Memory Test Configuration
This comparison of OCZ DDR3-1800 to other DDR3 memory uses a completely different test methodology than the earlier DDR3 reviews. Our reviews of DDR3 vs. DDR2, Intel P35 Memory Performance, Kingston DDR3, and Super Talent and TEAM DDR3-1600 were based on a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz CPU with a common memory speed at 1066 and 1333 speeds. Since ratios were not available for higher speeds like 1600 and 2000 those speeds were achieved by overclocking the base system. This made comparing performance at the same processor speed, a standard procedure in our earlier DDR2 and DDR memory tests, all but impossible. The rapid ramping of DDR3 memory speeds coupled with the lack of ratios made those memory speed comparisons less useful.
New Test Methodology
Readers suggested a number of memory testing ratios and speeds which would allow a better comparison of memory performance. After considering the suggestions and the real ratios available the decision was made to settle on a new 3.0GHz test speed driven by a processor that could deliver multipliers to at least 9X and FSB speeds to 550+. This would allow DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, and DDR3-1333 to be tested at 3.0GHz at 9x333 settings. DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2000 would be tested at 3.0GHz at 6x500.
The requirement of a 9x or higher multiplier combined with the ability to run with stability at a 550+ FSB proved more difficult than anticipated. A very early Intel X6800 had unlocked multipliers but would not even boot above about 450 FSB. A very recent Q6700 met the 9X requirement but topped out in FSB at about 470 stable. Tests by other AnandTech editors confirmed that most quad core processors have a difficult time operating at 500 FSB, let alone the higher 550 requirements for overclocks above DDR3-2000. We finally located a recent X6800 that could do both the 9X multiplier and the 550 FSB requirements. This became our new processor for the memory test bed. Other components remained the same as the earlier DDR3 test bed.
It should be pointed out that the new test bed does use the same processor speed at all tested RAM speeds, but that different FSB speeds are used at low and high memory timings. Testing at the same processor speed does allow a better comparison of isolated memory performance, but it is not an exact apples-to-apples comparison. The variation in FSB speed at the same processor speed does affect the performance of the memory at the higher FSB speeds. This ranges from negligible in some tests to measurable in other benchmarks. For more information on the impact of FSB speed on performance you can refer to Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look.
A true apples-to-apples comparison of memory performance will only be possible when the additional ratios of 1600 and 2000 are available in the BIOS at a base 1333 memory speed. Still, while not perfect, the comparison of all memory speeds at 3.0GHz processor speed is much closer to our testing ideal than the previous test methodology.
All DDR3 Memory Retested
With the change in processor and base speed to 3.0GHz, all DDR3 memory was retested to provide data for comparison of all memory speeds at the same 3.0GHz processor speed. We have established high-performance DDR2 memory performance baselines and we will no longer be actively testing DDR2 memory performance for our DDR3 reviews. You can see the comparison of DDR2 and DDR3 on the next page, DDR2/DDR3 Overlap Speeds. Additional benchmarks were run to provide the most complete comparison at the common RAM speeds of 1066 and 800 MHz.
Past performance tests of DDR2 memory on the Intel P965 and P35-DDR2 platforms are included for comparison. All current memory tests use the Intel P35-DDR3 test bed (ASUS P5K3 Deluxe) with the DDR3 memory under evaluation. As detailed on the results pages, overlap speeds were tested at 2.66GHz for compatibility with previous results. The DDR3 full performance pages include results at 3.0GHz, and also include a retest of the 1066 and 800 memory speeds at 3.0GHz CPU speeds.
The CPUs listed above in our table are 1066 FSB processors, but all ran fine at 1333 FSB at default multiplier and default voltage. New 1333 FSB processors with the same ratios may be substituted for these processors as soon as they are available, providing they meet the requirements of 9X or greater multiplier and stable operation at 550FSB..
This comparison of OCZ DDR3-1800 to other DDR3 memory uses a completely different test methodology than the earlier DDR3 reviews. Our reviews of DDR3 vs. DDR2, Intel P35 Memory Performance, Kingston DDR3, and Super Talent and TEAM DDR3-1600 were based on a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz CPU with a common memory speed at 1066 and 1333 speeds. Since ratios were not available for higher speeds like 1600 and 2000 those speeds were achieved by overclocking the base system. This made comparing performance at the same processor speed, a standard procedure in our earlier DDR2 and DDR memory tests, all but impossible. The rapid ramping of DDR3 memory speeds coupled with the lack of ratios made those memory speed comparisons less useful.
