Tom's Ultimate RAM Speed Tests
-
Page 1:Is Fast Memory Really Worth It?
-
Page 2:RAM Choices
-
Page 3:DDR2 Speeds
-
Page 4:How RAM-Sensitive Are Different CPUs?
-
Page 5:Test Setup
-
Page 6:DDR3: Patriot PDC32G1600LLK
-
Page 7:Motherboard: Gigabyte EP35C-DS3R
-
Page 8:Benchmark Results
-
Page 9:Audio/Video
-
Page 10:Audio/Video, Continued
-
Page 11:Applications
-
Page 12:Applications, Continued
-
Page 13:Synthetic Benchmarks
-
Page 14:Synthetic Benchmarks, Continued
-
Page 15:Conclusion

Memory vendors have become excellent at marketing their latest high-end products: DDR3-2000 speeds are currently considered state of the art for enthusiast Intel platforms based on Intel’s P35, X38, X48 chipsets or the new Nvidia 7 series. But how much sense do these products really make? While mainstream DDR2 memory has reached almost ridiculously low price levels - you can get two 2 GB DDR2-800 DIMMs for less than $80 - DDR3 memory at 1600 speed or faster easily costs five times as much, without delivering even double the performance. In fact, for the vast majority of users, the difference between mainstream and high-end memory turns out to be extremely small.
The importance of Random Access Memory (RAM) has changed a lot over time. There were noticeable performance differences between CL2 and CL3 timings back at the turn of the millennium, when first generation SDRAM at PC100 or PC133 speeds were popular. But now, the performance delta between quick and very relaxed timings is almost negligible in using fast DDR2- or DDR3-SDRAM. Although memory latencies seem to have increased from one memory generation to the next (CL2/3 with DDR1, CL3-5 with DDR2, CL5 and up with DDR3), the latencies haven’t changed much, as the clock speeds have doubled with each generation change. The effective latencies hence remained very much the same, while throughput has increased considerably. (Compare Prices on DDR)
Enthusiast memory does have another justification that is only indirectly based on performance: overclockers need maximum flexibility from components when they want to squeeze out maximum performance from their systems. Increasing the system speed is often the only way to increase the CPU clock, which will automatically accelerate the memory as well, as its clock speed directly derives from the system clock speed. Since you don’t want to be performance-restrained by limiting memory speed, fast memory may be necessary to achieve maximum system performance. This scenario is only valid for hardcore overclockers, however, as the benefit of fast memory over slower has become very small if the other components and parameters remain unchanged.
We wanted to know how important RAM speed and timings really are. To test this, we assembled a Socket 775 system, which we operated using two different processors: a brand new 3.16 GHz Core 2 Duo E8500 based on the 45 nm Core 2 Duo Wolfdale core with 6 MB L2 cache; and a 3.73 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition single core processor. We decided to include the old single core Netburst P4 processor since it offers a smaller and less efficient cache memory than the Core 2 Duo. Both processors were benchmarked at DDR2-667, DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 speeds as well as DDR3-1066 and DDR3-1333, each time using slow and fast timings. The P4, however, could not be benchmarked at DDR3-1333 speed, as it would have required FSB1333.
- Is Fast Memory Really Worth It?
- RAM Choices
- DDR2 Speeds
- How RAM-Sensitive Are Different CPUs?
- Test Setup
- DDR3: Patriot PDC32G1600LLK
- Motherboard: Gigabyte EP35C-DS3R
- Benchmark Results
- Audio/Video
- Audio/Video, Continued
- Applications
- Applications, Continued
- Synthetic Benchmarks
- Synthetic Benchmarks, Continued
- Conclusion
1) Is it true that 32bit XP can only access 3GB? I thought it was 3.5GB...
2) If I build a system and load it with 4GB of memory, will 32bit XP work well enough (only accessing it's 3GB or 3.5GB maximum) or will it have difficulty running properly? Meaning, is it preferable or necessary to build a 32bit XP box with only 3GB exactly?
Great article, thanks.
B.
1) Is it true that 32bit XP can only access 3GB? I thought it was 3.5GB...
2) If I build a system and load it with 4GB of memory, will 32bit XP work well enough (only accessing it's 3GB or 3.5GB maximum) or will it have difficulty running properly? Meaning, is it preferable or necessary to build a 32bit XP box with only 3GB exactly?
