Memory Test Configuration
This comparison of OCZ DDR3-1800 to other DDR3 memory uses a completely different test methodology than the earlier DDR3 reviews. Our reviews of DDR3 vs. DDR2, Intel P35 Memory Performance, Kingston DDR3, and Super Talent and TEAM DDR3-1600 were based on a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz CPU with a common memory speed at 1066 and 1333 speeds. Since ratios were not available for higher speeds like 1600 and 2000 those speeds were achieved by overclocking the base system. This made comparing performance at the same processor speed, a standard procedure in our earlier DDR2 and DDR memory tests, all but impossible. The rapid ramping of DDR3 memory speeds coupled with the lack of ratios made those memory speed comparisons less useful.
New Test Methodology
Readers suggested a number of memory testing ratios and speeds which would allow a better comparison of memory performance. After considering the suggestions and the real ratios available the decision was made to settle on a new 3.0GHz test speed driven by a processor that could deliver multipliers to at least 9X and FSB speeds to 550+. This would allow DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, and DDR3-1333 to be tested at 3.0GHz at 9x333 settings. DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2000 would be tested at 3.0GHz at 6x500.
The requirement of a 9x or higher multiplier combined with the ability to run with stability at a 550+ FSB proved more difficult than anticipated. A very early Intel X6800 had unlocked multipliers but would not even boot above about 450 FSB. A very recent Q6700 met the 9X requirement but topped out in FSB at about 470 stable. Tests by other AnandTech editors confirmed that most quad core processors have a difficult time operating at 500 FSB, let alone the higher 550 requirements for overclocks above DDR3-2000. We finally located a recent X6800 that could do both the 9X multiplier and the 550 FSB requirements. This became our new processor for the memory test bed. Other components remained the same as the earlier DDR3 test bed.
It should be pointed out that the new test bed does use the same processor speed at all tested RAM speeds, but that different FSB speeds are used at low and high memory timings. Testing at the same processor speed does allow a better comparison of isolated memory performance, but it is not an exact apples-to-apples comparison. The variation in FSB speed at the same processor speed does affect the performance of the memory at the higher FSB speeds. This ranges from negligible in some tests to measurable in other benchmarks. For more information on the impact of FSB speed on performance you can refer to Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look.
A true apples-to-apples comparison of memory performance will only be possible when the additional ratios of 1600 and 2000 are available in the BIOS at a base 1333 memory speed. Still, while not perfect, the comparison of all memory speeds at 3.0GHz processor speed is much closer to our testing ideal than the previous test methodology.
All DDR3 Memory Retested
With the change in processor and base speed to 3.0GHz, all DDR3 memory was retested to provide data for comparison of all memory speeds at the same 3.0GHz processor speed. We have established high-performance DDR2 memory performance baselines and we will no longer be actively testing DDR2 memory performance for our DDR3 reviews. You can see the comparison of DDR2 and DDR3 on the next page, DDR2/DDR3 Overlap Speeds. Additional benchmarks were run to provide the most complete comparison at the common RAM speeds of 1066 and 800 MHz.
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. As detailed on the results pages, overlap speeds were tested at 2.66GHz for compatibility with previous results. The DDR3 full performance pages include results at 3.0GHz, and also include a retest of the 1066 and 800 memory speeds at 3.0GHz CPU speeds.
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 FSB processors with the same ratios may be substituted for these processors as soon as they are available, providing they meet the requirements of 9X or greater multiplier and stable operation at 550FSB..
This comparison of OCZ DDR3-1800 to other DDR3 memory uses a completely different test methodology than the earlier DDR3 reviews. Our reviews of DDR3 vs. DDR2, Intel P35 Memory Performance, Kingston DDR3, and Super Talent and TEAM DDR3-1600 were based on a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz CPU with a common memory speed at 1066 and 1333 speeds. Since ratios were not available for higher speeds like 1600 and 2000 those speeds were achieved by overclocking the base system. This made comparing performance at the same processor speed, a standard procedure in our earlier DDR2 and DDR memory tests, all but impossible. The rapid ramping of DDR3 memory speeds coupled with the lack of ratios made those memory speed comparisons less useful.
New Test Methodology
Readers suggested a number of memory testing ratios and speeds which would allow a better comparison of memory performance. After considering the suggestions and the real ratios available the decision was made to settle on a new 3.0GHz test speed driven by a processor that could deliver multipliers to at least 9X and FSB speeds to 550+. This would allow DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, and DDR3-1333 to be tested at 3.0GHz at 9x333 settings. DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2000 would be tested at 3.0GHz at 6x500.
The requirement of a 9x or higher multiplier combined with the ability to run with stability at a 550+ FSB proved more difficult than anticipated. A very early Intel X6800 had unlocked multipliers but would not even boot above about 450 FSB. A very recent Q6700 met the 9X requirement but topped out in FSB at about 470 stable. Tests by other AnandTech editors confirmed that most quad core processors have a difficult time operating at 500 FSB, let alone the higher 550 requirements for overclocks above DDR3-2000. We finally located a recent X6800 that could do both the 9X multiplier and the 550 FSB requirements. This became our new processor for the memory test bed. Other components remained the same as the earlier DDR3 test bed.
It should be pointed out that the new test bed does use the same processor speed at all tested RAM speeds, but that different FSB speeds are used at low and high memory timings. Testing at the same processor speed does allow a better comparison of isolated memory performance, but it is not an exact apples-to-apples comparison. The variation in FSB speed at the same processor speed does affect the performance of the memory at the higher FSB speeds. This ranges from negligible in some tests to measurable in other benchmarks. For more information on the impact of FSB speed on performance you can refer to Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look.