New Test Methodology
Readers suggested a number of memory testing ratios and speeds which would allow a better comparison of memory performance. After considering the suggestions and the real ratios available the decision was made to settle on a new 3.0GHz test speed driven by a processor that could deliver multipliers to at least 9X and FSB speeds to 550+. This would allow DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, and DDR3-1333 to be tested at 3.0GHz at 9x333 settings. DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2000 would be tested at 3.0GHz at 6x500.
The requirement of a 9x or higher multiplier combined with the ability to run with stability at a 550+ FSB proved more difficult than anticipated. A very early Intel X6800 had unlocked multipliers but would not even boot above about 450 FSB. A very recent Q6700 met the 9X requirement but topped out in FSB at about 470 stable. Tests by other AnandTech editors confirmed that most quad core processors have a difficult time operating at 500 FSB, let alone the higher 550 requirements for overclocks above DDR3-2000. We finally located a recent X6800 that could do both the 9X multiplier and the 550 FSB requirements. This became our new processor for the memory test bed. Other components remained the same as the earlier DDR3 test bed.
It should be pointed out that the new test bed does use the same processor speed at all tested RAM speeds, but that different FSB speeds are used at low and high memory timings. Testing at the same processor speed does allow a better comparison of isolated memory performance, but it is not an exact apples-to-apples comparison. The variation in FSB speed at the same processor speed does affect the performance of the memory at the higher FSB speeds. This ranges from negligible in some tests to measurable in other benchmarks. For more information on the impact of FSB speed on performance you can refer to Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look.
A true apples-to-apples comparison of memory performance will only be possible when the additional ratios of 1600 and 2000 are available in the BIOS at a base 1333 memory speed. Still, while not perfect, the comparison of all memory speeds at 3.0GHz processor speed is much closer to our testing ideal than the previous test methodology.
All DDR3 Memory Retested
With the change in processor and base speed to 3.0GHz, all DDR3 memory was retested to provide data for comparison of all memory speeds at the same 3.0GHz processor speed. We have established high-performance DDR2 memory performance baselines and we will no longer be actively testing DDR2 memory performance for our DDR3 reviews. You can see the comparison of DDR2 and DDR3 on the next page, DDR2/DDR3 Overlap Speeds. Additional benchmarks were run to provide the most complete comparison at the common RAM speeds of 1066 and 800 MHz.
| Memory Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 (x2, 2.93GHz unlocked, 4MB Unified Cache) 9x333 - 3.0 GHz 8x500 - 3.0 GHz |
| RAM | OCZ PC3-14400 Platinum (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1800 8-8-8) Super Talent W1600UX2G7 (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1600 7-7-7) Team TXD31924M1600HC9 (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1600 9-9-9) Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2 (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1333 7-7-7) Corsair CM3X1024-1066C7 (2GB Kit - 2x1GB- DDR3-1066 7-7-7) Corsair Dominator CM2X1024-8888C4 (2GB Kit - 2x1GB - DDR2-1250 5-5-5) |
| Hard Drive | Samsung 250GB SATA2 enabled (8MB Buffer) |
| System Platform Drivers | Intel - 8.3.0.1013 |
| Video Card | Leadtek WinFast 7950GT - 256MB |
| Video Drivers | NVIDIA 93.71 |
| CPU Cooling | Intel Retail HSF |
| Power Supply | Corsair HX620W |
| Motherboards | ASUS P5K3 Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR3) ASUS P5K Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR2) ASUS P5B Deluxe (Intel P965 DDR2) |
| BIOS Revision | 0604 (6/26/2007) |
| Operating System | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
Past performance tests of DDR2 memory on the Intel P965 and P35-DDR2 platforms are included for comparison. All current memory tests use the Intel P35-DDR3 test bed (ASUS P5K3 Deluxe) with the DDR3 memory under evaluation. As detailed on the results pages, overlap speeds were tested at 2.66GHz for compatibility with previous results. The DDR3 full performance pages include results at 3.0GHz, and also include a retest of the 1066 and 800 memory speeds at 3.0GHz CPU speeds.
The CPUs listed above in our table are 1066 FSB processors, but all ran fine at 1333 FSB at default multiplier and default voltage. New 1333 FSB processors with the same ratios may be substituted for these processors as soon as they are available, providing they meet the requirements of 9X or greater multiplier and stable operation at 550FSB..
