Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    ROG Guru: Grand Master Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Reputation
    335
    Posts
    14,863

    Testing The Impact Of Ultra-High-Speed Memory On X299 Performance

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-Performance-On-X299-1.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	382.8 KB 
ID:	67589

    Continuous improvement drives the PC hardware industry forward. Take DDR4 memory, for instance. When it was introduced on the desktop, memory kits operated at a frequency of 2133MHz. Clock speeds increased incrementally over time, and nowadays, the top DDR4 kits can reach up to 4133MHz and beyond. But how much does faster memory really matter on a high-end desktop platform like Intelís X299? We plugged a stack of DDR4-4133 sticks into ROGís new Strix X399-E Gaming motherboard to find out.


    Plotting the path to DDR4-4133

    Before diving into performance, letís take a retrospective look at the evolution of DDR4 memory support on Intel processors. Haswell-E was the first to adopt DDR4 memory in 2014. The technology was still in diapers at the time, and Intel officially supported speeds up to 2133MHz. While you could still push the memory frequency higher through overclocking, success was hit or miss.

    The maximum officially supported speed remained unchanged when Intel launched its Skylake CPUs the following year. But the integrated memory controller in those chips was clearly stronger, and it wasnít unusual to see enthusiasts running high-speed kits ranging from DDR4-3200 all the way up to DDR4-3866. Released in early 2017, Kaby Lake brought the first change to Intelís CPU specs, with the stock memory speed bumped from 2133MHz to 2400MHz. Although this wasnít an earth-shattering breakthrough, it was satisfying to see progress being made. Just a few months later, Kaby Lake-X and Skylake-X processors arrived with memory controllers tuned for DDR4-2666, which is where we stand today.

    DDR4-2666 may be a step up from previous implementations, but itís still far from the top speeds available with the fastest kits. The question is whether itís worth spending more on higher-frequency RAM.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-Performance-On-X299-3.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	243.5 KB 
ID:	67591

    Corsairís high-end Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-4133 (CMK32GX4M4E4133C19R) memory kit will help us find some answers. It comes with 19-26-26-45-2T timings and operates at a voltage of 1.4V. Underneath the bright red heat spreaders are delicious Samsung B-Die DDR4 chips that are notorious for scaling to high frequencies and handling lots of voltage.

    The quad-channel kit provides one module for each memory channel on our Intel Core i7-7820X octa-core CPU. With double the number of DRAM channels available in Intelís mainstream desktop processors, this Skylake-X chip isnít exactly starved for memory bandwidth at stock speeds. Higher DDR4 frequencies may have less impact as a result.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-Performance-On-X299-2.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	1.74 MB 
ID:	67590

    The ROG Strix X299-E Gaming motherboard served as the foundation of our test system because it supports DDR4 memory speeds up to 4133MHz right out of the box. We got our Vengeance LPX kit up to the advertised speed with ease; all we had to do was select the appropriate XMP profile in the UEFI BIOS, and the motherboard took care of the rest.

    On this platform, BCLK adjustments are mandatory for memory speeds of DDR4-4133 and higher. The board automatically increased the BCLK to 103.4MHz, which overclocked our i7-7820X CPU slightly, from 4.5GHz to 4.653GHz. To avoid giving that setup an unfair advantage, we used the same BCLK throughout our testing.

    We tested performance at DDR4-2666 and DDR4-4133 speeds in various scenarios, including synthetic tests, real-world usage, and gaming. For DDR4-4133, we used the Corsair kitís default 19-26-26-45-2T timings. But we tightened those latencies to 15-15-15-35-2T when running at DDR4-2666, because those are the most common timings for kits at that speed.


    Test system and methodology

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-Performance-On-X299-4.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	1.79 MB 
ID:	67592

    CPU: Intel Core i7-7820X
    CPU Cooler: EKWB Predator 240
    Motherboard: ASUS Strix X299-E Gaming
    Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB (4 x 8GB) 4133MHz
    Storage: PNY CS1311 960GB
    Video Card: ROG Strix GTX 1080 Ti
    Power Supply: Seasonic Prime 750W
    Operating System: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit with Creators Update
    Drivers: NVIDIA 385.28 WHQL
    Display: ROG Swift PG27AQ

    We updated our benchmark software and game clients to the latest available versions before testing. For games, we tested at 1920 x 1080 resolution with a Strix GTX 1080 Ti to ensure there was no graphics bottleneck. The only in-game option we disabled was V-Sync. We used Fraps to capture individual frame times and then converted the data to FPS for easy interpretation.