A true apples-to-apples comparison of memory performance will only be possible when the additional ratios of 1600 and 2000 are available in the BIOS at a base 1333 memory speed. Still, while not perfect, the comparison of all memory speeds at 3.0GHz processor speed is much closer to our testing ideal than the previous test methodology.
All DDR3 Memory Retested
With the change in processor and base speed to 3.0GHz, all DDR3 memory was retested to provide data for comparison of all memory speeds at the same 3.0GHz processor speed. We have established high-performance DDR2 memory performance baselines and we will no longer be actively testing DDR2 memory performance for our DDR3 reviews. You can see the comparison of DDR2 and DDR3 on the next page, DDR2/DDR3 Overlap Speeds. Additional benchmarks were run to provide the most complete comparison at the common RAM speeds of 1066 and 800 MHz.
| Memory Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 (x2, 2.93GHz unlocked, 4MB Unified Cache) 9x333 - 3.0 GHz 8x500 - 3.0 GHz |
| RAM | OCZ PC3-14400 Platinum (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1800 8-8-8) 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 |
| 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. As detailed on the results pages, overlap speeds were tested at 2.66GHz for compatibility with previous results. The DDR3 full performance pages include results at 3.0GHz, and also include a retest of the 1066 and 800 memory speeds at 3.0GHz CPU speeds.
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 FSB processors with the same ratios may be substituted for these processors as soon as they are available, providing they meet the requirements of 9X or greater multiplier and stable operation at 550FSB..
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
Mithan - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I am guessing these games were run at 800x600, which is fairly standard for memory tests?IF that is the case, then all this article does is prove once again why over-spending on memory is not the best use of your dollars (except in the case of over-clocking)
My point is this:
Farcry going from 112 to 122 FPS is probably being done at 800x600 or 1024x768.
Bump that resolution up to 1600x1200 or 1920x1200, and that becomes 1 or 2 frames per second difference.
My point is that the article should articulate this difference better.
MadBoris - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
From a testing perspective of any hardware among each other, you have to isolate and remove the other bottlenecks. That should be done and is of course common sense. As you state, the main goal of these types of articles should at their very foundation stay focused on real world performance impact. Otherwise it looks too much like technology promotion and they lose their actual value to the reader. They don't have to go "real world" overboard, but I think that should be the consistent goal of hardware reviews.
Test info would be nice.
In the same vein of real world impact, the comparison should never have been between DDR3@800 compared to DDR3@2000. That's not even really applicable, the upgrade path isn't from DDR3 800, so I am not sure why the particular comparison was even made. The comparison at the very least, needs to be to current DDR2 offerings. The best case performance that DDR3 can provide right now is actually around 3 - 5 percent from current DDR2 offerings under those specific game tests (as I mentioned earlier), whatever those settings were.
Obviously testing these memory comparisons isn't simple from an apples to apples standpoint especially with limited time, so I am just glad Anandtech is getting in there and doing the testing and making their findings known. :)
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Factoring in the slower performance of current 965/975 boards on p.4 of the article, you will see that DDR3-800 on the P35 clearly beats DDR2-800 on the P965 platform. In fact, DDR3 is generally faster than DDR2-1066 at 4-4-3 timings on the P965 (the only exception being Far Cry). Taking that into account our broad statement that current DDR3 can provide as much as an 8% to 10% real world performance improvement over current DDR2 systems is certainly fair.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
DDR2-800 is the fastest official JEDEC spec for DDR2, and memory running at 3-3-3 at that resolution is common among better DDR2. It is among the fastest DDR2 performance due to the fast timings. The fastest DDR2 can reach 1066 at slower timings but it cannot reach 1333.Similarly we would compare to DDR-400 at 2-2-2 looking at DDR, since this was the fastest JEDEC speed looking back at DDR. DDR3 starts at 800 and goes officially at the present time to DDR3-1600. It will likley go higher in the future.
We have compared DDR3 to one of the fastest DDR2 memories ever made at the fastest timings available for DDR2 at both 800 and 1066 in the overlap speed results on p. 4. We also did not really factor in the fact that DDR2 runs slower on the P965, P975, and other current boards than it does on the DDR2 version of the current P35 chipset.
NegativeEntropy - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
I read through the article and (quickly) double checked the test config and gaming pages, but I did not see the settings the games were tested at?Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
All games were run at 1280x1024. That has been in past commentary, but was dropped somewhere along the way. We will add that info to the game results page.Jodiuh - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Unfortunately, you're right in the $$ issues. Those of us that would be willing to pay 2-3 times the amount for 10% gaming improvement would be better off w/ a better GPU, or even a Q66/X32 CPU for games like Supcom.Would you mind guessing what perf improvement would come from running @ say 1600x1200 or greater + 8xQ/6x AA? It'd be even less, no?
chizow - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Another underwhelming and unnecessary "update" to memory specifications. Just another example of the memory mfgs and motherboard makers forcing people to upgrade every few years for marginal performance gains. Oh well, good news is DDR2 is dirt cheap and has been for a while.LTG - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
I started the complaint thread last time about the lack of comparable results, so I want to say this time:Great work, excellent article.
I was a little taken aback by your heated reaction to criticism, due to the fact that I didn't provide the solution, but hey, that's kind of human nature and I'm sure I've done it before.
The main point here is that AT not only has the best writers of any tech site, but also the only site where they are not afraid to allow feedback and actually engage debate on the issues.
Tech articles are near impossible to get perfect, because there is so many details to know and new things are discovered across the net every hour. But don't every get discouraged, the effort is all appreciated.
LTG
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link
Thank you for your comments. They are sincerely appreciated.