Great article, thanks.
B.
Except it doesn't. 32bit Linux can use in excess of 4GB of memory, though not on all chipsets. I was looking at this issue only yesterday. I was unable to see 4GB with a motherboard using an Intel 945 chipset but on with an Intel 965 chipset I was able to see all 4GB just fine using the bigsmp kernel.
I find that XP64 does quite well. I've had it on one of my computers for a year now and have had no driver troubles. That's one thing I think Vista 64 has been for, getting the hardware companies to finally make 64 bit drivers. Also, in comparing my machine with XP64 and the one with Vista 64, the XP64 is much easier to use. Of course, the XP64 does not support gaming with DX10. I'll be building a new office machine during the next month and after using Vista 64 the past few weeks on my gaming machine, I'll install XP64 on the office machine.
As to the article on the ram, I didn't see it answer anything new, only confirm what was already thought. One poorly written part was page 4, "How ram sensitive are different CPUs?" The following paragraph didn't seem to address the opening line at all. Even in the conclusion of the article, there was not much said to answer the question, just an allusion that memory type was was of small relevance to either of the CPUs.
Linux can address more than 3.3GB and beyond with the 32-bit kernel using the same means the Windows Server variants can, by using Extended Memory Addressing, and it's support is dependent on the memory controller and BIOS, as well as the OS.
Here is the article:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/005f921e-f706-401e-abb5-eec42ea0a03e1033.mspx?mfr=true
Scroll down to the "General Improvements and Enhancements" section. It is the second bullet point. Just thought I would point this out seeing as there is a RAM limit with 32-bit XP.
this means that windows will report the 4GB, but you still wont be able to make use of it all.
I was an early adopter of XP64. I figured, AMD 64 4000+ is a 64 bit processor and I should have an OS that ran 64 bit. There are issue still to this day, specially with running dos stuff - but nothing that DOSBox can't get around.
As for drivers, it's a lot better than 2 years ago. I couldn't print, I couldn't use my creative webcam (on of the more expensive ones back in the day) and a couple other devices. Most of drivers I needed are now available, minus any of the scanners I had (Dropped off Goodwill).
According to that document, 32bit Vista will "report" all 4GB. That's not the same thing as being able to fully use 4GB. It was changed to avoid confusion. The available memory limitation still exists.
Is it worth getting 4 1g sticks of DDR2 800MHZ RAM 3-3-3-10
ram can be seen here http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/kingston/low-latency-cas3-ddr2-800/g1.htm
or worth me getting 4 2g sticks of ram like this
http://www.i-tech.com.au/products/23829_Transcend_JM800QLU_2G_2GB_800MHz_PC2.aspx
I was going towards the 4 low latency 1g sticks, but i can get 4 2g sticks of normal latency ddr2800 ram for about the same price which one would i be better off getting?
Despite that, I'd never go back to 32-bit OS's. I have 4 GB of RAM in my system and it screams. I can throw anything at it ( www.PeterSouza.com/computer - specs). I used to have 8 GB, and will again, after having just upgraded from 800 MHz to 1066 MHz DDR.
Every piece of hardware attached to your computer uses part of the address space (32 bits wide in this case), the reason video cards are so famous is because they are the largest subscribers. Windows XP cannot use RAM that is not addressable after all the hardware have been assigned addresses which is the reason it varies.
That means a 1 GB video card takes 1GB out of the address space, not available RAM. The misconception may come from the fact that most video drivers reserve space for transfering data to the video cards in system RAM, and therefor may make it unaddressable to other applications.
1. If you are testing high end memory modules, you should employ high-end processors and even high end system boards. You could try a motherboard which supports 2, 4 or 8 Opterons, for example. In this scenario, in particular with modern Opterons with 8 or 12 cores each, you would have enough processing power demanding memory bandwidth.
2. You could employ test suites specially designed to test several system components. They are specialized applications which employ different methods and algorithms, which provide accurate results in the end. Games load data in the graphic card and simply send commands to them, relieving the CPU (and the main memory) from demanding computations.
The fact you are using mostly games and 'mundane' applications for your tests can make sense to most of your visitors (and I understand what your audience is), but if you'd like to be absolutely fair and accurate in regards to these results, you should consider a professional test suite.