Overclocking
We were more than surprised when Super Talent DDR3-1600 topped our overclock charts at DDR3-2008 in our last DDR3 memory review. The OCZ DDR3-1800 is based on a different binning of the same Micron Z9 memory chips, and it achieved an even faster overclock at a stable DDR3-2040.
Perhaps even more significant were the timings that could be achieved at DDR3-2040. OCZ rates this memory at 8-8-8-27 timings at DDR3-1800. At 2040 the timings of 8-8-8-21 provided stable performance with 2.1V. This compares to the Super Talent, which is also based on Micron Z9, which required slightly slower 9-8-7-18 timings at 2.25V to achieve a stable DDR3-2008. The slightly better timings with the OCZ memory suggests that OCZ is using more aggressive speed binning for their new DDR3-1800 parts than others are using for their DDR3-1600 parts.
Advances in memory technology are rarely as dramatic as the speed and timing improvements we are seeing recently with Micron Z9 memory chips. For reference we included our ongoing overclocking chart results for DDR2 just so you can see how significant the new Micron Z9 memory really is. The highest DDR2 we have tested is Corsair memory at 1315 in an EVGA 680i motherboard. Early DDR3-1066 reached a bit higher as in the typical 1370 achieved with the launch Corsair DDR3-1066. Timings, however, were somewhat slow. Then the Kingston HyperX pushed 7-7-7 timings all the way to DDR3-1500. Now, less than 2 months later, state-of-the-art DDR3 is reaching DDR3-2000+ at aggressive timings. This kind of progress in memory technology makes the original JEDEC target of 800 to 1600 for DDR3 speeds appear far too limited.
Some end users consider 7-7-7 timings a benchmark with DDR3. We set those timings and pushed the OCZ as far as possible. The DDR3-1800 reached DDR3-1900 at 7-7-7-timings at 2.1V. This incredible speed at 7-7-7 eclipses previous results at 7-7-7 timings. The OCZ, Super Talent, and TEAM results are close at all comparable speeds, but the OCZ manages slightly better performance, slightly tighter timings, and a higher overclock than the other two Z9-based kits. OCZ is apparently binning to slightly tighter tolerances than the other two memories and that is showing in the performance improvements.
Super Pi
In Kingston Launches Low-Latency DDR3 memory performance was compared at 800, 1066, 1333, and highest memory speed. With the introduction of higher speed DDR3 we have added 1600 and 2000 to the standard comparison speeds, if the DDR3 memory is capable of reaching that speed.
To look at pure number crunching, Super Pi 1.5 was run in all memory test configurations. Super Pi is a very simple program as it merely calculates the value of Pi to a designated number of decimal positions. In this case we chose 2 million places.
Super Pi is fastest (lower value for calc time) on the OCZ DDR3-1800 and Super Talent memory. Both these memories are based on the new Z9 Micron memory chips. At 1333, the Kingston is close behind, but it tops out at around 1500 speed, while the top Z9 memories go on to 2000 speed - shaving another 1.4 seconds off the Super Pi time at the same CPU speed. Lower latency DDR3 now passes DDR2, on either the P35 or P965 platforms, and extends to new performance levels. Any speed above 1066 is the domain of DDR3 and the higher speed delivers improved performance.
It is interesting that by 1333 the lower latency DDR3 has completely closed any gap that existed with the fastest timing DDR2, which can run as fast as 3-3-3 timings at moderate memory clocks. Lower latency DDR3 clearly demonstrates you will not have to give up a thing with DDR3 in the overlap speeds and you will gain higher speeds as well. The only current roadblock to DDR3 is the high price of admission.
We were more than surprised when Super Talent DDR3-1600 topped our overclock charts at DDR3-2008 in our last DDR3 memory review. The OCZ DDR3-1800 is based on a different binning of the same Micron Z9 memory chips, and it achieved an even faster overclock at a stable DDR3-2040.
Perhaps even more significant were the timings that could be achieved at DDR3-2040. OCZ rates this memory at 8-8-8-27 timings at DDR3-1800. At 2040 the timings of 8-8-8-21 provided stable performance with 2.1V. This compares to the Super Talent, which is also based on Micron Z9, which required slightly slower 9-8-7-18 timings at 2.25V to achieve a stable DDR3-2008. The slightly better timings with the OCZ memory suggests that OCZ is using more aggressive speed binning for their new DDR3-1800 parts than others are using for their DDR3-1600 parts.
Advances in memory technology are rarely as dramatic as the speed and timing improvements we are seeing recently with Micron Z9 memory chips. For reference we included our ongoing overclocking chart results for DDR2 just so you can see how significant the new Micron Z9 memory really is. The highest DDR2 we have tested is Corsair memory at 1315 in an EVGA 680i motherboard. Early DDR3-1066 reached a bit higher as in the typical 1370 achieved with the launch Corsair DDR3-1066. Timings, however, were somewhat slow. Then the Kingston HyperX pushed 7-7-7 timings all the way to DDR3-1500. Now, less than 2 months later, state-of-the-art DDR3 is reaching DDR3-2000+ at aggressive timings. This kind of progress in memory technology makes the original JEDEC target of 800 to 1600 for DDR3 speeds appear far too limited.
Some end users consider 7-7-7 timings a benchmark with DDR3. We set those timings and pushed the OCZ as far as possible. The DDR3-1800 reached DDR3-1900 at 7-7-7-timings at 2.1V. This incredible speed at 7-7-7 eclipses previous results at 7-7-7 timings. The OCZ, Super Talent, and TEAM results are close at all comparable speeds, but the OCZ manages slightly better performance, slightly tighter timings, and a higher overclock than the other two Z9-based kits. OCZ is apparently binning to slightly tighter tolerances than the other two memories and that is showing in the performance improvements.
Super Pi
In Kingston Launches Low-Latency DDR3 memory performance was compared at 800, 1066, 1333, and highest memory speed. With the introduction of higher speed DDR3 we have added 1600 and 2000 to the standard comparison speeds, if the DDR3 memory is capable of reaching that speed.
To look at pure number crunching, Super Pi 1.5 was run in all memory test configurations. Super Pi is a very simple program as it merely calculates the value of Pi to a designated number of decimal positions. In this case we chose 2 million places.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Super Pi is fastest (lower value for calc time) on the OCZ DDR3-1800 and Super Talent memory. Both these memories are based on the new Z9 Micron memory chips. At 1333, the Kingston is close behind, but it tops out at around 1500 speed, while the top Z9 memories go on to 2000 speed - shaving another 1.4 seconds off the Super Pi time at the same CPU speed. Lower latency DDR3 now passes DDR2, on either the P35 or P965 platforms, and extends to new performance levels. Any speed above 1066 is the domain of DDR3 and the higher speed delivers improved performance.
It is interesting that by 1333 the lower latency DDR3 has completely closed any gap that existed with the fastest timing DDR2, which can run as fast as 3-3-3 timings at moderate memory clocks. Lower latency DDR3 clearly demonstrates you will not have to give up a thing with DDR3 in the overlap speeds and you will gain higher speeds as well. The only current roadblock to DDR3 is the high price of admission.
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?