LGA 1156 Memory Performance: What Speed DDR3 Should You Buy?
Table of contents
- 1. Which Memory Speed Do You Want?
- 2. Speeds: DDR3-800 And -1066
- 3. Speeds: DDR3-1333 And 1600
- 4. Test System Details
Intel’s mainstream LGA 1156 interface hosts the Core i5 and Core i7-800 series, plus the Core i3 soon expected to cover lower price points. It’s possible to run DDR3 memory on the platform at speeds between DDR3-800 and DDR3-2000—or even faster if overclocked. From prior analysis of Socket AM3-, LGA 775-, and LGA 1366-based platforms, we know that faster RAM is favorable in overclocking scenarios, but it doesn’t provide additional performance. This time we looked at a Core i7-860 system and cross-tested various popular memory speeds and timings.
Memory: The Market
The memory market is dominated by several competing manufacturers that all focus on brand recognition. Memory companies without such brand sensitivity—meaning large OEMs business like Micron or Samsung—typically have to be more aggressive in releasing high-end and enthusiast products that will attract attention and highlight their product as a preferable choice.
There are definitely quality differences in memory. Top-shelf memory (products from the likes of A-Data, Buffalo, Corsair, Crucial, G.Skill, Kingston, Mushkin, OCZ, Patriot, Super Talent) depends on using high-quality parts and having modules undergo extensive validation and testing. Different memory IC series' have varying characteristics, as well.
The better a vendor’s reputation, the more likely it is for different products to sell well. This means that memory vendors must be quick with releasing top-end products to make sure that they constantly remain in the news. Whether or not these products are actually top sellers is a different story.
A Bigger Question
Because there is a significant cost difference between mainstream memory products at average speeds/timings and performance parts, we have to ask the old question again: which memory should you buy for Core i7? Only now, because we’re looking at the LGA 1156 platform (with its two channels and more mainstream pinning), the question is broader. The answer we find will likely affect systems spread across the Core i7-800 series, Core i5-700, and the upcoming Core i3 entry-level processor families.
- Performance PC,
- Intel,
- core ,
- i7-870 ,
- 1156
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Latest Memory News
Latest Memory reviews
- 12/27 – Four High-End Quad-Channel DDR3 Memory Kits For X79, Reviewed
- 09/05 – Seven 8 GB DDR3 Memory Kits For Your AMD A75 Motherboard
- 04/18 – Eight 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Memory Kits For P67 Express, Rounded Up
- 11/23 – Memory Upgrade: Is It Time To Add More RAM?
- 07/17 – How Much Power Does Low-Voltage DDR3 Memory Really Save?
-
Latest Intel News
- Intel Picks UK for Research Institute on Sustainable Cities
- Specs for Dell's Windows 8 Clover Trail Tablet Leaked
- Thunderbolt Will Become Key Motherboard Spec in 2H 2012
- AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- Intel Hopes New Batteries Can Reduce Ultrabook Cost
-
Latest Intel reviews
- Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
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 ?
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 .
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).
Lets 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.
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...
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?
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 .
What 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.
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.
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.