Not all games are held back by graphics performance. Some seem to be CPU-limited. However, we've even seen benchmark results that appeared to be affected by memory bandwidth. Today we compare quad-channel, dual-channel, and low-latency configurations.
Every few years we write a story showing how most applications get the most performance out of ordinary memory. Today, "ordinary" means DDR3-1600. Recently, something changed though. We observed noticeable speed-ups in at least one game after changing a few memory settings. Since we still had the system from FX Vs. Core i7: Exploring CPU Bottlenecks And AMD CrossFire set up, we thought it'd be a perfect time to follow our CPU-oriented gaming analysis with a version more intently focused on memory.
The things we said about frequency and timings six years ago still apply today. CAS latency is still measured in cycles, DDR3-2133 cycles are still twice as quick as DDR3-1066 cycles, and so DDR3-2133 CAS 10 still has the same response time as DDR3-1066 CAS 5. Moreover, DDR3-2133 continues to offer twice the bandwidth of DDR3-1066.
Fortunately, chasing value doesn't mean you're stuck at DDR3-1066, and bandwidth-seekers are no longer stuck at CAS 10. Cheap DDR3-1600 and mid-priced DDR3-2133 CAS 9 are now the norm.

Combining those developments in memory technology with the availability of quad-channel platforms, we have the perfect chance to compare frequency, latency, and bus width. That is, we can make such a comparison without resorting to unrealistically-handicapped configurations.
We're armed with an overclocked CPU and a pair of high-end Radeon HD 7970s in CrossFire to alleviate bottlenecks. So, how much gaming performance can we extract from a few changes in memory configuration?
- Could Memory Really Be Holding You Back?
- Test Settings And Benchmarks
- Results: 3DMark And Aliens Vs. Predator
- Results: F1 2012 And Metro 2033
- Metro 2033, Second By Second
- Results: Battlefield 3 And Skyrim
- Battlefield 3, Frame By Frame
- Skyrim, Frame By Frame
- Power, Average Performance, And Efficiency
- Bandwidth And Latency Matter, Sometimes
Well, technically the bank owns it until I'm 70, but after that I'm home free!
unless you care about 150 fps vs 120 fps I don't see the point
unless you care about 150 fps vs 120 fps I don't see the point
jk
Although in reality 1600 can do the job just fine and it could overclock nicely too if you get the right RAM.
Well, technically the bank owns it until I'm 70, but after that I'm home free!
well call me the glass is half empty guy. if there is no real world difference then it is NOT worth spending one penny more.
Even though this post appears an innocuous and observation based, I'm certain that the same group of people who are sabotaging this thread will also give this one the thumbs down.
In an older Xbitlab review i read, in a non memory bound scenario, the 4 channel RAM is always slower than the 2 channel RAM.
Perhaps another reason as to why FX is so far behind; AMD's memory subsystem is horribly outclassed.
Is it entirely possible that a quad-channel memory architecture has to make compromises, such as how many DIMMs you can run per channel at a rated speed?
When you're working within a budget though and every dollar counts. Plus you have to take into consideration what your CPU/MOBO support. At the end of the day you shouldn't go busting your ass to work in super clocked memory when building or looking for a new PC. Bigger and faster is always what we want, but it isn't always necessary I think is the point some are trying to make.