Memory Scaling on Core i7 - Is DDR3-1066 Really the Best Choice?
by Gary Key on June 24, 2009 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Gaming Performance vs. Memory Speed
One game actually made it to our list of applications that benefit from faster memory: H.A.W.X. The rest were a mix of slight to borderline noticeable increases in overall performance.
FarCry 2
Featuring fantastic visuals courtesy of the Dunia Engine, this game also features one of the most impressive benchmark tools we have seen in a PC game. We set the performance feature set to Very High, graphics to High, and enable DX10 with AA set to 2x. The in-game benchmark tool is utilized with the Ranch Small level and we report an average of three test runs.
Although the differences are minor, we do notice a linear scaling in frame rates as we improve both bandwidth and latencies. Average frame rates are up 7% and minimum frame rates by 10% when moving from 1066 C7 to 1866 C7.
Left 4 Dead
This game is a blast and addictive to boot - provided you like killing hundreds of zombies while trying to take care of your teammates and sustaining high blood pressure rates. We enable all options, set AA to 2x and AF to 8x, and play back a custom demo of a game session from the Runway Finale chapter within the Dead Air campaign.
Average frame rates improved around 2% and minimum frame rates about 5% as we moved from DDR3-1066 C7 to DDR3-1600 C6. In a recurring theme, DDR3-1600 C6 offers the best overall performance although we noted no differences in game play.
Company of Heroes: Tales of Valor
The oldest title in our test suite is still the most played. CoH has aged like fine wine and we still find it to be one of the best RTS games on the market. We crank all the options up to their highest settings, enable AA at 2x, and run the game under DX9. We track a custom replay of Able Company’s assault at Omaha Beach with FRAPS.
Average frame rates improved around 4% as memory bandwidth increased with DDR3-1600 C6 offering the best overall performance. However, there was no difference in game play between 1066 C7 to 1866 C7 as minimum frame rates did not change for the most part.
Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II
We are big fans of the Warhammer franchise, especially Dawn of War II. One of the latest RTS games in our library is also one of the more demanding titles on both the CPU and GPU. We crank all options to High, enable AA, and then run the built-in performance benchmark for our result.
Minimum frame rates responded well to latency and bandwidth improvements with DDR3-1600 C6 offering the best overall performance. Average frame rate performance increased by 3% and minimum frame rates by 41% when moving from 1066 C7 to 1600 C6.
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.
While not a true flight simulation or even serious air combat game, it is a lot of fun and looks visually stunning on a 30” monitor with all options turned up. In our case, we set all options to high, enable 2xAA and DX10, and then use FRAPS to time a custom demo sequence. We run three loops of the benchmark and average our scores for the results.
In H.A.W.X., minimum frame rates improved about 14% going from 1066 C7 to 1866 C7, while average frame rates improved 6%.
World in Conflict - Soviet Assault
WIC is an RTS favorite around here and one that can still bring the latest systems to their knees if all options are enabled. We set our options to High, DX10, 2xAA. 4xAF, and then utilize FRAPS to track a repeatable game sequence for our results.
Another example of the ping pong effect as memory bandwidth and latencies are optimized at 1066 C5, 1333 C6, and 1600 C6 settings, which offer the best overall performance. DDR3-1333 C6 offers a 3% improvement in average frame rates and 12% in minimum frame rates over 1066 C7 as one example.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
ilkhan - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
running a small cross section of the tests in dual channel mode would be the improvement I can see. Awesome article.Gary Key - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
We will have dual channel results in the 3GB, 4GB, 6GB, 12GB article in a couple of weeks. Right now, you are not giving up that much if any at all in most of these apps with a dual channel 4GB/8GB setup.The0ne - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
The use of percentages and the comments made for them is vastly different than comments made for video cards. A 14% gain in minimal FPS isn’t much, especially for Dawn of War II. To state the game is a “stutter fest” from a low of 12FPS to “smooth” of a high 17FPS is really exaggerating the picture. 17FPS is still a “stutter fest.”From the data collected it really can be said, much like video card reviews is, that if you have the money and want the best then buy the faster memory, otherwise it is a waste of your hard earn money. My point of posting this comment is that the objectivity should not be any different when talking about FPS gains. Here it appears to sound more pleasing even though the numbers don’t show much gain at all.
GourdFreeMan - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link
For nearly all human beings the perception of motion as opposed to a progression of still frames lies in the 8-20 fps range. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Gary's perception of stutter is from crossing this threshold at least momentarily while playing Dawn of War II. Of course, you could probably more cheaply improve your minimum frame rate by buying a better video card than faster RAM unless the game really is (CPU) memory bound.SiliconDoc - Sunday, July 5, 2009 - link
I kind of thought the opposite of the two prior comment (except I agree it may have been exagerrated to go with smooth as silk)- it seems to me that 2%-5%-7%-14% framerate gains are usually considered quite impressive and quite a win in videocard comparisons, and especially in minimum framerate areas, that would be quite nice.I understand it's a different review person, hence perspective and emphasis to a large degree, but it impressed me in the sense that those sized percentages are the end all and be all in video card comparisons - oh golly the declatory winners with that kind of spread based on just videocard performance... so discounting it here - no way.
So, except for the statement that overclocking the cpu is as much or more a gain and overpowers and negates ram timings to a degree (if I caught that latter part intent correctly in the article), I'd have to say the ram advantage is very important to the hardcore videocard shoppers - it can really add quite an edge - as much as a videocard / head to head choice based on benches. Maybe enough to wait for higher clocked ram prices to drop, or score that great deal on overclockable ram.
I enjoyed the article mainly because of those FPS benches shown.
fishbits - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
"Of course, those that are doing all of these activities and more will benefit from purchasing fast low-latency memory and we even suggest getting 12GB while you are at it."How much of a performance hit (if any) is there typically in populating 6 banks on an i7 system versus 3?
bh192012 - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I'm not sure I understand the conclusion. You recommend DDR3-1333 C6 for people who want a little more speed, but it seems to me that your data shows that DDR3-1600 C9 is faster and cheaper?Example:
1066 c5 / min fps H.A.W.X. 80/50 = 1.60$ per frame
1333 c6 / min fps H.A.W.X. 125/52 = 2.40$ per frame
1600 c9 / min fps H.A.W.X. 85/54 = 1.58$ per frame (winner)
1600 c6 / min fps H.A.W.X. 175/56 = 3.13$ per frame
QChronoD - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I would have to assume that you are doing your calculations on the Min frame rate?Personally, I would look at that and see that they are about equal at the minimum, but 1333c6 is almost 50% faster on average!
I'd suggest redoing your $/fps with the average rates.
bh192012 - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
Where is 1333 c6 50% faster than 1600 c9? I think you have confused the price chart with a benchmark or something. Also, min FPS are more important.Affectionate-Bed-980 - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
Uhh obviously no one read this article really because Page 11 is supposed to be about choosing a kit, yet it has 3D rendering benchmarks which should be on page 12.... Yeah..