Trending

DDR3 Memory: What Makes Performance Better?

By ,

What makes one memory platform better than the other? In this article we go through benchmark testing and analysis to give you an idea of what you can expect from different DRAM sets running on Intel and AMD so you can get the best DDR3 performance.

Intel Test Results

WinRAR File Compression

In the testing, using WinRAR, I compressed a 6.97GB video file. The time differential was minor across the sets. As would be expected, two of the CL10 sets came out on top and were three of the top four sets. I also did the same with the DRAM at 1600/9.

Getting back to numbers: With file compression, the sets ranged from a top score of 3:06 (by the G.Skill Trident X sticks) to the slowest of 3:31. With the DRAM running at 1600, the times ranged from a fast time of 4:01 to a slow time of 4:32. Moving to 16GB of DRAM at 2400, the best time was 3:31, and the worst was 3:51. Then, at the 8GB level, still at 2400, the times ranged from 4:16 to 4:39.

Geekbench 3.2.2 Pro

Geekbench, using the overall scoring for both single- and multi-core scoring:

Latency And Bandwidth

I used AIDA64 Engineer Edition to test DRAM latency as well read/write scores.  

Aggregated Memory

Si-Sandra was used to get an Aggregated Memory Score in GB/s.

DDR3-2400DDR3-1600
31.3 to 31.9 MB/s20.41 to 21.23 MB/s

PassMark Performance

PassMark Performance Test was used to provide scores for a composite memory score from all the tests, as well as what the company calls a Database Operations score:

73 Comments Comment from the forums
  • blackmagnum 20 March 2015 07:08
    Since the dawn of computer memory: Faster data rates=More access latency.
    Reply
  • Damn_Rookie 20 March 2015 07:16
    It's great to see you getting the chance to do some articles on here, Tradesman1 Jim :)
    Reply
  • PaulBags 20 March 2015 08:16
    Interesting. I'll be coming back here several times over the next several months, as I save up for & consider options for a new computer. Good to know 2x 2 stick kits arn't nessicarily equal to a 4 stick kit, and annoying since I don't see many 4 stick kits in local online stores.

    Also good to know frequency has such a measurable impact on compression, I probably don't need fancy high freq ram but now I'm going to be more annoyed my budget won't allow it.

    Thanks for the ponderous read! :)
    Reply
  • Cryio 20 March 2015 08:35
    This was such an eye opening read. Until now I though different ram frequencies really didn't amount to much. By those times in multitasking ? Wow.
    Reply
  • damric 20 March 2015 08:36
    Thanks Tman. Looks like you really worked your butt off in this testing.
    Reply
  • Crashman 20 March 2015 10:31
    15517997 said:
    Since the dawn of computer memory: Faster data rates=More access latency.
    Nope. Latency stays roughly the same while clock cycles speed up. DDR3-1333 CAS 6 and DDR3-2666 CAS 12 have the same latency in nanoseconds, the number of cycles doubles while each cycle occurs in half the time.

    Reply
  • synphul 20 March 2015 11:11
    Pretty good review, made for a fun read. I'm still amazed at the ram incompatibility when mixing different sets. I know it exists, it's not the first time people have experienced this. I've mixed various ram just on a roll of the dice and I guess I've been lucky. The brand mixing was random. When upgrading one system from ddr2 to ddr3 I threw 2x2gb of patriot in with 2x2gb of geil evo one without issue. When upgrading one of these systems and adding ram, I added 2x4gb of team zeus at 1600mhz with 2x4gb of geil evo corsa at 1333mhz and just let the motherboard configure it and match to the lower speeds/settings. No issues with either.
    Reply
  • xFolterknechtx 20 March 2015 11:26
    1.65V sticks on Z87/97 boards? I think the upper limit Intel mentioned in their white paper for Ivy and Haswell was something around 1.55 - 1.575V for DRAM voltage.

    Do what you want with your hardware guys, but I ll stay clear of these voltages.
    Reply
  • Pierre Olivier Vidal 20 March 2015 11:54
    I have 2 questions for future articles.
    1 - Why do memory control sugest no higher voltage then 1.65V yet my DRAM says it can handle up to 2.4V and why would they make a DRAM capable of handling 2.4V if no memory control can push safely over 1.65V? ( I'm runing on Kingston Beast 32GB 2400MHz )
    2 - Why is there some DRAMs that are not compatible with some motherboards, what makes it compatible or not?
    Reply
  • Onus 20 March 2015 13:01
    I would hate to risk shortening the life of an expensive Intel CPU by running more than 1.6V through its IMC. You raised it to 1.7??
    Reply