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.

General Apps That Don't Show an Improvement Choosing a DDR3 Kit for an Overclocked CPU
Comments Locked

47 Comments

View All Comments

  • Seikent - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    I'm not very sure if it's relevant, but I missed a load times comparation. I know that the bottleneck there should be the hdd, but I still think that there can be a performance boost.
  • deputc26 - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    ave and min lines are mixed up.
  • MadBoris - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    I'll be considering upgrading in October at the same time I go from XP to Win 7.
    So this is good to know if/when I go Core I7.

    I guess I can see how Winrar RAM workload sdtays high since it grabs the buffers of compressed data chunks and writes them to disk as fast as the HW permits, so bandwidth matters then.
    While it looks like very few apps can saturate the bandwidth latency benefits/penalties are always having an effect as usual.

    Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere in the article that tried to explain the technical reasons "why" 2000 doesn't provide advantage over 1066.

    I understand the differences of latency and bandwidth. Is it really because no software is using RAM workloads large enough to benefit from increased bandwidth (except compression) or is there another bottleneck in the subsystem or CPU that doesn't allow moving all the data the RAM is capable of?

  • vol7ron - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    Your question is long, so i didn't read it all, but does bottom of pg2 answer:

    "That brings us to another story. We had planned to incorporate a full overclocking section in this article but our DDR3-1866 and DDR3-2000 kits based on the Elpida DJ1108BASE, err Hyper ICs, have been experiencing technical difficulties as of late."

    They said some other stuff, but it seems like it wouldn't be right to post info on faulty chips.
  • TA152H - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    I'd like to see a test between the crippled i5 memory controller with very fast memory, and the i7 with low cost 1333 Mhz memory. There's really no point in the 1066 memory, except for Dell, HP, etc... to throw in generic machines; it's not much cheaper than 1333 MHz, and the performance bump really seems to be biggest there. I think 1333 MHz (low latency) is a reasonable starting point for most people, the cost seems to warrant the performance. After that, you definitely see diminishing returns.

    It seems anyone buying an i5 with very expensive memory is probably a fool, but, a few benchmarks might be interesting to validate or invalidate that. Of course, the i5 might be better when released, so even then it wouldn't be proof.
  • Gary Key - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    I wish I could show i5 numbers, but that ability is officially locked down now. I can say that our results today will not be that much different when i5 launches, low latency 1333 or possibly 1600 will satisfy just about everyone. :)
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link

    Of course, by the time you can share those numbers we will most likely have to specify whether we are talking about LGA-1366 i7 or LGA-1156 i7. Thanks Intel.
  • kaoken - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    I think there is a mistake with the farcry graph. The min and avg lines should be switched.
  • hob196 - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link

    Looking closer it might be that you have the SLI min on there instead of the Non SLI min.
  • halcyon - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link

    It's so nice to see AT calling things as they are.

    This is why we come here.

    Straight up honest talk from adults to adults, with very little marketing speech and numbers do most of the talking.

    Excellent test round up, mucho kudos.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now