- May 4, 2000
- 16,068
- 7,380
- 146
So, just to get a general feel on what most people here feel about memory scaling (all memory, but specifically DDR4 since it's the newest mainstream type).
Like other users I still see who are active here, I have been a member at this site for 16 years. What prompted me to join this site over all the various discussion boards at the time, was the extremely knowledgeable members and at the time, a POS Abit BP6 motherboard I couldn't get stable to save my life.
I came here and learned a lot by being open-minded, and by mostly staying out of the sub-forums like video cards and off-topic where arguing never ended, and where bans were given out like candy.
Now, to the question that I have been thinking about since I had a member 'inform' me that almost all the memory scaling reviews over the last 20 years are not only inaccurate, but seemed to think they were misleading their readers.
The standard memory review takes one motherboard, let's say one based on the z170 chipset. They then run synthetic, gaming, and real-life benchmarks to show what actual performance you would actually see going from say DDR4 2133 to DDR4 3200. And honestly, outside of the synthetic benchmarks that showed the much bigger bandwith, the actual performance increase was always something like MAYBE 3%.
During this 'informing' talk I had, I am now told that it isn't the actual real-world performance you would see, sort off. I was told that it "increases the efficiency of the CPU and is comparable to overclocking a CPU" and some other stuff. Another member suggested the only accurate method to testing RAM was using 'frame time variance'.
My argument is, if I overclock a i7-6700k and then run benchmarks, it usually shows a clear improvement in speed or performance, outside of a benchmark being GPU or disk limited. I also agree if DDR4 3200 is $10 more than DDR4 2133, then it makes sense to get it. I'm talking about paying 2x more for 'gaming' RAM or DDR4000 when a person isn't chasing benchmark scores or bragging rights.
So old timers, have we been misled by all these sites over the years, who have done review after review after review showing there is very little performance increase for most people outside of enthusiasts?
What say you?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8959/...3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/10
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1478-page6.html
http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...nding-the-best-ddr4-memory-kit-speed_170340/6
Like other users I still see who are active here, I have been a member at this site for 16 years. What prompted me to join this site over all the various discussion boards at the time, was the extremely knowledgeable members and at the time, a POS Abit BP6 motherboard I couldn't get stable to save my life.
I came here and learned a lot by being open-minded, and by mostly staying out of the sub-forums like video cards and off-topic where arguing never ended, and where bans were given out like candy.
Now, to the question that I have been thinking about since I had a member 'inform' me that almost all the memory scaling reviews over the last 20 years are not only inaccurate, but seemed to think they were misleading their readers.
The standard memory review takes one motherboard, let's say one based on the z170 chipset. They then run synthetic, gaming, and real-life benchmarks to show what actual performance you would actually see going from say DDR4 2133 to DDR4 3200. And honestly, outside of the synthetic benchmarks that showed the much bigger bandwith, the actual performance increase was always something like MAYBE 3%.
During this 'informing' talk I had, I am now told that it isn't the actual real-world performance you would see, sort off. I was told that it "increases the efficiency of the CPU and is comparable to overclocking a CPU" and some other stuff. Another member suggested the only accurate method to testing RAM was using 'frame time variance'.
My argument is, if I overclock a i7-6700k and then run benchmarks, it usually shows a clear improvement in speed or performance, outside of a benchmark being GPU or disk limited. I also agree if DDR4 3200 is $10 more than DDR4 2133, then it makes sense to get it. I'm talking about paying 2x more for 'gaming' RAM or DDR4000 when a person isn't chasing benchmark scores or bragging rights.
So old timers, have we been misled by all these sites over the years, who have done review after review after review showing there is very little performance increase for most people outside of enthusiasts?
What say you?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8959/...3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/10
For professional users, we saw a number of benefits moving to the higher memory ranges, although for only very minor performance gains. Cinebench R15 gave 2%, 7-zip gave 2% and our fluid dynamics Linux benchmark was up +4.3%. The only true benchmark where 2800+ memory made a significant difference was in Redis, which is a scalable database memory-key store benchmark. Only users with specific needs would need to consider this.
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1478-page6.html
Though the testing for this investigation was brutally tedious, the results were satisfyingly conclusive. On Skylake systems, the type of memory used is only important if you lean heavily on the integrated graphics chip. If this is the case, opting for a single stick rather than a pair of DIMMs in dual channel is a critical mistake that can cost more than 30% performance. Frequency is relevant as well with 3000 MHz offering around 10% improvement over 2133 MHz. The difference between C12 and C15 is negligible and should be ignored unless the price differential is minimal.
On the otherhand, if you only use the integrated graphics for pedestrian uses like video playback or if a discrete video card is to be utilized, the speed and latency of the system memory is inconsequential. Our general performance tests results depict the highest performing settings as having a one third of one percent advantage overall.
http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...nding-the-best-ddr4-memory-kit-speed_170340/6
Our benchmarks show that the memory bandwidth increased, but there wasnt a tangible improvement in system performance with real applications. We ran other applications and game titles when we tested this memory kit and you mostly ended up with flat performance charts like you saw in Handbrake or any of the game titles that we tested today
Read more at http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...memory-kit-speed_170340/6#rdJCdcMW725LDhYK.99