Intel's CPUs have the high-end gaming crown right now. However, with the introduction of its Trinity architecture, AMD reasserted itself in the mainstream space. Not only did the company prove its worth in our assessment of performance-per-dollar, but it also came out on top in the raw integrated graphics benchmarks, delivering playable frame rates in more titles than Intel's best Ivy Bridge-based effort.
Slow memory is perhaps the biggest inhibitor of integrated graphics performance, since built-in GPUs generally rely on shared system RAM to do their job. Discrete graphics processors have their own dedicated pools of memory, often composed of the latest technologies attached to very wide interfaces, enabling hundreds of gigabytes per second of throughput.
We're thrilled, then, that the Trinity design's memory controller supports data rates up to DDR3-2400. Although 19.2 GB/s per channel is quite a ways off from the 288 GB/s you get from a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition's 3 GB of GDDR5, every little bit of bandwidth helps, particularly in games. And that's what we'll be testing today.

As we were planning this piece, G.Skill offered to send its newest high-end memory kit. Rather than spring for one of the most expensive dual-channel combos available, though, we asked the company to ship over something that an A10-5800K-buyer might actually match up to a value-oriented platform.
What we received was G.Skill's $60 Ares DDR3-2133 CAS 9-10-11-28 kit (part number F3-2133C9D-8GAB). We quickly confirmed that the modules were capable of hitting our 2,400 MT/s data rate goal at 10-12-11-30 timings. Excellent.

Using 1-1-1-2-cycle adjustments, we then went backwards to test DDR3-1866 C8 and DDR3-1600 C7 settings. As a final point of comparison, we also added the 9-9-9-24 timings of typical $40 DDR3-1600 budget-oriented memory.
According to SiSoftware's Sandra, there really isn't much reason to run at DDR3-2400, given relatively loose timings. But we’re counting on real-world game tests to give us more definitive results.
| Test System Configuration | |
|---|---|
| APU | AMD A10-5800K (Trinity): 3.8 GHz Base, Up to 4.2 GHz via Turbo Core, 8 MB Shared L3 Cache, Socket FM2 |
| Motherboard | Asus F2A85-V Pro, BIOS 5109 (10/16/2012) |
| CPU Cooler | Sunbeamtech Core-Contact Freezer w/Zalman ZM-STG1 Paste |
| RAM | G.Skill F3-2133C9D-8GAB (8 GB), DDR3-2133 CAS 9-11-10-28, Tested Stock, 2400 (10-12-11-30), 1866 (8-10-9-26), 1600 (7-9-8-24) |
| Graphics | AMD Radeon HD 7660D Integrated GPU |
| Hard Drive | Samsung 470 Series MZ5PA256HMDR, 256 GB SSD |
| Sound | Integrated HD Audio |
| Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking |
| Power | Seasonic X760 SS-760KM: ATX12V v2.3, EPS12V, 80 PLUS Gold |
| Software | |
| OS | Microsoft Windows 8 Professional RTM x64 |
| Graphics | AMD Catalyst 12.10 |
Asus gives AMD users access to Intel XMP memory overclocking profiles through its D.O.C.P. setting.

Asus motherboards also do a great job of automatically compensating secondary and tertiary timings in response to manual DRAM multiplier changes. That saves us a lot of time and guesswork, making its F2A85-V Pro our top pick.
| 3D Game Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
| Aliens Vs. Predator | Using AvP Tool v 1.03, SSAO/Tesselation/Shadows On Test Set 1: High Textures, No AA, 4x AF Test Set 2: Very High Textures, 4x AA, 16x AF |
| Battlefield 3 | Campaign Mode, "Going Hunting" 90-Second Fraps Test Set 1: Medium Quality Defaults (No AA, 4x AF) Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Defaults (4x AA, 16x AF) |
| F1 2012 | Steam version, in-game benchmark Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 8x AA |
| The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim | Update 1.7, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25-Second Fraps Test Set 1: DX11, High Details No AA, 8x AF, FXAA enabled Test Set 2: DX11, Ultra Details, 8x AA, 16x AF, FXAA enabled |
| Metro 2033 | Full Game, Built-In Benchmark, "Frontline" Scene Test Set 1: DX11, High, AAA, 4x AF, No PhysX, No DoF Test Set 2: DX11, Very High, 4x AA, 16x AF, No PhysX, DoF On |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| 3DMark 11 | Version: 1.0.3.0, Benchmark Only |
Although it's theoretically able to serve up playable frame rates across our entire benchmark suite (at the right resolution and settings, of course), AMD's Radeon HD 7660D integrated graphics processor wasn't designed to compete against the company's own discrete GPUs. That usually means choosing between higher graphics quality or resolutions.
In 3DMark, the limitations of integrated graphics mean using the Entry preset. And as you can see, memory bandwidth has a big impact on this synthetic's overall score.

Stepping up to 3DMark’s Performance preset generally imposed a slide show upon us. Nevertheless, the terrible frame rate was still sped up slightly by faster system memory.

We're putting Aliens Vs. Predator on the same page as 3DMark, since I'm using the benchmark version of this utility. It's still based on a real game though, so we're including the numbers from this one in our overall gaming performance chart.

