Super Talent & TEAM: DDR3-1600 Is Here!
by Wesley Fink on July 20, 2007 11:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Overclocking
The best way to illustrate the significance of these two new DDR3-1600 memories is to show how fast they can go and the aggressive timings each memory can run at these high speeds. The highest overclock that could be reached with stability with any tested DDR3 previously was with Kingston DDR3-1375 which reached DDR3-1520 at 9-8-8-22 timings at 1.8V. Perhaps more significant the Kingston ran DDR3-1500 at 7-7-7 timings with complete stability.
The TEAM DDRIII 1600 may be rated at 9-9-9-timings, but it reached DDR3-1600 at 7-6-5-15 timings and then went on to stable performance on our test bed at DDR3-1900. Even more impressive is the Super Talent DDR3-1600, which did the same 7-6-5-15 timings at DDR3-1600, but went even further at the top to a stable DDR3-2000 at 9-8-7 timings at 2.25V. The Super Talent topped out at DDR3-2008, but test results were all but identical to the DDR3-2000 results and are not reported.
Advances in memory technology are rarely as dramatic as the speed and timing improvements we are seeing here with Micron Z9 memory chips. For reference we included our ongoing overclocking chart results for DDR2 just so you can see how significant the new Micron Z9 memory really is. The highest DDR2 we have ever tested is an OCZ memory at 1315 in an EVGA 680i motherboard. Early DDR3-1066 reached a bit higher as in the typical 1370 achieved with the launch Corsair DDR3-1066. Timings, however, were somewhat slow. Then the Kingston HyperX pushed 7-7-7 timings all the way to DDR3-1500. Now, less than 2 months later state-of-the-art DDR3 is reaching DDR3-2000+ at aggressive timings. This kind of progress in memory technology makes the original JEDEC target of 800 to 1600 for DDR3 speeds now appear far too limited.
Super Pi
In Kingston Launches Low-Latency DDR3 memory performance was compared at 800, 1066, 1333, and highest memory speed we could reach. With the introduction of higher speed DDR3 the 800 MHz memory speed will be dropped from comparisons. If you are interested in DDR2-800 or DDR3-800 performance for comparison please refer to the Kingston review. In all cases, P965 and P35-DDR2, the performance of the DDR2 Corsair Dominator was highest at DDR2-1066
For this and subsequent DDR3 reviews performance will be compared at 1066, 1333, 1600, 1666 (the next 1333 memory speed), 2000, and the highest memory speed for the tested memory. 1000 is the logical base for the 333 strap but 1066 is the more familiar reference speed. We will use 1066 as the base comparison with a possible change to 1000 base speed in the future.
To look at pure number crunching, Super Pi 1.5 was run in all memory test configurations. Super Pi is a very simple program as it merely calculates the value of Pi to a designated number of decimal positions. In this case we chose 2 million places.
The lower latency of the new DDR3-1600 kits make it the clear performance leader in Super Pi results - from 1066 all the way to the fastest DDR3-2000. This is certainly a change from earlier DDR3 numberr crunching tests where Super Pi was fastest at 1066 on the P35 DDR2 platforms, with the P965 running the same memory close behind, and DDR3 further back in the performance pack. Lower Latency DDR3 now has DDR3 at the top in number crunching at all speeds. We speculated in our Kingston review that lower latency DDR3 would likely overtake DDR2 performance in the future - even at overlap speeds. It appears that DDR3-1066 at 5-4-3 timings is low enough to move DDR3 to the top in Super Pi.
It is interesting that the Kingston DDR3-1375 nearly closed the gap with the fastest 3-3-3 DDR2 memory available, and the DDR3-1600 kits finally pass the fastest DDR2. This clearly demonstrates you will not have to give up a thing with DDR3 in the overlap speeds and you will gain 1333 and higher speeds as well. The only current roadblock to DDR3 is the high price of admission. .
The best way to illustrate the significance of these two new DDR3-1600 memories is to show how fast they can go and the aggressive timings each memory can run at these high speeds. The highest overclock that could be reached with stability with any tested DDR3 previously was with Kingston DDR3-1375 which reached DDR3-1520 at 9-8-8-22 timings at 1.8V. Perhaps more significant the Kingston ran DDR3-1500 at 7-7-7 timings with complete stability.
The TEAM DDRIII 1600 may be rated at 9-9-9-timings, but it reached DDR3-1600 at 7-6-5-15 timings and then went on to stable performance on our test bed at DDR3-1900. Even more impressive is the Super Talent DDR3-1600, which did the same 7-6-5-15 timings at DDR3-1600, but went even further at the top to a stable DDR3-2000 at 9-8-7 timings at 2.25V. The Super Talent topped out at DDR3-2008, but test results were all but identical to the DDR3-2000 results and are not reported.
Advances in memory technology are rarely as dramatic as the speed and timing improvements we are seeing here with Micron Z9 memory chips. For reference we included our ongoing overclocking chart results for DDR2 just so you can see how significant the new Micron Z9 memory really is. The highest DDR2 we have ever tested is an OCZ memory at 1315 in an EVGA 680i motherboard. Early DDR3-1066 reached a bit higher as in the typical 1370 achieved with the launch Corsair DDR3-1066. Timings, however, were somewhat slow. Then the Kingston HyperX pushed 7-7-7 timings all the way to DDR3-1500. Now, less than 2 months later state-of-the-art DDR3 is reaching DDR3-2000+ at aggressive timings. This kind of progress in memory technology makes the original JEDEC target of 800 to 1600 for DDR3 speeds now appear far too limited.
Super Pi
In Kingston Launches Low-Latency DDR3 memory performance was compared at 800, 1066, 1333, and highest memory speed we could reach. With the introduction of higher speed DDR3 the 800 MHz memory speed will be dropped from comparisons. If you are interested in DDR2-800 or DDR3-800 performance for comparison please refer to the Kingston review. In all cases, P965 and P35-DDR2, the performance of the DDR2 Corsair Dominator was highest at DDR2-1066
For this and subsequent DDR3 reviews performance will be compared at 1066, 1333, 1600, 1666 (the next 1333 memory speed), 2000, and the highest memory speed for the tested memory. 1000 is the logical base for the 333 strap but 1066 is the more familiar reference speed. We will use 1066 as the base comparison with a possible change to 1000 base speed in the future.
To look at pure number crunching, Super Pi 1.5 was run in all memory test configurations. Super Pi is a very simple program as it merely calculates the value of Pi to a designated number of decimal positions. In this case we chose 2 million places.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
The lower latency of the new DDR3-1600 kits make it the clear performance leader in Super Pi results - from 1066 all the way to the fastest DDR3-2000. This is certainly a change from earlier DDR3 numberr crunching tests where Super Pi was fastest at 1066 on the P35 DDR2 platforms, with the P965 running the same memory close behind, and DDR3 further back in the performance pack. Lower Latency DDR3 now has DDR3 at the top in number crunching at all speeds. We speculated in our Kingston review that lower latency DDR3 would likely overtake DDR2 performance in the future - even at overlap speeds. It appears that DDR3-1066 at 5-4-3 timings is low enough to move DDR3 to the top in Super Pi.
It is interesting that the Kingston DDR3-1375 nearly closed the gap with the fastest 3-3-3 DDR2 memory available, and the DDR3-1600 kits finally pass the fastest DDR2. This clearly demonstrates you will not have to give up a thing with DDR3 in the overlap speeds and you will gain 1333 and higher speeds as well. The only current roadblock to DDR3 is the high price of admission. .
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.