Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Haswell And Richland Memory Scaling: Picking A 16 GB DDR3 Kit

Haswell And Richland Memory Scaling: Picking A 16 GB DDR3 Kit
By

Graphics workloads love fast memory. But how much difference can a desktop-oriented kit have on gaming performance with Intel's HD Graphics 4600 or AMD's Radeon HD 8670D? We test six 16 GB kits, two all the way up to DDR3-2400 to find out.

With data rates topping 6 GT/s on buses up to 384-bits wide, high-end graphics cards are hardly starved for memory bandwidth. Integrated engines, on the other hand, are still limited to a 128-bit aggregate pathway through two 64-bit channels. And then there are the lower data rates of DDR3 DIMMS versus GDDR5 packages. But throughput isn't the biggest issue those built-in GPUs face. They're necessarily a lot less complex, since they share die space with host processing resources. And then there's the matter of memory latency...

If we look back to when DDR2-533 CAS 3 was the way to go for exceptionally low latency, we saw a few enthusiasts trying to push those same modules down to CAS 2. These days, we see DDR3-1600 CAS 7 as a real possibility, and most tuners are having similar trouble pushing that memory to CAS 6. Even at DDR3-2133, we’re trying to hit CAS 8 when only CAS 9 appears achievable. Lo and behold, when we divide 2133 by eight, 1600 by six and 533.3 by two, we always get 266.6. Divide by two to get the bus frequency and invert the number to get cycle time, and what we’ve really been fighting for the past nine years is a memory turnaround time of 7.5 nanoseconds.

Still unable to reliably break past the 7.5 ns latency barrier, today’s performance search primarily focuses on data rates. We’ll still compare these six contenders to JEDEC-standard DDR3-1600 CAS 11 specs though. Here are each kit's specifications.

Brand/Model Rated MT/s Rated CL Rated Volts Price
Adata XPG V2
AX3U2400W8G11-DMV
DDR3-240011-13-13-351.65 V$184
AMD Gamer Series
AG316G2130U2K
DDR3-213310-11-11-301.65 V$176
Crucial Ballistix Tactical
BLT2KIT8G3D1869DT1TX0
DDR3-18669-9-9-271.50 V$153
G.Skill DDR3-1866 C10
F3-14900CL10D-16GBXL
DDR3-186610-11-11-301.50 V$135
Mushkin Redline
Ridgeback 997121R
DDR3-21339-11-11-281.65 V$180
Patriot Viper 3
PV316G240C0KRD
DDR3-240010-12-12-311.65 V$195

We chose JEDEC-standard DDR3-1600 as a starting point because we believe that anyone seriously interested in gaming on a platform with integrated graphics shouldn’t settle for less. We found a 16 GB dual-channel pair of those for $110.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 63 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , September 15, 2013 9:13 PM
    What about 8GB? That's still a good option for most gamers.
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , September 15, 2013 9:13 PM
    What about 8GB? That's still a good option for most gamers.
  • -4 Hide
    DjEaZy , September 15, 2013 11:03 PM
    ... GPU 4.T.W.!!!
  • -9 Hide
    Novuake , September 15, 2013 11:22 PM
    Its a shame the AMD memory controller is so lacking, it matters very little for FX series, but here its a real bummer.

    Anyway, I am reasonably sure you could tighten the timings on the Ripjaws considerably, if this is the case with this specific kit, there is NO reason to get the Mushkins...
  • -5 Hide
    Jarmo , September 15, 2013 11:36 PM
    8GB of fast&expensive memory vs 16GB of the cheap stuff?
  • 7 Hide
    CommentariesAnd More , September 15, 2013 11:38 PM
    IMO 4GB and 8GB is what most APU Gaming Rigs have. Those looking for an APU for Gaming probably would love results with similar kits. But still we would love these results for like a baseline. Also , the Elite FTW in my next APU build/proposal :D 
  • 0 Hide
    yannigr , September 16, 2013 12:42 AM
    You did it again. Another "let's make Intel looks better than it is" article.

