One of the most important kits in this review is the DDR3-1600 kit for which G.Skill has supplied one of their RipjawsX range.  This kit is of importance due to the close price differential to the DDR3-1333 kit ($5 difference), but also as generations of processors go forward we get an ever increasing suggested memory speed of those processors.  Take the most recent AMD Trinity processor release for desktops – all but the low end processor supports 1866 MHz memory as the standard out of the box.  Now we can be assured that almost all of the processors will do 2133 MHz, but as manufacturers raise that ‘minimum’ compliance barrier in their testing on their IMCs, the ‘standard’ memory kit has to be faster and come down in price also.

Visual Inspection

The RipjawsX kit we have uses a large heatsink design, with the top of the heatsink protruding 9.5mm above the module itself.  As mentioned with the Ares DDR3-1333 kit, there are multiple reasons for why heatsinks are used, and pretty low on that list is for cooling.  More likely these are placed initially for protecting which ICs are used in the kit from the competition (using a screwdriver and a heatgun to remove them usually breaks an IC on board), then also for aesthetics. 

The heatsink for RipjawsX uses a series of straight lines as part of the look, which may or may not be beneficial when putting them into a system with a large air cooler.  Here I put one module into a miniITX board, the Gigabyte H77N-WiFi, with a stupidly large and heavy air cooler, the TRUE Copper:

As we can see, the cooler would be great with the Ares kit, but not so much with the RipjawsX.  The kit will still work in the memory slot like this, though for piece of mind I would prefer it to be vertical.  As we will see with the TridentX (the 2400 MHz kit), sometimes having a removable top end heatsink helps.

JEDEC + XMP Settings

G.Skill
Kit Speed 1333 1600 1866 2133 2400
Subtimings 9-9-9-24 2T 9-9-9-24 2T 9-10-9-28 2T 9-11-10-28 2T 10-12-12-31 2T
Price $75 $80 $95 $130 $145
XMP No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Size 4 x 4 GB 4 x 4 GB 4 x 4 GB 4 x 4 GB 4 x 4 GB

MHz 1333 1600 1867 2134 2401
Voltage 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.650 1.650
tCL 9 9 9 9 10
tRCD 9 9 10 11 12
tRP 9 9 9 10 12
tRAS 24 24 28 28 31
tRC 33 33 37 38 43
tWR 10 12 14 16 16
tRRD 4 5 5 6 7/6
tRFC 107 128 150 171 313
tWTR 5 6 8/7 9/8 10/9
tRTP 5 6 8/7 9/8 10/9
tFAW 20 24 24 25 26
tCWL - 7 7 7 7
CR - 2 2 2 2

 

F3-1333C9Q-16GAO: 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ares Kit F3-14900CL9Q-16GBSR: 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Sniper Kit
POST A COMMENT

113 Comments

View All Comments

  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    While interesting from a theoretical standpoint. I would have been more interested in a comparison in laptops using HD4000 vs A10 to see if one is more dependent on fast memory than others. To be blunt, I dont really care much about the IGP on a 3770K. It would have been a more interesting comparison in laptops where the igp might actually be used for gaming. I guess maybe it would have been more difficult to do with changing memory around so much in a laptop though.

    The other thing is I would have liked to see the difference in games at playable frame rates. Does it really matter if you get 5.5 or 5.9 fps? It is a slideshow anyway. My interest is if using higher speed memory could have moved a game from unplayable to playable at a particular setting or allowed moving up to higher settings in a game that was playable.
    Reply
  • mmonnin03 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    RAM by definition is Random Access which means no matter where the data is on the module the access time is the same. It doesn't matter if two bytes are on the same row or on a different bank or on a different chip on the module, the access time is the same. There is no sequential or random difference with RAM. The only difference between the different rated sticks are short/long reads, not random or sequential and any reference to random/sequential reads should be removed. Reply
  • Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    You're joking right? :p Reply
  • mmonnin03 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    Well if the next commenter below says their memory knowledge went up by 10x they probably believe RAM reads are different depending on whether they are random or sequential. Reply
  • nafhan - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    "Random access" means that data can be accessed randomly as opposed to just sequentially. That's it. The term is a relic of an era where sequential storage was the norm.

    Hard drives and CD's are both random access devices, and they are both much faster on sequential reads. An example of sequential storage would be a tape backup drive.
    Reply
  • mmonnin03 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    RAM is direct access, no sequential or randomness about it. Access time is the same anywhere on the module.
    XX reads the same as

    X
    X

    Where X is a piece of data and they are laid out in columns/rows.
    Both are separate commands and incure the same latencies.
    Reply
  • extide - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    No, you are wrong. Period. nafhan's post is correct. Reply
  • menting - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    no, mmonnin03 is more correct.
    DRAM has the same latency (relatively speaking.. it's faster by a little for the bits closer to the address decoder) for anywhere in the memory, as defined by the tAA spec for reads. For writes it's not as easy to determine since it's internal, but can be guessed from the tRC spec.

    The only time that DRAM reads can be faster for consecutive reads, and considered "sequential" is if you open a row, and continue to read all the columns in that row before precharging, because the command would be Activate, Read, Read, Read .... Read, Precharge, whereas a "random access" will most likely be Activate, Read, Precharge most of the time.

    The article is misleading, using "sequential reads" in the article. There is really no "sequential", because depending if you are sequential in row, column, or bank, you get totally different results.
    Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    I say mmonnin03 is precisely wrong when he claims that " no matter where the data is on the module the access time is the same".

    The read latency can vary by about a factor of 3 times whether the read is from an already open row, or whether the desired read comes from a different row than one already open.

    That makes a big difference in total read time, especially if you are reading all the bytes in a page.
    Reply
  • menting - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link

    no. he is correct.
    if every read has the conditions set up equally (ie the parameters are the same, only the address is not), then the access time is the same.

    so if address A is from a row that is already open, the time to read that address is the same as address B, if B from a row that is already open

    you cannot have a valid comparison if you don't keep the conditions the same between 2 addresses. It's almost like saying the latency is different between 2 reads because they were measured at different PVT corners.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now