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
Microsoft Excel 2007 SP1
Excel can be a very powerful mathematical tool. In this benchmark, we are running a large Monte Carlo simulation on stock pricing data to estimate the riskiness of an investment portfolio.
This benchmark runs entirely in cache, so the results are predictable. Memory bandwidth or latency is not going to make a real difference here.
Photoshop CS4 x64
To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 x64, we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test macro only with a custom image sized at 4800x3600. The test performs basic photo editing; a few color space conversions, several layer creations, color curve adjustment, 3x image and canvas size adjustments, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.
We expected different results in this particular benchmark, but it is one of several applications that responded well to DDR3-1066 C5 settings in single task mode.
Bibble 5.0
We utilize Bibble Labs’ Bibble 5 v2 to convert 50 RAW image files into full size JPEG images with the program’s default settings. This program is fully multithreaded and multi-core aware.
This application responds well to memory bandwidth coupled with improved latencies as we see about a 5% improvement switching from 1066 C7 to 1600 C6.
iTunes 8 x64
We import the album Tommy by The Who to our disk in WAV format. The directory consists of 25 songs totaling 751MB. We then convert this music collection to MP3 format utilizing 320Kbps VBR Highest audio settings or to an AAC format using the iTune Plus option.
Utilizing either transcoding method, iTunes performance remains almost flat regardless of memory type. We notice about a 2% improvement switching from 1066 C7 to 1600 C6.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.