    How can we give an advantage or two to Intel?
    Let's overclock both cpus. So Intel is getting 1GHz extra from it's default frequency while AMD only gets 400MHz. Then we call this fair.
    Let's lower the resolution and graphics. That way the benchmarks will be less gpu intensive and Intel's much better cpu will make things look more even.
    Not to mention the instability problems with AMD and 2400MHz memory, the problem reaching 4.5GHz. We all know that AMD is unstable and hot. Nice job. You are pros in what you are doing. But off course you where just testing memory here. Yeah right. You lowered the resolution even lower than 1366X768 which is the resolution for hdready displays. I guess lowering the resolution and overclocking was necessary so that Intel gpu can reach 30fps in all tests. Nice work.
    Next time try 800X600 and overclock with LN2.
  • 8 Hide
    4Ryan6 , September 16, 2013 2:07 AM
    Quote:
    Scuttlebutt says that AMD’s A10-6800K reaches 4.5 GHz without much effort, but our sample needed 1.425 V to achieve complete stability. It would easily run 4.4 GHz at 1.30 V, so perhaps 4.5 GHz wasn’t a good target? The problem with 4.4 GHz was that we didn’t want to give the firm a frequency handicap in an article that includes Intel. Our Core i7-4770K was easily running 4.5 GHz at 1.250 V maximum, and we began testing before AMD's sample arrived. And so the test began with the Intel processor at 4.50 GHz, secure in the knowledge that both CPUs would support DDR3-2400 via overclocking. Two of the kits were DDR3-2400-rated. And one of the kits would even run at DDR3-2666.


    Thomas, I know it would have involved more work, but wouldn't the right thing to do have been to reset the overclock target to 4.4ghz?

    You'd have been in safer territory not to have overclocked at all, if the overclock was not the same for each testing.

    Additionally for the record, the very reason some of these overclockers are experiencing such high heat levels are they're overclocking the CPUs memory controller from the very beginning of their overclocking, by attempting to run memory past the design specifications of the CPU right out of the box, that may have been partly the reason you couldn't get past 4.4ghz with acceptable voltage with the A10-6800K.

    These memory manufacturers never claimed their memory could be run at higher multiplier overclock levels as they were only tested, and supposedly guaranteed at the stock CPU speed capabilities at the factory, they never guaranteed they would run stably at 45x or beyond, multiplier ranges in the first place.

    I have yet to see the first memory claim that BrandX not only can run 2400mhz but can run it at a 50x multiplier for Intel or 25x for AMD, to reach 5.0ghz or for that matter 45x or 22.5x for your 4.5ghz target.

    So actually just because you can push the memory to make these tests doesn't mean that running memory speeds way past the CPUs memory controllers design specifications is a safe 24/7 run solution to advise others is seemingly OK, but that is exactly what a lot of users take away from these type of tests.

    Just because someone can, doesn't necessarily mean they should, for the longevity of their hardware, isn't THGs responsibility on a higher level than that?

  • -1 Hide
    de5_Roy , September 16, 2013 3:20 AM
    woulda liked to see how these kits would perform on a desktop intel hd5000/5100/5200 sku. shame on intel for not making those available on desktop! hd4600 blows!
  • 5 Hide
    Novuake , September 16, 2013 3:27 AM
    Quote:
    woulda liked to see how these kits would perform on a desktop intel hd5000/5100/5200 sku. shame on intel for not making those available on desktop! hd4600 blows!


    I almost think Nvidia and Intel had some nice discussions and deals to keep Iris out of the desktop.
    Just a hunch...
  • 4 Hide
    Reynod , September 16, 2013 4:48 AM
    Nice work crashman ... good to see they still have you chained to the test bench out the back.

    I hope they are feeding you buddy and letting you out once in a while !!

    Its time they let you loose on another serious overclocking campaign too.

    Chris ... get this man a big can of liquid nitrogen, 2 cartons of coke, a box of mars bars and a mobile hot dog vendor for the day ... time to reward crash.