    AIDA64

    Enthusiasts and overclockers embrace AIDA64 for evaluating memory bandwidth. The test does a good job of assessing read, write, and copy performance, so itís a fitting place to start.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-5.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	8.9 KB 
ID:	67593

    The results reveal the advantage of running faster memory. Write performance benefitted the most with a 43.5% increase going from DDR4-2666 to DDR4-4133. Read and copy performance increased by 27.7% and 26.8%, respectively.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-6.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	5.6 KB 
ID:	67594

    The impact on memory latency was less impressive, with only a 9.1% reduction. Having to run the DDR4-4133 setup with looser timings likely contributed to the smaller difference here.


    SiSoftware Sandra

    Sandra is another popular utility for benchmarking system performance. Its memory benchmark is based on STREAM and measures sustained memory bandwidth instead of burst or peak speed.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-7.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	10.9 KB 
ID:	67595

    Looking closely at the graph, you can see a consistent performance increase in each case. The improvements are all within 21.5-23.5%.


    ROG RealBench

    Synthetic tests can be great for showing performance gains, but the results donít always translate to real-world usage. For a better sense of performance with everyday scenarios, we used ROG RealBench to test the impact of faster memory on image editing, video encoding, and general multitasking.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-8.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	9.5 KB 
ID:	67596

    RealBench yielded mixed results. Image editing performance improved by 10%, while heavy multitasking registered a modest 3.4% boost. Video encoding performance wasnít affected.


    ATTO Disk Benchmark

    With eight DRAM slots, the Strix X299-E Gaming lets you stick an insane amount of memory into your motherboard. It supports up to 128GB of DDR4, so running a RAM drive doesnít sound like a ludicrous idea at all. We installed the latest revision of ROG RAMDisk II and created a 16GB RAM drive to evaluate the impact of faster memory when itís configured as storage. ATTO measures read and write performance across different block sizes.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-9.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	16.2 KB 
ID:	67597

    Faster memory had little impact on write speeds with the really small blocks, from 512B through 64KB, and with extremely large blocks, from 16MB up. The results bookended by those ranges are more mixed, with DDR4-4133 slightly ahead with some block sizes but trailing behind with others. Itís worth noting that the transfer rates are much lower than what we saw in the memory benchmarks, so frequency may not be the bottleneck here.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-10.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	15.9 KB 
ID:	67598

    Read performance was consistent from 512B to 2KB, but the DDR4-4133 config surged ahead from there up to 64KB. DDR4-2666 came out ahead with most of the larger block sizes, although performance clearly plateaued for both setups. Again, overall speeds were much lower than in the memory benchmarks.


    CrystalDiskMark

    CrystalDiskMark is useful for testing the sequential and random performance of storage devices like our RAM drive.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-11.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	9.5 KB 
ID:	67599

    Peak throughput was once again much lower than what we observed in synthetic memory benchmarks, suggesting that frequency didnít bottleneck the performance of our RAM drive. The results were very close, with DDR4-2666 actually pulling slightly ahead in a couple tests.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-12.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	9.4 KB 
ID:	67600

    CrystalDiskMark logged much higher sequential speeds with writes than with reads, but they were still well below the peak bandwidth measured in previous synthetic tests. This benchmark was basically unaffected by the systemís memory speed.


    Overwatch

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-13.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	23.8 KB 
ID:	67601

    While increasing the memory speed to 4133MHz didnít impact the average frame rate in Overwatch, the performance from frame to frame was more consistent, with tighter oscillation between highs and lows. Switching to DDR4-4133 also raised the minimum frame rate from 127 to 140 FPS.


    PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-14.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	28.6 KB 
ID:	67602

    For the most part, frame rates in PUBG were a lot higher with DDR4-4133 compared to DDR4-2666. Gameplay felt smoother, and the average frame rate was 11% higher with the faster RAM.


    Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-15.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	67603

    Memory speed has no effect on Wildlands performance. Frame rates and variance are similar for both memory configurations.

