Super Talent & TEAM: DDR3-1600 Is Here!
by Wesley Fink on July 20, 2007 11:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Memory Test Configuration
The comparison of the two new DDR3-1600 memories used exactly the same components as our first reviews of DDR3 in DDR3 vs. DDR2, Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look, and Kingston Launches Low-Latency DDR3. The same test bed was used wherever possible. DDR2 memory performance baselines have been established and DDR2 memory performance will no longer be actively tested for our DDR3 reviews. With that in mind the bench processor has been changed to the Core 2 Duo E6420, which uses the same 4MB of unified cache as the top line C2D processors. With a ratio of 8 it is very easy to run 8x333 or our base 2.66 GHz with this CPU, merely by selecting the 333 strap and FSB on the test bed ASUS P5K3 Deluxe motherboard. This CPU can also handle FSB speeds to 500 and more (memory to DDR3-2000+) within the available 6 to 8x ratios at default voltage.
It is very difficult not to digress into a sidebar on Intel Core 2 overclocking when working with this CPU. The cost was just $183 and it will be replaced by the E6750 1333 FSB CPU at the same $183. Our 6420 runs 8x266 (2.13GHz), 8x333 (2.66 GHz), 8x417 (3.33 GHz) and 7x500 (3.5GHz) all at the default voltage setting. This covers up to DDR3-2000 at the 333 strap, and we hope the upcoming E6750 will perform just as well in our test bed as a replacement. This is a retail chip bought from an etailer and not an Intel-supplied processor.
Just six weeks after the introduction of P35 we already need a new chipset - or at least some serious work on DDR3 ratios. The ease of testing with the first DDR3 was the availability of a 1333 ratio on the P35-based ASUS P5K3 Deluxe. This meant we could select a stock speed like 2.66GHz and test various memory speeds at the same CPU speed. Unfortunately there is no 1600 (or 1666) ratio available on the P5K3 Deluxe or other P35 boards we have been testing. We need this ratio, since DDR3-1600, and DDR3-2000 are about to be common memory speeds. The only way you can test these memory speeds without a ratio is to overclock the CPU. Also the unfortunate reality of the 333 multiplier for a 1333 bus speed is that it is almost impossible to devise ratios and speeds that will allow realistic memory testing at the same processor speed.
As a result, until we get new chipsets and/or a BIOS with added ratios we are back to testing memory above 1333 speed at overclocked settings instead of the same processor speeds. This makes isolation of memory speed as the only test variable in memory reviews virtually impossible above the 1333 ratio. Motherboards need DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2000 ratios now that these memory speeds are on the market. We have a quick request/question for motherboard makers and Intel: if you can fix this ratio issue with BIOS updates please do so; if not, will this be one of the features of the upcoming X38 chipset?
Past performance tests of DDR2 memory on the Intel P965 and P35-DDR2 platforms are included for comparison. All current memory tests use the Intel P35-DDR3 test bed (ASUS P5K3 Deluxe) with the DDR3 memory under evaluation. The CPUs listed above in our table are 1066 FSB processors, but all ran fine at 1333 FSB at default multiplier and default voltage. New 1333 bus processors with the same ratios will be substituted for these processors as soon as they are available.
The comparison of the two new DDR3-1600 memories used exactly the same components as our first reviews of DDR3 in DDR3 vs. DDR2, Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look, and Kingston Launches Low-Latency DDR3. The same test bed was used wherever possible. DDR2 memory performance baselines have been established and DDR2 memory performance will no longer be actively tested for our DDR3 reviews. With that in mind the bench processor has been changed to the Core 2 Duo E6420, which uses the same 4MB of unified cache as the top line C2D processors. With a ratio of 8 it is very easy to run 8x333 or our base 2.66 GHz with this CPU, merely by selecting the 333 strap and FSB on the test bed ASUS P5K3 Deluxe motherboard. This CPU can also handle FSB speeds to 500 and more (memory to DDR3-2000+) within the available 6 to 8x ratios at default voltage.