    :) 
  • 2 Hide
    itzsnypah , September 16, 2013 5:39 AM
    I have a friend that got c8-12-8-28 2400Mhz with a 2x2GB kit of Mushkin 996902's. This 7.5 nanosecond wall can be surpassed.
    http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18005981

    Also no Graphics OC =[
  • 5 Hide
    vertexx , September 16, 2013 5:44 AM
    I'm going to assume that 8GB equivalent kits would have had comparable performance - is that a reasonable assumption?

    Nice article - good to see the memory makes a difference with the APUs. AMD definitely has my attention - this is decent 720p gaming (i.e. for an htpc/Steam box - not for an enthusiast setup by any means - but there are a lot of kids out there playing Steam games on the family big screen TV). It will be interesting to see where they are able to take the APU next.
  • -4 Hide
    cypeq , September 16, 2013 5:52 AM
    Seems like nothing changed since DDR3 introduction spending penny over standard 1333 set is a waste.
  • 6 Hide
    Avus , September 16, 2013 6:28 AM
    I know Tomshardware just use that Intel system for the sake of benchmark. But for anyone who really build an Intel i7 with HD4600 as gaming system should be shot onsite.... And gaming system builder with a brain will rather used a lesser CPU (saved at lease $100) + regular DDR31600 RAM (saved up to $70!!) and use it on a videocard.
  • 1 Hide
    cypeq , September 16, 2013 7:05 AM
    Quote:
    I know Tomshardware just use that Intel system for the sake of benchmark. But for anyone who really build an Intel i7 with HD4600 as gaming system should be shot onsite.... And gaming system builder with a brain will rather used a lesser CPU (saved at lease $100) + regular DDR31600 RAM (saved up to $70!!) and use it on a videocard.


    Negative votes from owner's of hyper-viperous-jawripper over 9000! RAM are coming you way, brace yourself.
    This is valid example either you update your cpu and ram getting 3-10 FPS in most titles .... or you put 170$ towards gpu getting you close to +40 fps if your budget was bellow 200$ for that part. Hmm what's the better idea ?

    RAM performance 'thing' died with DDR2 get over it ppl.
  • 0 Hide
    CommentariesAnd More , September 16, 2013 7:21 AM
    Quote:
    I know Tomshardware just use that Intel system for the sake of benchmark. But for anyone who really build an Intel i7 with HD4600 as gaming system should be shot onsite.... And gaming system builder with a brain will rather used a lesser CPU (saved at lease $100) + regular DDR31600 RAM (saved up to $70!!) and use it on a videocard.


    Shoot these guys then -
    No 1
    No 2
    No 3
    No 4.a
    No 4.b

    They all are quite hmmm................................
  • 0 Hide
    ddpruitt , September 16, 2013 7:40 AM
    I see everyone complaining about AMD's memory controller. But I wonder if it's unstable at high frequencies and has a higher latency because it actually achieves pushes the RAM harder than Intel's controller. We've all seen CPUs overclocked to insane numbers but they're can't be used under any real loads. After all it takes more effort to move 35 FPS through memory than 30.
  • 1 Hide
    Novuake , September 16, 2013 7:47 AM
    Quote:
    I see everyone complaining about AMD's memory controller. But I wonder if it's unstable at high frequencies and has a higher latency because it actually achieves pushes the RAM harder than Intel's controller. We've all seen CPUs overclocked to insane numbers but they're can't be used under any real loads. After all it takes more effort to move 35 FPS through memory than 30.


    Actually the lacking AMD memory controller is a known issue.
    Ever try running 32GB of 1866 MHz RAM on an AMD system? its really a no go.
    Now drop that to 1333MHz and you are likely to find stability.

    The controller is old, just no progress being made on it. Still comes from the Phenon II x 4s era.
  • 0 Hide
    RDTTKA12 , September 16, 2013 7:57 AM
    Mushkin’s 997121R

    This RAM is discontinued on Newegg..................................................
  • 0 Hide
    CaptainTom , September 16, 2013 8:21 AM
    I'm really surprised Intel scaled so terribly with bandwidth increases. I wonder what would happen if they put their 5000 graphics with 2400 MHz RAM...
Display more comments