AvP exhibits huge performance gains favoring higher memory data rates at the most entry-level settings. Unfortunately, those image quality presets look pretty awful compared to other, more modern titles.

Still devoid of luscious graphics, but with far fewer jagged edges, enabling anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering in AvP knocks AMD's APU to its knees. We get playable performance at 1280x720, but you'll probably want at least DDR3-1866 to help performance as much as possible.
A single frame that takes more than 50 ms to render in Battlefield 3 can easily get you shot. Deceptively, average frame rates that look playable often aren't. When we dug into our Fraps logs, we immediately saw that even our fastest configuration tripped over a number of frames that hung for longer than 60 ms.
Our next page will explore in greater depth whether the 50 FPS average rate we achieved using Low detail settings is truly smooth.


Battlefield 3 performance improves as memory data rate goes up, despite the fact that the on-board GPU isn't very fast.

We've seen F1 2012 bottlenecked by memory before, but this title can also suffer from CPU and graphics imbalances if you use slow-enough components.
With its dual-module CPU and desktop-derived GPU on the same piece of silicon, AMD's A10-5800K plays through F1 2012 with alacrity. We recommend using at least DDR3-1866 to reach 1920x1080.

The Ultra quality preset is worth considering at 1280x720, though you're going to encounter higher frame times, which could land you in a wall.
Long frame times are most jarring to me when there's a lot of on-screen movement. While slowing down usually helps mask this phenomenon somewhat, that's not really a viable workaround in first-person shooters and racing games.
We've established that it's difficult to record evidence of this phenomenon in multi-card configurations. But Fraps does make this possible in single-GPU systems. We're using it today to record performance in Battlefield 3.

It's difficult to generalize, but many folks can tolerate a 20 FPS minimum. So, we set an upper limit of 50 ms per frame to assure reasonable fluidity. Beyond that, adding time per frame can be a much more intrusive distraction.
The sad fact is that even with an average of 50 FPS (shown on the previous page), our fastest memory configuration can't reliably keep the A10-5800K's on-board graphics processor under 50 ms per frame.


Of course, maximum rendering times get worse as resolution increases. Memory latency could be an issue, but even pricey low-latency kits are barely better than the DDR3-1600 CAS 7 config we tested, or this setup's DDR3-2133 CAS 9 arrangement.
The Low quality preset in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim looks pretty basic, but you're at least able to enjoy playable performance from it. We didn't notice any distracting frame-time artifacts all the way through 1920x1080.


The Medium quality preset is smooth enough at 1280x720, particularly when we use our memory kit at DDR3-2400.

A smooth experience at 1920x1080 requires at least DDR3-1866 in StarCraft II.

We're able to play StarCraft II at the game's highest detail settings, but only at 1280x720, and only with DDR3-1866 or faster memory.
Our motherboard automatically ramped up voltage whenever we changed the memory ratio to run at DDR3-2400 data rates. Those changes, which we didn't ask for, but are imposed (and maybe even necessary for stability) anyway are reflected in a big power consumption jump compared to running at DDR3-2133. The only way to get normal readings at 2,400 MT/s would have been to use modules rated for that data rate, and not overclocked to get there.

Interestingly, GPU power increases about 1 W for every step up in memory data rate (excluding the DDR3-2400 result, which is abnormal and due to the motherboard’s automatic voltage increases). For this combination of motherboard and memory, the easiest way to have your performance and efficiency is to leave it at XMP values.

DDR3-2400 only yields 2% more performance than DDR3-2133, while DDR3-2133 generates a huge 20% gain over mainstream DDR3-1600.

If all else were equal, we’d expect the performance lead attributable to DDR3-2400 data rates to show up in an efficiency chart. Because Asus' board juices voltage to enhance stability, though, we don't get the efficiency pop we were expecting.
Even still, the 20.4% speed-up from DDR3-2133 is far larger than the power consumption premium imposed by G.Skill's kit. So, that faster memory setting does deliver higher efficiency.
When you spend 50% more on G.Skill's DDR3-2133 CAS 9 kit than a couple of 1,600 MT/s modules, you get around a 20% performance increase on an AMD A10-5800K-based gaming platform. On what planet do those numbers add up to a great value?
We’re not recommending that you rush out and replace old DDR3-1600 memory with a shiny new DDR3-2133 kit. But if you’re upgrading a low-end gaming system, there's a good chance that you're using something even older than 1,600 MT/s modules. Instead, you’re probably going upgrade your CPU, motherboard, and memory all in one fell swoop.

We shopped around and found $40 DDR3-1600 CAS 9, $42 DDR3-1600 CAS 7, today’s $60 DDR3-2133 CAS 9 test sample, and $65 DDR3-2400 CAS 10 offerings. Our chart above represents those prices added to our $130 APU and $140 motherboard. The more parts you buy, the less attractive cheap memory becomes in a comparison of overall performance to overall price.
At the end of the day, a 20% performance increase is pretty big. Huge, even. And there were a few games where the faster memory was required simply to break us into our minimally-accepted 40 FPS average. The $20 price difference over lower-end RAM is only 10% of a $200 upgrade package, or 5% of a complete $400 budget-oriented build. That’s how a 50% component price increase that facilitates 20% more gaming performance is able to top our value charts.
