The Dark Knight: Intel's Core i7
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Gary Key on November 3, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
What about the Impact of DDR3 Speeds?
Intel only officially supports up to DDR3-1066 on Nehalem, but hitting 1333MHz and 1600MHz isn't a problem thanks to DDR3 being a mature technology that's been in use for a couple of years now.
| Triple Channel DDR3-1066 (9-9-9-20) | Triple Channel DDR3-1333 (9-9-9-20) | Triple Channel DDR3-1600 (9-9-9-24) | |
| Memory Tests - Everest v1547 | |||
| Read Bandwidth | 13423 MB/s | 14127 MB/s | 17374 MB/s |
| Write Bandwidth | 12401 MB/s | 12404 MB/s | 14169 MB/s |
| Copy Bandwidth | 18074 MB/s | 16953 MB/s | 19447 MB/s |
| Latency | 44.2 ns | 38.8 ns | 33.5 ns |
| x264 HD Encoding Test (First Pass / Second Pass) | 85.3 fps / 30.3 fps | 86.4 fps / 30.6 fps | 88.1 fps / 30.7 fps |
| WinRAR 3.80 - 602MB Folder | 117 seconds | 111 seconds | 106 seconds |
| PCMark Vantage | 7490 | 7569 | 8102 |
| Vantage - Memories | 6712 | 6809 | 6886 |
| Vantage - TV and Movies | 5637 | 5716 | 5716 |
| Vantage - Gaming | 9849 | 10570 | 11013 |
| Vantage - Music | 4593 | 4798 | 4896 |
| Vantage - Communications | 6422 | 6486 | 6630 |
| Vantage - Productivity | 7676 | 7803 | 7819 |
| WinRAR (Built in Benchmark) | 3306 | 3520 | 3707 |
| Nero Recode - Office Space - 7.55GB | 130 seconds | 127 seconds | 126 seconds |
| SuperPI - 32M (mins:seconds) | 11:52 | 11:36 | 11:25 |
| Far Cry 2 - Ranch Medium (1680 x 1050) | 62.4 fps | 62.5 fps | 62.7 fps |
| Age of Conan - 1680 x 1050 | 51.1 fps | 51.1 fps | 51.1 fps |
| Company of Heroes - 1680 x 1050 | 133.6 fps | 135.8 fps | 136.8 fps |
The real world performance benefit from going to DDR3-1066 to 1600, despite having to lower memory timings slightly, is around 3%. The raw increase in memory bandwidth amounts to about 30% and in a completely memory bandwidth bound test like the WinRAR benchmark you're looking at a 12% boost in performance, but that's going to be very rare in most real world scenarios. The reduction in latency is particularly impressive when you jump up to DDR3-1600, it only takes 33.5ns to access main memory.
If you do want the absolute best performance out of your Nehalem system you're going to want a three-channel DDR3-1600+ kit, but you'll only be giving up a couple of percent if you opt for the entry level 1066MHz modules at like timings. Although not shown, in this article anyway, reducing the memory timings to 7-7-7-20 at DDR3-1066 will close the slight performance gap quickly in most instances.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
73 Comments
View All Comments
Jingato - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
If the 920 can easily be overclocked to 3.8Ghz on air, what intensive is there to purchase the 965 for more that triple the price?TantrumusMaximus - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
I don't understand why the tests were on such low resolutions... most gamers are running higher res than 1280x1024 etc etc....What gives?
daniyarm - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Because if they ran gaming benchmarks at higher res, the difference in FPS would be hardly visible and you wouldn't go out and buy a new CPU.If they are going to show differences between Intel and AMD CPUs, show Nehalem at 3.2 GHz vs 9950 OC to 3.2 GHz so we can see clock for clock differences in performance and power.
npp - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
9950 consumes about 30W more at idle than the 965XE, and 30W less under load. I guess that OC'ing it to 3,2Ghz will need more than 30W... Given that the 965 can process 4 more threads, I think the result should be more or less clear.tim851 - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Higher resolutions stress the GPU more and it will become a bottleneck. Since the article was focussing on CPU power and not GPU power they were lowering the resolution enough to effectively take the GPU out of the picture.Caveman - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
It would be nice to see these CPU reviews use relevant "gaming" benchmarks. It would be good to see the results with something like MS flight simulator FSX or DCS Black Shark, etc... The flight simulators these days are BOTH graphically and calculation intensive, but really stress the CPU.AssBall - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
No, they don't, actually.philosofool - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
It would have been nice to see a proper comparison of power consumption. Given all of Intel's boast about being able to shut off cores to save power, I'd like to see some figures about exact savings.nowayout99 - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Ditto, I was wondering about power too.Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Soon, soon my friend :)-A