  2. #2
    ROG Guru: Grand Master Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Reputation
    335
    Posts
    14,863

    Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-16.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	30.5 KB 
ID:	67604

    In Dawn of War III, the DDR4-4133 configuration registered slightly higher frame rates. The average increased by 7.7%, and the dips weren’t as low as with DDR4-2666. Faster memory didn’t eliminate occasional frame drops completely, though.


    The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-17.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	36.2 KB 
ID:	67605

    We didn’t notice any memory-related changes in performance in The Witcher 3.


    Crysis 3

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Testing-The-Impact-Of-Ultra-High-Speed-Memory-On-X299-Performance-18.gif 
Views:	0 
Size:	38.2 KB 
ID:	67606

    In Crysis 3, frame rates oscillated slightly more with DDR4-2666. The minimum and average frame rates were largely unaffected by the memory speed, though.


    Conclusion

    Common sense tells us that faster is better. That statement remains true in most circumstances, but we must look at different angles when we evaluate memory performance. Our tests show that jumping from DDR4-2666 to DDR4-4133 produces big gains in synthetic benchmarks. However, there’s less of an advantage with real-world workloads, if there’s any impact at all. That’s the case with Skylake-X and Intel’s X299 platform, at least. Memory speed can make a bigger difference on other platforms, especially in dual-channel configurations with less bandwidth overall.

    For X299, most users should prioritize memory capacity over speed. Separate the part of your budget that’s reserved for memory and pick the capacity that matches how you plan to use the system; content creators and power users should have more memory, while gamers can get away with less. Once you’ve decided on the capacity, purchase the fastest kit your budget allows.

  3. #3
    Moderator Array Nate152 PC Specs
    Nate152 PC Specs
    MotherboardROG Maximus IX Code
    Processori7-7700k 5.2GHz Delidded
    Memory (part number)Kingston HyperX Predator 16GB 3000MHz 15-15-15-35-1T
    Graphics Card #1Titan Xp - EKFC waterblock
    Sound CardROG SupremeFX 2015
    MonitorHP ZR30w
    Storage #1Toshiba OCZ VX500 256GB
    CPU CoolerSwiftech Apogee GTZ
    CaseThermaltake Armor+ VH6000
    Power SupplyPC Power & Cooling Turbo Cool 1200w
    Keyboard Razer Anansi
    Mouse Logitech G500
    Headset Plantronics Gamecom 380
    OS Windows 10 Home 64 bit
    Accessory #1 Asus optical drive
    Accessory #2 Koolance ERM-2K3U
    Nate152's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Reputation
    271
    Posts
    14,881

    Hi Chino

    Alot of testing went on here I see, nicely done.

    So faster ram can increase performance in some games with the biggest gain being with Minimum FPS.

  4. #4
    New ROGer Array YC2CHUR PC Specs
    YC2CHUR PC Specs
    MotherboardX370 Crosshair
    Processor1800X
    Graphics Card #1GTX 1080Ti Strix
    Sound Cardx-fi hd
    Storage #1samsung 850 pro
    CPU Coolernzxt x62
    Power Supplyevga 850p2
    Mouse g900
    Mouse Pad firefly
    OS windows 10 RS2
    Network RouterR7000

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    10

    Your Memory Latancy is too High

    4000-17-17-15-36-1T (tRFC : 305, tRFE : 32767)

    AIDA64 Memory Benchmark
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5?(49.7)ASUS.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	171.0 KB 
ID:	67636

    My System Memory Latancy : 49.7 (4000Mhz C17)
    Your Testsetup Memory Latancy : 71.6 (4133Mhz C19)


    RealBench
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	????48??193,238.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	95.8 KB 
ID:	67637

    My System Realbench Encoding : 23,9077 (4000Mhz C17)
    Your Teststeup Realbench Encoding : 30,8062 (4133Mhz C19)


    More Important Memory Latancy
    Last edited by YC2CHUR; 09-23-2017 at 01:27 PM.