It is very difficult not to digress into a sidebar on Intel Core 2 overclocking when working with this CPU. The cost was just $183 and it will be replaced by the E6750 1333 FSB CPU at the same $183. Our 6420 runs 8x266 (2.13GHz), 8x333 (2.66 GHz), 8x417 (3.33 GHz) and 7x500 (3.5GHz) all at the default voltage setting. This covers up to DDR3-2000 at the 333 strap, and we hope the upcoming E6750 will perform just as well in our test bed as a replacement. This is a retail chip bought from an etailer and not an Intel-supplied processor.
Just six weeks after the introduction of P35 we already need a new chipset - or at least some serious work on DDR3 ratios. The ease of testing with the first DDR3 was the availability of a 1333 ratio on the P35-based ASUS P5K3 Deluxe. This meant we could select a stock speed like 2.66GHz and test various memory speeds at the same CPU speed. Unfortunately there is no 1600 (or 1666) ratio available on the P5K3 Deluxe or other P35 boards we have been testing. We need this ratio, since DDR3-1600, and DDR3-2000 are about to be common memory speeds. The only way you can test these memory speeds without a ratio is to overclock the CPU. Also the unfortunate reality of the 333 multiplier for a 1333 bus speed is that it is almost impossible to devise ratios and speeds that will allow realistic memory testing at the same processor speed.
As a result, until we get new chipsets and/or a BIOS with added ratios we are back to testing memory above 1333 speed at overclocked settings instead of the same processor speeds. This makes isolation of memory speed as the only test variable in memory reviews virtually impossible above the 1333 ratio. Motherboards need DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2000 ratios now that these memory speeds are on the market. We have a quick request/question for motherboard makers and Intel: if you can fix this ratio issue with BIOS updates please do so; if not, will this be one of the features of the upcoming X38 chipset?
| Memory Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 (x2, 2.13GHz unlocked, 4MB Unified Cache) 8x266 - 2.13 GHz 8x333 - 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 (x2, 2.93GHz unlocked, 4MB Unified Cache) 10x266 - 2.66 GHz 8x333 - 2.66GHz |
| RAM | Super Talent W1600UX2G7 (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1600 7-7-7) Team TXD31924M1600HC9 (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1600 9-9-9) Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2 (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1333 7-7-7) Corsair CM3X1024-1066C7 (2GB Kit - 2x1GB- DDR3-1066 7-7-7) Corsair Dominator CM2X1024-8888C4 (2GB Kit - 2x1GB - DDR2-1250 5-5-5) |
| Hard Drive | Samsung 250GB SATA2 enabled (8MB Buffer) |
| System Platform Drivers | Intel - 8.3.0.1013 |
| Video Card | Leadtek WinFast 7950GT - 256MB |
| All Standard Tests | |
| Video Drivers | NVIDIA 93.71 |
| CPU Cooling | Intel Retail HSF |
| Power Supply | Corsair HX620W |
| Motherboards | ASUS P5K3 Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR3) ASUS P5K Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR2) ASUS P5B Deluxe (Intel P965 DDR2) |
| BIOS Revision | 0604 (6/26/2007) |
| Operating System | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
Past performance tests of DDR2 memory on the Intel P965 and P35-DDR2 platforms are included for comparison. All current memory tests use the Intel P35-DDR3 test bed (ASUS P5K3 Deluxe) with the DDR3 memory under evaluation. The CPUs listed above in our table are 1066 FSB processors, but all ran fine at 1333 FSB at default multiplier and default voltage. New 1333 bus processors with the same ratios will be substituted for these processors as soon as they are available.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link
1333 and 1066 are both at 2.66GHz - which was the best we could do. We would definitely prefer to compare ALL memory speeds at the same CPU frequency as we have done in all memory testing in the past. However, as we point out in the article, with just a 1333 strap and a 333 multiplier it just isn't possible. With boards with 1600.166 and possibly 2000 atraps we can do fixed CPU speed and varied memory speed again.Suggestions for test speeds are welcomed.
rjm55 - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link
I can see where a 1600 strap is now almost a must on motherboards with these new 1600 kits. Does anyone know of ANY Intel P35 motherboard that has support for the 1600 or 1666 strap?LTG - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link
Please cite an example of "break though performance".
