Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Mainconcept H.264 Encoding

Scaling Summary: DDR3 Memory On Core 2, Core i7, And Phenom II
By
Mainconcept H.264 Encoding

 All three platforms benefit from faster DDR3 memory, but the difference is negligible for the Core i7 system.

See more See less
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Photo reports comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 29 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -4 Hide
    daft , July 24, 2009 6:26 AM
    im sorry, but are these charts for real. 103.7 (min:sec) for a divx conversion?
    114.9 (min:sec) to compress using winrar? what is this?
  • 3 Hide
    dirtmountain , July 24, 2009 6:36 AM
    Hmmm a QX9770 is $1,400, an i7 975 is $999 and an PhenomII 955 is $215, just in case anyone was wondering about the cost differences of the tested processors.
  • 6 Hide
    haplo602 , July 24, 2009 6:46 AM
    hmmm how about DDR2 to DDR3 difference on the same phenom II processor ? one in AM2+ and one in AM3 MB ? they can even use the same 790GX/FX/SB750 chipset for easier comparison.
  • 1 Hide
    sohei , July 24, 2009 7:23 AM
    indeed nice review, good point also
  • 2 Hide
    rdawise , July 24, 2009 8:03 AM
    daftim sorry, but are these charts for real. 103.7 (min:sec) for a divx conversion?114.9 (min:sec) to compress using winrar? what is this?


    I am confused as well but I think the 114.9 is a percent improvement over DDR3 1066. The article stated that this meant a 14.9 percent increase. So for example, if your compression time was 5 secs, the faster memory would drop it to about 4.25 seconds (someone please check me on this). I agree the having the time on the Y-Axis is confusing. Unless I am wrong in my assumption. Author, help here?
  • -1 Hide
    rdawise , July 24, 2009 8:04 AM
    Edit: I meant X-Axis
  • 2 Hide
    ohim , July 24, 2009 8:30 AM
    those numbers are the performance increase not the actual times / fps / score to the benchmarks.
  • 1 Hide
    borandi , July 24, 2009 8:54 AM
    "Please note that the results list Intel's Core i7 at 3.47 GHz. We manually set the clock speed to this level to get consistent results, as Intel’s Turbo mode would automatically overclock individual cores to this speed under heavy processing loads.Please note that the results list Intel's Core i7 at 3.47 GHz. We manually set the clock speed to this level to get consistent results, as Intel’s Turbo mode would automatically overclock individual cores to this speed under heavy processing loads."

    You can turn it off in the BIOS.
  • 3 Hide
    Onus , July 24, 2009 11:24 AM
    It would be interesting to see the exact same charts for the same benchmarks and processors, but comparing CAS9 vs. CAS7. All can be DDR3-1333; only vary the CAS.
  • 1 Hide
    monkeysweat , July 24, 2009 2:32 PM
    I guess no one can read charts too well, for example, the cost is not a factor here,
    First of all: they are just using the best of each type of processer to show if you have a certain kind whether it will be beneficial to shell out more $$ for faster memory
    Second of all: the normalized results are the percent difference, not the FPS or time or whatever the hell you are thinking, it is just the difference to what the result was before to what the result now, whether it be faster or slower
    Thirdly: if the answer is 114 percent difference,,,that is 14% MORE, grab out your calculator & try it, take a number x 114%,,it will be 14% higher not 2x higher,,that is 200% more
  • -2 Hide
    doomtomb , July 24, 2009 2:39 PM
    OLD ARTICLE
  • 2 Hide
    hunter315 , July 24, 2009 3:32 PM
    Nice article, i will keep this in mind when people are asking about ram for new builds. I would also like to see one with a 955 dropped into an AM2+ board and an AM3 board to see if the premium for an AM3 board and DDR3 is worth it.
  • 0 Hide
    geofelt , July 24, 2009 3:49 PM
    A second question to be asked is how does ram speed affect the ability to overclock a i7 920? Because this is dine by raising the BCLK value, it also overclocks the ram. Would not a ram capable of 1600 allow the BCLK to be raised to a higher value than 1333 ram?
  • 2 Hide
    Summer Leigh Castle , July 24, 2009 5:14 PM
    I thought the normalized results was a nice touch.
  • -1 Hide
    rdawise , July 25, 2009 1:48 AM
    MonkeySweatI guess no one can read charts too well, for example, the cost is not a factor here, First of all: they are just using the best of each type of processer to show if you have a certain kind whether it will be beneficial to shell out more $$ for faster memorySecond of all: the normalized results are the percent difference, not the FPS or time or whatever the hell you are thinking, it is just the difference to what the result was before to what the result now, whether it be faster or slowerThirdly: if the answer is 114 percent difference,,,that is 14% MORE, grab out your calculator & try it, take a number x 114%,,it will be 14% higher not 2x higher,,that is 200% more


    The reason why the first poster and myself were a little confused is because why did read the chart. If you like at the X-axis it states either FPS, Time [mm:ss], etc. That throw me off until I actually read the article again. If the X-axis was changed to "Percent increase in " it would have been clearer. Not complaining, just trying to help the first poster.
  • -1 Hide
    rdawise , July 25, 2009 1:50 AM
    Edit: because we
  • 0 Hide
    anamaniac , July 25, 2009 10:55 AM
    I'll just stick with my ddr2 533 cas4 thank you.

    P.S. My RAM vendor owns Crucial/Corsair/Kingston etc. anyday... Produced by Hyundai. =D
    -_-
  • -1 Hide
    douken , July 25, 2009 1:17 PM
    They should have used the same clock speed for all 3 processors
  • -1 Hide
    ossie , July 25, 2009 3:14 PM
    What's the margin of error, and result spreading for different runs?
  • 2 Hide
    masterjaw , July 25, 2009 4:30 PM
    I think I'll stick with ddr2 with better timings than ddr3. As of now, there are no significant difference between them except ddr3 is the latest.
Display more comments