Eight 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Memory Kits For P67 Express, Rounded Up

Name: DDR3-1600 Test Results - Eight 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Memory Kits For P67 Express, Rounded Up
Author: Thomas Soderstrom

by Thomas Soderstrom April 17, 2011 at 11:00 PM

48 Comments

DDR3-1600 Test Results

At DDR3-1600, G.Skill’s 7-8-7-10 latencies are a performance-match to the 7-8-7-8 of Kingston and Geil. It takes the top position, again alphabetically, in a three-way tie.

Even at this lower frequency, DRAM timings are far less restrictive than GPU limitations when games are configured at realistic limits. We like to play games at the limit of our hardware, of course, which is why we didn’t artificially inflate the performance difference by using lower resolutions or visual quality settings.

Previous Next

Summary

About the author

Thomas Soderstrom @hardware_tom

Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.

This thread is closed for comments

48 comments

Comment from the forums

Your comment

James296

now watch as that kingston ram price suddenly jumps up
tacoslave

i miss the days when you could get 4gb of ram for 30 bucks *sigh*
hmp_goose

What happened to "get DDR3-1333 with tight timing: You'll never be able to appreciate `faster' stuff"?

[Brand X] stuff rated 7-7-7-18 ment something, I thought …
werr20

what cpu cooler did you use? because some cpu coolers don't alow big memory ram instal
enforcer22

MMk sorry goose more ram is almost always and i mean 99.99999% better then faster ram i never saw any differences in ram speed turning off t1 and t2 timings slowing it down to a crawl turning off dual channel.. NEVER gave me an effective visual result. But adding more ram always gave me an instant result. I had this same argument with someone last week.. Nice to now have proof he was wrong about faster ram meaning something My ram is rated at 1600 but i have it only set on 1333
dalauder

My DDR3 2000 CL9 runs @ 1915MHz CL6 just fine. And I had some DDR2 800 @ 1010MHz & DDR2 533 @ 727MHz. I think most RAM just OC's nicely. I've also had a few weaker sticks (DDR2 667 that can't go over 727MHz), but it all exceeds posted specs.
CyberAngel

I'm expecting to get my 2*4GB + 2*4GB DDR2 800MHz this week
BUT
If I could do it over again I'd get that overly expensive DDR3 motherboard and just 1GB of RAM then later add more RAM sticks

Whenever DDR4 comes I'll jump in with small sticks and upgrade to more RAM when it gets cheaper (due to 20nm->15nm shrink)
Well, that's when Windows 9 arrives and 16 cores is the mainstream (2017?) I hope I have enough money for 3D projector at QuadHD, 4feet by 8feet white wall...
Onus

I would like to have seen something like the G.Skill Value series tested, but it really looks like RAM just doesn't make all that much difference for games.
ubercake

I know this wasn't the primary focus of the article, though it is a good example of how sending more juice to your RAM and upping the speed on it has no noticeable effect on gaming performance.
gaborbarla

ubercakeI know this wasn't the primary focus of the article, though it is a good example of how sending more juice to your RAM and upping the speed on it has no noticeable effect on gaming performance.

Agreed,

I would like to see a cheaper stick thrown in there like my Kinston Standard 512M X 64 Non-ECC 1333MHz 240-pin Unbuffered DIMM (DDR3, 1.5V, CL9, FBGA, Gold)

These RAMs with 19" Alloy wheels dont really seem to be worth their pricetags.

I think it is safe to say it is better to spend money on a better graphics card or CPU, perhaps a PSU.
Olle P

In the performance tests I notice that the PNY at 1600 performs just as well as the G.Skill at 2133. So from a gaming price/performance point of view cheaper most definitely means better!
hixbot

Overclockers no longer NEED fast RAM. High speed RAM has simply become a bragger's product, since there is little performance increase. K brand 1155 CPUs can easily be overclocked with cheapo value RAM. Stability is the new name of the RAM game.
torque79

Ive never seen any article show that faster ram = any significant change in gaming FPS. Every article completely ignores this, and I've complained multiple times before. The range of prices between RAM in this article is nearly double. Will this net you anywhere near double FPS? not even 25%, I suspect not even 5% difference. I can only imagine buying high end RAM if I just didnt know what to do with all my money, or I were buying a $2000 system.
I don't feel too bad about getting 16GB of the PNY now for $100
Onus

Just bought 8GB of Corsair Vengeance on a Newegg Shellshocker for $75.
JOSHSKORN

Nice, now what about triple channel RAM?
mushkin ?
festerovic

Yeah I was just thinking Mushkin too. I got a 2x4gb silverline ddr1333 set a few months ago for $81 from newegg. I am glad I got that speed and capacity, highly doubtful I will need more RAM before a new CPU, and also, this article suggests that the speed is irrelevant to games and most other tasks.
cadder

Quote:

but it really looks like RAM just doesn't make all that much difference for games

I don't think ram speed makes all that much difference to overall system speed. In the case of overclocking some CPU's you had to have pretty fast ram just to run the system bus up to the speed that you needed, such as with multipliers of 9 or less. Newer CPU's have changed things.
huron

This came at the perfect time...I've been piece-mealilng my new Sandy Bridge system together and this really helps.

Thanks again Toms for another well-tested article. Thinking seriously about those Corsair modules on Shell Shocker now.
dalethepcman

This is a great article, but only valid for people using an unlocked multiplier CPU. For anyone using a standard locked multiplier, CPU (non k/Extreme for Intel, non BE for AMD) Then higher ram speeds are extremly important for overclocking. Increasing the FSB to overclock puts more strain on your ram, so higher binned ram is still needed until AMD/Intel unlock the multipliers of all their CPUs.