It seems any benchmark gains were largely due to CPU speed differences.
Wesley Fink - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link
I consider almost doubling memory speed in less than 2 months qualifies as breakthrough, just as a 6 GHz CPU would be a breakthrough. It is true that memory is just one component in overall performance and that the impact of doubling memory speed is definitely not the same as doubling CPU speed or doubling video speed would be. That still does not change the fact that the Z9 chips are a significant memory development.It is also true that potential gains are dampened by the current lack of straps above 1333 for DDR3. However, those will come sooner, rather than later, now that memory exists that can run at 1600/1666 and 2000.
LTG - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link
Well, you still didn't answer the question so I'll repeat:Whats one single example of "breakthrough performance" provided by this memory?
Wait, let's make it easier - shouldn't the article provide any examples of significant performance differences at the same CPU speed (aside from artificial benchmarks)?
bryanW1995 - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link
A 50% increase in memory speed is not "breakthrough"? This is enthusiast/overclocking memory, it's not designed for the wannabe. Which one are you?DigitalFreak - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link
It's not when there is only a minuscule real world performance increase. It's the same situation as the P4 clock speed crap. The P4 may have run at 3.6Ghz, but it was still bested by an A64 running a Ghz or more slower.TA152H - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link
The fallacy with your argument is that the tests presented do not include every "real world" situation (no amount of tests could), and there will be situations where the extra memory performance will exhibit extraordinary improvements, depending on the software. I was not crazy about their choice of operating systems either, and you would expect the memory difference to be more in Vista than in XP, simply because Vista uses more memory and resources, and should have a lower cache hit percentage.It's also useful within a hardware context too, not everyone will be buying a Core 2 with 4 MB cache. Right now, yes, it will be what most people get, but when AMD goes to DDR3, and DDR3 prices drop so it becomes mainstream, it will be used on systems with a smaller cache and you'll see a better improvement in speed. So, it's informative.
Also consider that DDR3 does all this with lower voltages than DDR2, so is meaningful in a performance/watt criteria.
If all you are walking away with is a 2.5% improvement with a huge increase in cost, that's not much of interest because it's not worth it for most people. But, extrapolate from that in terms of different hardware and software, and the incredible changes in DDR3 performance lately, as well as the inevitable price drops, and you might get more value out of the review.
DDR2 is obsolete. I said it a month ago, and I'm saying it again. It's low cost, but the performance is not there. It is fading fast (even faster than I thought, to be honest). In less than a month it went from being very competitive in performance and much lower cost against a technology that was showing potential but little real world current value, to already being a low cost, low performance alternative. It is not power efficient either, so all that remains to happen for DDR3 is for the price points to drop. Obviously, the performance delta will increase, but it's already better at that. Reviews like this are useful in that they show this to be true and they will give you a way to plan your next system, or perhaps put off a system purchase until a better time.
Would you buy a DDR2 based system now? It would be like buying a DX9 based video card. Why buy obsolescence when already the next generation is showing real improvements. Time will make the differences greater.
strikeback03 - Monday, July 23, 2007 - link
Speaking of voltage, no complaints over the 2.25V they used with the Super Talent DDR3? You complained about 1.7 volts in the Kingston article after all.And the comparison with DX9 video cards is not a great once for making your point either, as you already know that most people who comment here disagree with you on that point as well.
domski - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link
Do you have any real-world power consumption figures to back up these assertions?
Don't get me wrong -- I believe you. But I would be interested to see the magnitude of the difference in both absolute power consumption and performance per watt.