Benchmark Results: 3D Performance

Great read and it answered some questions for me.

Considering jumping to an i7 soon since the prices are getting pretty reasonable.

might want to check those cpu-z screenshots, mixed up a few...

For me, the conclusion is a bit different:
Buy 8 gigs of some cheap DDR3-1066.

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 .

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 ?

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.

Lets do some math... If the normal frame rate is 60, then 5% difference would be 3 frame. So actually nothing...

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).

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...

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.

I want to see someone test the higher end DDR3.

Again 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...

What about buying faster RAM in order to facilitate overclocking?

But 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 .

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.

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.