  5. #5
    ROG Guru: Black Belt Array Korth PC Specs
    Korth PC Specs
    MotherboardASUS X99 R5E (BIOS2101/1902)
    ProcessorHaswell-EP E5-1680-3 SR20H/R2 (4.4GHz)
    Memory (part number)Vengeance LPX 4x8GB SS DDR4-3000 (CMK32GX4M4C3000C15)
    Graphics Card #1NVIDIA Quadro GP100GL/16GB, 16xPCIe3, NVLink1 (SLI-HB)
    Graphics Card #2NVIDIA Quadro GP100GL/16GB, 16xPCIe3, NVLink1 (SLI-HB)
    Sound CardJDS Labs O2+ODAC (RevB), USB2 UAC1
    MonitorASUS PG278Q
    Storage #1Samsung 850 PRO 512GB SSDs, 4xSATA3 RAID0
    Storage #2Comay BladeDrive E28 3200GB SSD, 8xPCIe2
    CPU CoolerRaijintek NEMESIS/TISIS, AS5, 2xNH-A14
    CaseObsidian 750D (original), 6xNH-A14
    Power SupplyZalman/FSP ZM1250 Platinum
    Headset Pilot P51 PTT *modded*
    OS Arch, Gentoo, Win7x64, Win10x64
    Network RouterActiontec T3200M VDSL2 Gateway
    Accessory #1 TP-Link AC1900 Archer T9E, 1xPCIe
    Accessory #2 ASUS/Infineon SLB9635 TPM (TT1.2/FW3.19)
    Accessory #3 ASUS OC Panel I (FW0501)
    Korth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Reputation
    95
    Posts
    2,106

    Impressive article, Chino.

    Your benchmarks for Overwatch, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and good old Crysis 3 measure how faster memory affects fps. And produce results comparable to how a dedicated PhysX GPU generally affects fps. Not necessarily "more" fps or "higher" maximum/minimum/average fps - but typically more "steady" fps, less jitter and stutter, fewer bursts and dips (or at least a smaller range with less extreme variation between extremes). The actual "experience" varies from game to game but (I find) tends to be smoother, more consistent, more enjoyable. You don't need to brace yourself for a sudden fps drop every time you fire a barrage of complex particles, you don't need to be frustrated by jerky interface and volatile fps swings whenever rockets and grenades start to fly, when a "steady" fps flow matters the most.

    What you didn't explicitly mention is that a high speed DDR4 can work at it's advertised speed ... but it probably won't. Anything faster than the CPU's JEDEC speed ("only" DDR4-2666 for SKL-X and KBL-X) is overspec, overclock, no guarantees. The faster the overclock the fewer parts (and the worse odds for your parts) can run stable, and only a tiny minority of parts can run stable memory speeds at the uppermost extreme (currently around DDR4-4133). We know that. But too many people buying DDR4 don't, they pay extreme prices for extreme memory - "common sense tells us that faster is better", yes - but most people often find their extreme-rated DDR4 won't actually run at the speeds it promised.

    I blame the motherboard OEMs (including ASUS) a little, although they do notate "O.C." on their faster-than-JEDEC specs and they do provide extensive user settings in BIOS alongside somewhat decent smart/automated overclocking software for less-advanced users. I blame the memory OEMs a lot, Corsair and G.Skill and all the rest, since the prices consumers pay are based on the ratings these OEMs provide.

    It's not that hard to run higher-speed DDR4 on a quality motherboard. If you're prepared to read some guides and know some stuff and put some time into it. It's hard to achieve stable epic overclocks with extreme-speed DDR4. Consumers who want to have (and pay a lot for) the very best and very fastest killer gaming computer are often disappointed that their memory is "broken" or "defective" right out of the box.

    All that being said, I sort of dispute your advice to budget more on memory capacity than on memory speed. I'd say 16GB is plenty for any of the games you benched above, even at "lowly" DDR4-2666 speeds (although faster is better, until it ramps prices exponentially). The rest of the budget is better allocated towards getting faster GPU card(s) or faster CPU.
    "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams

    [/Korth]

  6. #6
    ROG Guru: Black Belt Array JustinThyme PC Specs
    JustinThyme PC Specs
    Laptop (Model)G752VY-DH72
    MotherboardRampage VI Extreme
    ProcessorI9 7900X at 5.0Ghz
    Memory (part number)64GB DDR4 8x8 Corsair Dominator Platinum 3800 MHz @ C17
    Graphics Card #1ASUS Strix 1080 Ti @ 2.1Ghz
    Graphics Card #2ASUS Strix 1080 Ti @ 2.1Ghz
    Sound CardExternal Audioengine D1 24 bit 192kbps DAC
    MonitorASUS PG348Q @ 100Hz
    Storage #11TB Samsung 960 pro
    Storage #2Samsung 850 EVO 1TB X2 in RAID 0
    CPU CoolerEK RVIE Monoblock, EK Strix Nickel, EK back plates. Dual D5 PWM serial, 2x480, 1x240, 1x360 RADS
    CaseCorsair Obsidian 900D
    Power SupplyCorsair AX 1500i
    Keyboard ASUS Claymore
    Mouse ASUS Spatha
    Headset Sennheiser HD 700
    Mouse Pad ASUS ROG Sheath
    Headset/Speakers Audioengine A5+ with SVS SB-1000 Sub
    OS Win10 Pro
    Network RouterASUS RT‑AC5300
    Accessory #1 ASUS PCE-AC88 WiFi card AC3100
    JustinThyme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Princeton
    Reputation
    114
    Posts
    2,469

