Memory Performance: 16GB DDR3-1333 to DDR3-2400 on Ivy Bridge IGP with G.Skill
by Ian Cutress on October 18, 2012 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
- G.Skill
- Ivy Bridge
- DDR3
Market Positioning
Over recent years the price of DDR3 memory kits has hit record lows quarter on quarter. This means that profit margins for companies are also getting smaller and smaller – it becomes hard to differentiate yourself as a product line on price alone. This is the reason why a lot of the kits we have looked at today are designed to be visually eye catching – having either colored heatsinks, detachable heatsinks or shaped designs.
The pricing for each of the kits are as follows:
$75: Ares DDR3-1333 9-9-9 4x4 GB
$80: RipjawsX DDR3-1600 9-9-9 4x4 GB
$95: Sniper DDR3-1866 9-10-9 4x4 GB
$130: RipjawsZ DDR3-2133 9-11-10 4x4 GB
$145: TridentX DDR3-2400 10-12-12 4x4 GB
The margin between the 1333 MHz and 1600 MHz kits is $5, and as such would only be differentiated between tight budget constraints, bulk sales or aesthetic looks. The jump up to 1866 MHz is slightly more, but going up to DDR3-2133 and beyond is a significant jump in price, indicative of the binning process required for these higher end modules. The testing in this review will show if the leap up to DDR3-2133 memory is proportionally a good idea.
Test Bed
| Test Bed | |
| Processor |
i7-3770K @ 4.4 GHz 4 Cores / 8 Threads |
| Motherboard | ASUS P8Z77-V Premium |
| Memory |
G.Skill 1333 MHz 9-9-9-24 1.5V 4x4GB Kit G.Skill 1600 MHz 9-9-9-24 1.5V 4x4GB Kit G.Skill 1866 MHz 9-10-9-28 1.5V 4x4GB Kit G.Skill 2133 MHz 9-11-10-28 1.65V 4x4GB Kit G.Skill 2400 MHz 10-12-12-31 1.65V 4x4GB Kit |
| CPU Cooler | Intel Stock Cooler |
| Graphics Cards |
Intel HD4000 ECS GTX580 |
| Power Supply | Rosewill SilentNight 500W Platinum |
| Storage | OCZ Vertex3 240GB |
| SATA 6Gbps to USB 3.0 | Thermaltake BlacX 5G Docking Station |
| Thunderbolt Device | Lacie Little Big Disk 240GB |
| Test Bench | Coolermaster Test Bed |
| Operating System | Windows 7 x64 Ultimate |
Many thanks to...
We must thank the following companies for kindly donating hardware for our test bed:
OCZ for donating the USB testing SSD
G.Skill for donating our memory kits
ASUS for donating the IO testing kit
ECS for donating NVIDIA GPUs
Rosewill for donating the Power Supply
I would like to extend thanks for Rosewill, as this is the first review we have used their new SilentNight 500W Platinum power supply. I first saw this bit of kit at Computex – a silent power supply capable of 500W and Platinum certified sounds like a great bit of kit and it was flawless during out testing. When I received the power supply I made an unboxing video before it went on sale:
It currently retails for $180 on Newegg.
ASUS MemTweakIt
With our overview of the ASUS Republic of Gamers range of products, one piece of software caught my eye while I was testing. The ASUS MemTweakIt allows for almost complete control of the memory subtimings while in the OS, such that users can optimize their settings for memory reads, memory writes, or for pushing the boundaries. The upshot of this software in our context is that it takes all the sub-timings and settings and condenses them into a score. As the memory kits we test contain XMP profiles, these profiles determine a large majority of the sub-timings on the kit and how aggressive a memory manufacturer is. We should see this represented in our MemTweakIt score.
As we do not know the formula by which ASUS calculates this value, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It could be weighted in favor of one of the settings versus the other. Normally I would not put such an non-descript benchmark as part of our testing suite, but the MemTweakIt software does give us one descriptor – it gives us a theoretical rate of improvement across the range of kits we test, and allows us to order them in the way they should perform. With this being said, the results for our kits are as follows:
The rise in MemTweakIt score does not follow the price increases – for an almost doubling of the cost of the memory kit, we only see a 17.76% rise in the score. What this score means, we will see in due course.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 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.
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.Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
You're joking right? :pmmonnin03 - 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.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.
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.
extide - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
No, you are wrong. Period. nafhan's post is correct.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.
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.
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.