Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Speeds: DDR3-1333 And 1600

LGA 1156 Memory Performance: What Speed DDR3 Should You Buy?
By

DDR3-1333 is currently the mainstream speed for DDR3, providing clearly better memory performance than DDR2-800, while still being reasonably-priced. Today, 4GB dual-channel kits still offer the best bang for the buck, but 8GB dual-channel DIMM kits should soon be available in decent quantities, albeit at higher prices, obviously. If you look at entry-level DDR3-1333 memory, you’ll probably only see CL10-10-10-26 timings, which is what we used first.

CL7-7-7-20 timings are tight—one of the fastest industry standard timings available today—and won’t be possible on as many DDR3 solutions. Going to CL6 would no longer be specified by JEDEC, and probably be expensive enough to render this configuration unreasonable compared to faster clock rates at slightly reduced timings.

Again, we started testing DDR3-1600 at relaxed timings of CL11-11-11-30.

Finally, we also ran tests using DDR3-1600 at more aggressive CL8-8-8-24 timings.

Display all 41 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 16 Hide
    cyberkuberiah , December 8, 2009 8:29 AM
    Patrick and Achim , dont show relative performance , show the actual fps or time benchmarks . even 0.6 seconds is 20 percent than than 0.5 seconds , so the benchmarks can not be relevant actually but in relative graphs , they seem (falsely) phenomenal .

    u have only mentioned seconds once in the CS4 benchmarks , not very helpful .
Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    JonathanDeane , December 8, 2009 5:15 AM
    Great read and it answered some questions for me.

    Considering jumping to an i7 soon since the prices are getting pretty reasonable.
  • 0 Hide
    porksmuggler , December 8, 2009 5:48 AM
    might want to check those cpu-z screenshots, mixed up a few...
  • 0 Hide
    martel80 , December 8, 2009 6:56 AM
    For me, the conclusion is a bit different:
    Buy 8 gigs of some cheap DDR3-1066.
  • 16 Hide
    cyberkuberiah , December 8, 2009 8:29 AM
    Patrick and Achim , dont show relative performance , show the actual fps or time benchmarks . even 0.6 seconds is 20 percent than than 0.5 seconds , so the benchmarks can not be relevant actually but in relative graphs , they seem (falsely) phenomenal .

    u have only mentioned seconds once in the CS4 benchmarks , not very helpful .
  • 8 Hide
    cyberkuberiah , December 8, 2009 8:35 AM
    as an example , in left for dead , it shows a difference of 10 percent from ddr3 800 to ddr3 1600 , but how many actual fps does that mean ?
  • 3 Hide
    g00ey , December 8, 2009 9:40 AM
    cyberkuberiahPatrick and Achim , dont show relative performance , show the actual fps or time benchmarks . even 0.6 seconds is 20 percent than than 0.5 seconds , so the benchmarks can not be relevant actually but in relative graphs , they seem (falsely) phenomenal .u have only mentioned seconds once in the CS4 benchmarks , not very helpful .


    Actually, all they have to do is to mention the FPS of only one of the memory modules for each chart in for example the text, or say how the FPS ranged from min to max between the modules.
  • 1 Hide
    hannibal , December 8, 2009 9:46 AM
    Lets do some math... If the normal frame rate is 60, then 5% difference would be 3 frame. So actually nothing...
  • 1 Hide
    gtvr , December 8, 2009 10:41 AM
    Yeah, it'd be great to see the raw scores for comparison purposes. If I ever run these benchmarks at home, I'd like to be able to compare my system to this one (same socket, i5 750).
  • 3 Hide
    envolva , December 8, 2009 10:59 AM
    hannibalLets do some math... If the normal frame rate is 60, then 5% difference would be 3 frame. So actually nothing...

    Isn't that the ultimate conclusion of the article? I don't see why you are so paranoid.

    If the framerate of any game increase 3 frames from memory alone it's huge. We see many graphic cards being called "superior" with those slim margins.
  • 1 Hide
    hannibal , December 8, 2009 1:27 PM
    Quote:
    Isn't that the ultimate conclusion of the article? I don't see why you are so paranoid.

    If the framerate of any game increase 3 frames from memory alone it's huge. We see many graphic cards being called "superior" with those slim margins.


    Yes it is the ultimate conclusion. This was to those who said that they needed real frame rates, not relative speeds...
  • 0 Hide
    ekoostik , December 8, 2009 1:29 PM
    I was glad to see this article - hoping it would put another nail in the coffin of the seemingly endless debate between faster RAM or tighter timings. Unfortunately, I don't think this article adds much to the current debate. I agree with comments that actual results would be helpful. I would include them in addition to the percentage comparison. Maybe you could overlay the two in a line and bar graph to keep from having pages of graphs to scroll through. Also, the last table in the article is helpful only in comparing all RAM to the 800 CL6 but is misleading otherwise. Take the 1600 CL8's vs 1333 CL7's. The graph makes the 1600s look 1.4% better than the 1333s. But the relative difference is much smaller.

    One note for the editors: right up front you say the testing was done on an i7 860. But then in the testing section it shows you used an i7 870.
  • 0 Hide
    pathasse , December 8, 2009 1:49 PM
    I want to see someone test the higher end DDR3.
  • 3 Hide
    volks1470 , December 8, 2009 3:06 PM
    Again another reason why I will never spend top dollar on RAM...
  • 1 Hide
    kufan64 , December 8, 2009 3:27 PM
    volks1470Again another reason why I will never spend top dollar on RAM...

    Agreed. I've never really understood why some people spend 2-3x as much on their RAM when it gives a negligable increase in performance. I usually just assume they don't know any better. I seem to be doing that a lot lately...
  • 0 Hide
    Aragorn , December 8, 2009 3:52 PM
    What about buying faster RAM in order to facilitate overclocking?
  • 8 Hide
    xsamitt , December 8, 2009 4:09 PM
    But will it speed up Crysis?
  • 5 Hide
    cyberkuberiah , December 8, 2009 4:16 PM
    xsamittBut will it speed up Crysis?


    honestly speaking , i love it when someone jokes about this for the Nth time , brings all the memories of 2007 back . almost 3 years and still unconquered in graphics .
  • 2 Hide
    volks1470 , December 8, 2009 5:06 PM
    AragornWhat about buying faster RAM in order to facilitate overclocking?


    Or save money and drops the speeds, and then they'll be bumped back up by the FSB. I still think the money saved on cheaper ram would get you more performance in another component, cpu or gpu.
  • 2 Hide
    notty22 , December 8, 2009 5:20 PM
    Even with o/c the 1156 or 1366 platforms you can almost always go down a multiplier so as to NOT o/c your ram. Spending extra money on 2000 ram IMO is not worth it. Worse seeing so many rma working ram because of user misunderstanding on setting timings and their effect on performance.
  • 0 Hide
    CoryInJapan , December 8, 2009 5:21 PM
    so looks as I thought...Not worth getting ram higher than DDR3 1066 with smaller timings. Well when I upgrade to DDR3 Ill keep that in mind.
Display more comments