    Korth, I think you missed Chinos point by your last paragraph. What he was getting at was depending on your heaviest use to budget capacity over speed and specifically stated gaming only rigs can get by with less. Me I run minimum 64GB for my heavy workloads like raw photo batch processing and video encoding where 16GB is a joke and will slow the process horrendously. I've also noted by personal experience that faster clock speed is not always better. The latency plays just as much of a roll as the clock cycles do. What good is having a clock cycle that's twice as fast if the latency is waiting for twice as long to commit a charge?
    ďTwo things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, I'm not sure about the formerĒ ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    ROG Guru: Black Belt Array Korth PC Specs
    Korth PC Specs
    MotherboardASUS X99 R5E (BIOS2101/1902)
    ProcessorHaswell-EP E5-1680-3 SR20H/R2 (4.4GHz)
    Memory (part number)Vengeance LPX 4x8GB SS DDR4-3000 (CMK32GX4M4C3000C15)
    Graphics Card #1NVIDIA Quadro GP100GL/16GB, 16xPCIe3, NVLink1 (SLI-HB)
    Graphics Card #2NVIDIA Quadro GP100GL/16GB, 16xPCIe3, NVLink1 (SLI-HB)
    Sound CardJDS Labs O2+ODAC (RevB), USB2 UAC1
    MonitorASUS PG278Q
    Storage #1Samsung 850 PRO 512GB SSDs, 4xSATA3 RAID0
    Storage #2Comay BladeDrive E28 3200GB SSD, 8xPCIe2
    CPU CoolerRaijintek NEMESIS/TISIS, AS5, 2xNH-A14
    CaseObsidian 750D (original), 6xNH-A14
    Power SupplyZalman/FSP ZM1250 Platinum
    Headset Pilot P51 PTT *modded*
    OS Arch, Gentoo, Win7x64, Win10x64
    Network RouterActiontec T3200M VDSL2 Gateway
    Accessory #1 TP-Link AC1900 Archer T9E, 1xPCIe
    Accessory #2 ASUS/Infineon SLB9635 TPM (TT1.2/FW3.19)
    Accessory #3 ASUS OC Panel I (FW0501)
    Korth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Reputation
    95
    Posts
    2,106

    @JustinThyme -

    Chino's summary: "[X299] content creators and power users should have more memory, while gamers can get away with less ... pick the capacity that matches how you plan to use the system ... once you've decided on the capacity, purchase the fastest kit your budget allows."

    My response: "I'd say 16GB is plenty for any of the games ... even at "lowly" DDR4-2666 speeds ... the rest of the budget is better allocated towards getting faster GPU card(s) or faster CPU."

    Your heavy workloads require a "minimum 64GB" because "16GB is a joke and will slow the process horrendously". My situation is similar. While we do use our systems for gaming we didn't allocate our budgets/priorities to gaming.

    But gamers only need 16GB. There is quite seriously no need (and little ability) to fill up more memory unless running games (and operating systems) in multiple VMs or using tons of RAMDisk/RAMCache to fill it all up. So a gamer should choose 16GB capacity, then purchase the fastest kit budget allows.

    My argument is that prices of faster memory slide ever upwards along an exponential curve. The most extreme fast top-end memory kit can cost as much as an entire computer in itself, each rung down from the top of the ladder drops the price by hundreds of dollars. While at the low-end the price curve is flatter, it's good practice to buy the fastest memory kit which hasn't begun the steep price climb. Definitely worth paying five or ten bucks more for DDR4-2666 instead of DDR4-2400. But the rest of the budget, for gamers, is generally far better allocated towards faster GPU/CPU than on faster memory - assuming it's about getting maximum performance on a budget, buying the specs which really matter the most.

