the cost of overnight probably ate the marginal extra I paid over Corsair, which I also considered).
I know this is long winded, and probably sounds like astroturfing, but I want the editors to remember that we really do buy stuff based on what you say, and when it looks like "favorite" brands are disappearing without any comment, it makes us wonder. Hey, even if you guys get into a fight with a vendor and they stop lending you review stuff, that's a legitimate reason... just tell us.
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Tom Duong from Mushkin had contacted AnandTech several weeks before this review to let us know that their memory sample would not make to us in time for the review. We do have some other articles with Mushkin coming up.Cheers,
Kristopher
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Personally, I would just like some parity for these reviews. Every time I read these I wodner why Mushkin is never listed. I realize that teh manufacturer needs to provide product for testing and by a deadline. However, it just seems silly that a company the rates its DDR400 memory at Cas2-2-2 (Black Level II) has not been listed here. Can't AnandTech sport for the 400 bucks to GET memory when a reviewer cannot send it or does not do so in a timely manner. I always had the impression that sites like this were produced with the best interest of the end reader in mind. Anytime a single manufacturer is lauded repeatedly for their product and that product happens to be promoted profusely in advertising on the reviewers site, there will be questions regarding favoritism. I'm not saying you fudge your numbers to keep people at OCZ happy, there is too much data to support your conclusions regarding the quality of OCZ memory. But it does make you wonder. The lask of Mushkin in the original DDR400 porion of your latest memory benchmarks on this site being a perfect example. Who is to say that the Mushkin stuff was not left out just to leave a better window of opportunity for somone like OCZ to succeed i your tests? I hope that is not the case but again, I have to wonder why I never see them here. Get on them and get some of their product to test too! I have to agree with many here that teh content at AnandTech is slipping. The updates are way to far apart, there are few articles when an update DOES occur, and the content is subject to scrutiny for bias. In all fairness, any of the ideas I have posited could be true or false. However, with this sites reputation being the MAIN provider of it's marketability, AD sales potential, and reader support, don't you think that making sure there is NEVER a question of integrity would be a good business practice? And update the site more often! I used to read this site everyday. Now I just come here once a week tops.Cheers,
Wiley
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Mushkin did not have PC4000 ready in time for the review.Im sure Wes will review it as soon as he recieves samples.Wesley has got to be the most unbiased reviewer i know.He upset a few at abxzone and im sure he will do the same here.
Just because OCZ has been doing well is NOT because they paid for a good review....its because the modules are the best at the moment..nothing more.
OCZ have worked hard these past 12 months or more,they are gaining market share and more sites are starting to use their ram for board reviews etc..the only people this will upset is Corsair who have had a strong hold on review sites for a long while.
So all you "employee's" coming here to bash OCZ--- please give it a rest.If you have an issue with OCZ product contact me. oczguy2@ocztechnology.com
Please remember this thread is about Wes's review after all, not bashing OCZ so please lets all get back on topic.
Thanks.
bigtoe
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
The differece is small on synthetic tests like Sandra mem tests, but large on real stuff like games,and 3dmark real apps.the same thory hold true at any speed, try it at 250, 230 or even 200
5:4 at 2-2-2 is faster than 1:1 at 3-4-4 period
Try it.