Keep in mind readers if you are using a 2600k, then you will get similar results, but don't discount purchasing faster ram if your using a different CPU.
JackNaylorPE

It would appear that we have a situation where people are trying to create absolutes from an article that addresses a specific market segment .... that being those users whose systems are GPU bottlenecked. Granted that probably covers most gamers but not all gamers. Two quotes here negate the "fast memory doesn't matter" for everyone claim.

"Pushing our game settings to realistic limits, we find that the memory bottleneck no longer exists."

"Anyone looking for bigger differences must first create a memory bottleneck by lowering game details and/or resolution, in effect removing the GPU bottleneck that affects a greater number of gamers using real-world settings."

What one must conclude from this is the the fps limit is defined, in this test at least, by the GPU bottleneck. In other words, with the GPU bottleneck below the memory bottleneck, faster RAM won't matter. Upgrade ya GFX situation and the memory bottleneck again may becomes relevant. Based upon this analysis alone, we have no way of knowing other than the author's acknowledgement that memory bottlenecks do exist at other settings.

I don't understand why this would be a big mystery .... if we can accept that some games are CPU bottlenecked and some are GFX bottlenecked, it should be as easy to digest when memory is substituted for CPU. This is supported by the anandtech article where minimum frame rates in Far Cry 2 jumped 23% in SLI but were relatively unchanged with a single card. The GFX card was the bottleneck w/ one card ... upgrade the GFX to two cards and the memory becomes the bottleneck in SLI. I'd expect that's why, in the anandtech test, when memory dropped 2 CAS numbers, there was a 22.3% increase in minimum frame rates.

Simply put, your game experience may be bottlenecked by CPU limitations, GFX limitations or, in some instances, memory limitations .... it will be the weakest link which determines the bottleneck. We can all agree I think that if your GFX card is the "weakest link", getting faster memory is not going to change that.

In most builds, the bottleneck is likely to be the GFX card. But in hi-powered 2 or 3 way SLI / CF situations, your investment in RAM should correspond with your investment in GFX.

In a system w/ say a P8P67 Pro, 2500k and 560 Ti, would I upgrade the RAM from CAS 9 to 7 ? No. In a system w/ a Maximus IV Extreme, 2600k, tri SLI'd 580's would I upgrade the RAM to CAS 7 ? .... certainly.

I should note that I was surprised average frame rates were used instead of minimum frame rates. The anandtech article showed significant impacts on minimum frame rates by lowering CAS .... there was only a small impact on average frame rates there.
Crashman

JackNaylorPEIt would appear that we have a situation where people are trying to create absolutes from an article that addresses a specific market segment .... that being those users whose systems are GPU bottlenecked. Granted that probably covers most gamers but not all gamers. Two quotes here negate the "fast memory doesn't matter" for everyone claim."Pushing our game settings to realistic limits, we find that the memory bottleneck no longer exists.""Anyone looking for bigger differences must first create a memory bottleneck by lowering game details and/or resolution, in effect removing the GPU bottleneck that affects a greater number of gamers using real-world settings."What one must conclude from this is the the fps limit is defined, in this test at least, by the GPU bottleneck. In other words, with the GPU bottleneck below the memory bottleneck, faster RAM won't matter. Upgrade ya GFX situation and the memory bottleneck again may becomes relevant. Based upon this analysis alone, we have no way of knowing other than the author's acknowledgement that memory bottlenecks do exist at other settings. I don't understand why this would be a big mystery .... if we can accept that some games are CPU bottlenecked and some are GFX bottlenecked, it should be as easy to digest when memory is substituted for CPU. This is supported by the anandtech article where minimum frame rates in Far Cry 2 jumped 23% in SLI but were relatively unchanged with a single card. The GFX card was the bottleneck w/ one card ... upgrade the GFX to two cards and the memory becomes the bottleneck in SLI. I'd expect that's why, in the anandtech test, when memory dropped 2 CAS numbers, there was a 22.3% increase in minimum frame rates.Simply put, your game experience may be bottlenecked by CPU limitations, GFX limitations or, in some instances, memory limitations .... it will be the weakest link which determines the bottleneck. We can all agree I think that if your GFX card is the "weakest link", getting faster memory is not going to change that.In most builds, the bottleneck is likely to be the GFX card. But in hi-powered 2 or 3 way SLI / CF situations, your investment in RAM should correspond with your investment in GFX.In a system w/ say a P8P67 Pro, 2500k and 560 Ti, would I upgrade the RAM from CAS 9 to 7 ? No. In a system w/ a Maximus IV Extreme, 2600k, tri SLI'd 580's would I upgrade the RAM to CAS 7 ? .... certainly.I should note that I was surprised average frame rates were used instead of minimum frame rates. The anandtech article showed significant impacts on minimum frame rates by lowering CAS .... there was only a small impact on average frame rates there.

You're right! I've written about the effect of memory bottlenecking in the System Builder Marathon during games, but the systems that showed this effect were all super-high-end CrossFire builds. Far Cry 2 was particularly influenced by memory, but at frame rates so high we dropped the benchmark from the SBM.

Probably would have been good to O/C the CPU higher and use a pair of 6950's. Unfortunately, I don't have a pair of 6950's because...I think the site has a total of four or five of those to spread across four editors in four different locations.
dogofwars

tacoslavei miss the days when you could get 4gb of ram for 30 bucks *sigh*

I am not missing the days when you had to pay 250$ for 4MB!!!