    You bring up good points about latencies. It's much less of an issue on quad-channel architectures which already (nearly) double total memory bandwidth. I never liked the high-latencies married to high-frequencies in DDR4, everybody handwaves them under "real performances" measured on synthetic benchmark scores. But these latencies do have "real performance" impacts on some kinds of work, at least with some kinds of hardware. I'm still experimenting to find the "best" balance with my Quadro cards, very finicky things when installed on a consumer platform.
    "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams

    [/Korth]

  8. #8
    ROG Enthusiast Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    74

    Quote Originally Posted by YC2CHUR View Post
    4000-17-17-15-36-1T (tRFC : 305, tRFE : 32767)

    AIDA64 Memory Benchmark
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5?(49.7)ASUS.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	171.0 KB 
ID:	67636

    My System Memory Latancy : 49.7 (4000Mhz C17)
    Your Testsetup Memory Latancy : 71.6 (4133Mhz C19)


    RealBench
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	????48??193,238.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	95.8 KB 
ID:	67637

    My System Realbench Encoding : 23,9077 (4000Mhz C17)
    Your Teststeup Realbench Encoding : 30,8062 (4133Mhz C19)


    More Important Memory Latancy
    Your latency gain was from outofspec tref/trfc and rtl pairing with your cas and mesh clock. Most of your latency gain was from mesh clock and tref. Not much to do with ram speed entirely.,

    His testing method is correct as its purely on ram speed for x299.*

    i7 4790k@4.7ghz 1.28v||Asus Maximus VI Extreme||Zotac GTX Titan X Sli||Corsair Dominator Platinum 2400mhz 4x8gb 10-12-12-31-1T[/color]||Corsair Neutron GTX 240gb x 2 + Crucial MX100 512gb x 2||Creative Soundblaster Zx||WD Black 2tb & 2x1tb||Ek Supremacy Nickel Acetal+EK M6e Nickel Acetal+EK Titan X Nickel Acetal + Ek Red Backplate+Ek Dual D5 Top & 150 X3 Res+HWLABS GTX Nemesis 560+280+6xNoctua Redux 1500rpm||Corsair AX1200+Corsair Red Sleeves||Silverstone Temjin 11

  9. #9
    ROG Guru: Brown Belt Array Vlada011 PC Specs
    Vlada011 PC Specs
    MotherboardRampage V Extreme (BIOS 0603)
    ProcessorIntelģi7-5820K (4.2GHz 1.200V)
    Memory (part number)CMD16GX4M4A2666C15
    Graphics Card #1EVGA GTX780Ti K|NGP|N
    Sound CardSound Blaster ZxR
    MonitorSamsung P2450H
    Storage #1Force GT 120 GB
    Storage #2Samsung 850 EVO 1TB
    CPU CoolerCORSAIR H100
    CaseObsidian 650D
    Power SupplyEVGA 1200 P2
    Keyboard Deck 87 Francium PRO - DS PBT
    Mouse Logitech G700
    Mouse Pad Razer Goliathus
    Headset/Speakers CREATIVE T5900 5.1
    OS Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Accessory #1 My dear little iPhone SE Space Grey
    Vlada011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Belgrade
    Reputation
    16
    Posts
    1,028

    Quote Originally Posted by Nate152 View Post
    Hi Chino

    Alot of testing went on here I see, nicely done.

    So faster ram can increase performance in some games with the biggest gain being with Minimum FPS.

    That's important, min fps increase much slower than max.
    That could prevent stuttering and similar issues and make games more fluid.

    X299 have nice memory speed improvements compare to X99.
    APEX have 4 DIMM slots and I saw on GSkill sites some insane fast QVL memories, both are 32GB but extremely expensive.

    F4-4133C19Q-32GTZKKF Black
    F4-4133C19Q-32GTZSWF Silver


    Definitely worth upgrade from X99 but more for i9-7900X and up.
    i7-7820X would be great for us with smaller budget, bad because Intel didn't want to offer full PCI-E lanes.


