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
Sometimes Memory Bandwidth Makes a Difference
Thankfully, for the memory makers at least, things aren't always as bleak as the PCMark Vantage results. Out of the forty or so applications we tested (23 reported on) in compiling this article, these are the applications that displayed differences worth mentioning when either increasing memory bandwidth or decreasing latencies.
WinRAR 3.9b3 x64
This benchmark compresses our AT workload consisting of a main folder that contains 954MB of files in 15 subfolders. The result is a file approximately 829MB in size.
WinRAR loves bandwidth and latency improvements. Of all the applications we tested, this one responded best to improved memory performance. Going from DDR3-1066 C7 to DDR3-1866 C7 resulted in a 20% decrease in processing time by just varying memory speeds. Latency improvements within a given memory speed were most noticeable with 1066 C5 being about 6% quicker than 1066 C7 and 1333 C6 around 8% faster than 1333 C9.
Cinema 4D R11 x64
Cinema 4D R11 is one of our favorite programs to create high-end 3D images and animations. We track the time it takes to render a swimming pool layout.
Maxon’s top flight program is bottlenecked at DDR3-1066 speeds and responded well to improved memory bandwidth with a 7% performance increase going from 1066 C7 to 1866 C7.
LightWave 3D 9.6 x64
Another popular 3D rendering program is Lightwave 3D 9.6. In this test we time the rendering of a single frame from an office building animation. The time to render the full scene is approximately four and a half hours.
Newtek’s premier application responded well to improved memory bandwidth with a 6% advantage for DDR3-1866 C7 over DDR3-1066 C7.
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.
We noticed in several games that decreased latencies and/or increased bandwidth tended to improve minimum frame rates more so than average frame rates. In the case of H.A.W.X., minimum frame rates improved about 14% going from 1066 C7 to 1866 C7, while average frame rates improved 6%.
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..