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
MadBoris - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
"Far Cry sees a similar increase from 112.90 at 800 to 121.94 at DDR2-2000"I think you meant DDR3-2000. Although DDR2-2000, would be nice. ;)
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Corrected.Spoelie - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
...populating only one channel? With dual channel bandwidth exceeding double the bandwidth of the fsb, I'm curious as to how a single channel with equal or more bandwidth than the fsb would perform.Myrandex - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Eh I hate it when people run dual channel boards in a single channel config. I remember a laptop review of the new Turion X2 and they were running it in single channel mode with onboard video. Heck where I work they do that all the time in the ATM systems that they manufacture. They pay for the dual channel chipset, yet they configure it to run in single channel mode.YellowWing - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Thanks for keeping the CPU clock constant this time. We get the chance to see what the memory is adding without having to factor out the CPU clock changes. I look forward to new straps for a completely even test environment.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
You're welcome. All of your suggestions on making this a better memory test platform were very helpful. We need 1600 and 2000 memory straps right now with DDR3 boards. I sincerely doubt that it even occurred to JEDEC and motherboard makers that we would be caring about DDR3-2000 this early in the development of DDR3. The memory speed development of DDR2 seems almost glacial by comparison.mostlyprudent - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Although I did not participate in the discussion of the last article, I did follow it and want to tip my hat to Wes (and really all the AT authors) for being willing to engage readers in the comments and apply the feedback and critiques offered. This is why, IMHO, AT has continued to get better and better over the years.qpwoei - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
As a critic of the last article, I'd like to chime in and say well done on this one as well. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll be seeing any > 1:1 ratios on external chipsets (ie: non-IMC) for a while, if ever. The design issues for making > 1:1 ratios really outweigh the benefits, especially in a system where the memory bandwidth is already twice the FSB bandwidth.MadBoris - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Hey wesley,I also wanted to say thanks for the more apples to apples comparison with DDR2. I think this is really of utmost importance to most folks before we start comparing DDR3 among other DDR3 modules. As exciting as DDR3 is as a technology we still want to see the real world performance improvement over DDR2 to justify for ourselves any price increase with new purchases, let alone the three fold price increase. If I get 3 to 4 percent less performance for 1/3 the price then that is a good purchasing decision for me. All new memory suffers from these teething pains, I just wanted them quantifiable.
In further search for the real world comparison and the true advantages that DDR3 brings at it's current highest speeds comared to DDR2 at it's highest speeds(1066 in this case), I did have to flip back and forth between pages 4 and 7 several times. With page 4 using a 2.66 GHZ CPU clock frequency and page 7 using 3GHZ, a direct comparison in the benchmark numbers themselves wasn't possible due to the 10% CPU difference. Initially page 7 scores looked much better than page 4 until I factored in the 10% CPU difference. It took a few minutes to come to a method of distinguishing the real world advantage of DDR3 running at it's highest speeds, compared to DDR2 at it's higher speeds.
basically, I came to the conclusion if 1333 is where DDR3 starts to get it's legs and surpass DDR2(as you state on page 4). Page 4 doesn't actually show the 1333 speeds of DDR2 in the chart (as none exists), but you can see there is a minor advantage in the two games emerging over the previous chart with 1066 DDR2. So then comparing DDR3 at 1333 to DDR3 at highest speeds on page 7 gives me a rough estimate of the "real world" performance of DDR3 at it's highest speed over what DDR2 has it's highest speeds (with an additional 1% tossed in as advantage over 1066 ddr2). All this extrapolation was necessary due to the 10% CPU difference. Not complaing, just stating a fact in trying to get to the real world benefits if I was going to by a platform today, and having to justify the cost/performance ratio.
In the end, the real world benefit of DDR3 at it's highest speeds, compared to a P35 running DDR2 at it's highest speeds(both with fastest timings using 1333 as the cutoff where DDR2 is left behind) came out to about 3 - 5 percent real world gaming benefit in benchmarks of Far Cry and Quake 4. Obviously the synthetics showed much more, but they always do. All that of course is based on the reality that 1333 is where the performance shift takes place with the current fastest DDR2 and fastest DDR3, which is what I was after. To me, 3 - 5 percent definitely doesn't justify 3 times the cost of the memory yet, especially if a board supports both DDR2 and DDR3.
Anyway, thanks for making an apples to apples comparison more possible in this review, even though not exact, I could extrapolate the necessary info I wanted. I'm sure as latency continues to lower on DDR3, than all this additional frequency will be worth something beyond the current meager benefits over DDR2 at 1066.
indeed - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Is there any chance that we'll be seeing DDR2 1066 4GB packs with 2 modules any time soon?