  10. #10
    ROG Guru: Black Belt Array JustinThyme PC Specs
    JustinThyme PC Specs
    Laptop (Model)G752VY-DH72
    MotherboardRampage VI Extreme
    ProcessorI9 7900X at 5.0Ghz
    Memory (part number)64GB DDR4 8x8 Corsair Dominator Platinum 3800 MHz @ C17
    Graphics Card #1ASUS Strix 1080 Ti @ 2.1Ghz
    Graphics Card #2ASUS Strix 1080 Ti @ 2.1Ghz
    Sound CardExternal Audioengine D1 24 bit 192kbps DAC
    MonitorASUS PG348Q @ 100Hz
    Storage #11TB Samsung 960 pro
    Storage #2Samsung 850 EVO 1TB X2 in RAID 0
    CPU CoolerEK RVIE Monoblock, EK Strix Nickel, EK back plates. Dual D5 PWM serial, 2x480, 1x240, 1x360 RADS
    CaseCorsair Obsidian 900D
    Power SupplyCorsair AX 1500i
    Keyboard ASUS Claymore
    Mouse ASUS Spatha
    Headset Sennheiser HD 700
    Mouse Pad ASUS ROG Sheath
    Headset/Speakers Audioengine A5+ with SVS SB-1000 Sub
    OS Win10 Pro
    Network RouterASUS RT‑AC5300
    Accessory #1 ASUS PCE-AC88 WiFi card AC3100
    JustinThyme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Princeton
    Reputation
    114
    Posts
    2,469

    Quote Originally Posted by Korth View Post
    @JustinThyme -

    Chino's summary: "[X299] content creators and power users should have more memory, while gamers can get away with less ... pick the capacity that matches how you plan to use the system ... once you've decided on the capacity, purchase the fastest kit your budget allows."

    My response: "I'd say 16GB is plenty for any of the games ... even at "lowly" DDR4-2666 speeds ... the rest of the budget is better allocated towards getting faster GPU card(s) or faster CPU."

    Your heavy workloads require a "minimum 64GB" because "16GB is a joke and will slow the process horrendously". My situation is similar. While we do use our systems for gaming we didn't allocate our budgets/priorities to gaming.

    But gamers only need 16GB. There is quite seriously no need (and little ability) to fill up more memory unless running games (and operating systems) in multiple VMs or using tons of RAMDisk/RAMCache to fill it all up. So a gamer should choose 16GB capacity, then purchase the fastest kit budget allows.

    My argument is that prices of faster memory slide ever upwards along an exponential curve. The most extreme fast top-end memory kit can cost as much as an entire computer in itself, each rung down from the top of the ladder drops the price by hundreds of dollars. While at the low-end the price curve is flatter, it's good practice to buy the fastest memory kit which hasn't begun the steep price climb. Definitely worth paying five or ten bucks more for DDR4-2666 instead of DDR4-2400. But the rest of the budget, for gamers, is generally far better allocated towards faster GPU/CPU than on faster memory - assuming it's about getting maximum performance on a budget, buying the specs which really matter the most.

    You bring up good points about latencies. It's much less of an issue on quad-channel architectures which already (nearly) double total memory bandwidth. I never liked the high-latencies married to high-frequencies in DDR4, everybody handwaves them under "real performances" measured on synthetic benchmark scores. But these latencies do have "real performance" impacts on some kinds of work, at least with some kinds of hardware. I'm still experimenting to find the "best" balance with my Quadro cards, very finicky things when installed on a consumer platform.

    I don't think we are understanding each other very well.
    1st and foremost if you just dumped $3K+ on an X299 rig whats another couple hundred bucks for the best ram you can get?

    I need the capacity but what is missing from a lot of memory discussion is the real factor of how with increased speed the latency also increases. It does no good to have all the clock cycles if you spent them waiting to commit a charge.

    Just one example same manufacturer Gskill Trident Z

    3200 MHz CL 13
    13/3200x1000=4.06 milliseconds

    3466 MHz CL 14
    14/3466x1000=4.03 milliseconds

    4266 MHz CL 19
    19/4266x1000=4.45 milliseconds

    This was just a quick grab some results are even more extreme but in this case the 3200 MHz and 3466 MHz memory are actually faster then the 4266 by nearly 10%.

    Compare any of these to Chinos test sample and they are all faster.

    Corsair 4133MHz CL 19
    19/4133x1000=4.59 milliseconds.

    In the end, speed and throughput isn't about clock speeds. One must take all the attributes into account and do the math.
    ďTwo things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, I'm not sure about the formerĒ ~ Albert Einstein

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •