Results: Battlefield 3
The AMD platform isn’t stable at the DDR3-2400 settings supported by Adata and Patriot, so we can ignore those two XMP readings and be thankful that Battlefield 3 performs similarly at DDR3-2133. Un-charted DDR3-1600 CAS 11 reached a mere 36 FPS.
Poor Intel. Its fastest desktop integrated graphics engine is so much weaker that its superior memory controller can’t compensate. Battlefield 3 scaling gets squished into a somewhat-playable 33 to 36 frames per second.
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...
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.
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?
I almost think Nvidia and Intel had some nice discussions and deals to keep Iris out of the desktop.
Just a hunch...
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.