Portal 2

A stalwart of the Source engine, Portal 2 is the big hit of 2011 following on from the original award-winning Portal.  In our testing suite, Portal 2 performance should be indicative of CS:GO performance to a certain extent.  Here we test Portal 2 at 1920x1080 with High/Very High graphical settings.

Portal 2 IGP, 1920x1080, Very High, 8xMSAA

Portal 2 mirrors previous testing, albeit our frame rate increases as a percentage are not that great – 1333 to 1600 is a 4.3% increase, but 1333 to 2400 is only an 8.8% increase.

Batman Arkham Asylum

Made in 2009, Batman:AA uses the Unreal Engine 3 to create what was called “the Most Critically Acclaimed Superhero Game Ever”, awarded in the Guinness World Record books with an average score of 91.67 from reviewers.  The game boasts several awards including a BAFTA.  Here we use the in-game benchmark while at the lowest specification settings without PhysX at 1920x1080.  Results are reported to the nearest FPS, and as such we take 4 runs and take the average value of the final three, as the first result is sometimes +33% more than normal.

Batman: AA IGP, 1920x1080, Ultra Low

Batman: AA represents some of the best increases of any application in our testing.  Jumps from 1333 C9 to 1600 C9 and 1866 C9 gives an 8% then another 7% boost, ending with a 21% increase in frame rates moving from 1333 C9 to 2400 C10.

Overall IGP Results

Taking all our IGP results gives us the following graph:

The only game that beats the MemTweakIt predictions is Batman: AA, but most games follow the similar shape of increases just scaled differently.  Bearing in mind the price differences between the kits, if IGP is your goal then either the 1600 C9 or 1866 C9 seem best in terms of bang-for-buck, but 2133 C9 will provide extra performance if the budget stretches that far.

Gaming Tests: Metro 2033, Civilization V, Dirt 3 Input/Output Testing
POST A COMMENT

108 Comments

View All Comments

  • jwilliams4200 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    Depending on whether there is a page-hit (row needed already open), page-empty (row needed not yet open), or page-miss (row needed is not the row already open), the time to read a word can vary by a factor of 3 times (i.e., 1x latency for a page-hit, 2x latency for a page-empty, and 3x latency for a page-miss).

    What the author refers to as a "sequential read" probably probably refers to reading from an already open page (page-hit).

    While his terminology may be ambiguous (and his computation for the "sequential read" is incorrect, it should be 4 clocks), he is nevertheless talking about a meaningful concept related to variation on latency in DRAM for different types of reads.

    See here for more detail:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3851/everything-you-...
    Reply
  • Shadow_k - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    My knowledge of RAM has increased 10 fold very nice artical well done Reply
  • losttsol - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    2133MHz "Recommended for Deeper Pockets"???

    Not really. DDR3 is so cheap now that high end RAM is affordable for all. I would have said you were crazy a few years ago if you told me soon I could buy 16GB of RAM for less than $150.
    Reply
  • IanCutress - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    Either pay $95 for 1866 C9 or $130 for 2133 C9 - minor differences, but $35 saving. This is strictly talking about the kits used today, there could be other price differences. But I stand by my recommendation - for the vast majority of cases 1866 C9 will be fine, and there is a minor performance gain in some scenarios with 2133 C9, but at a $35 difference it is hard to justify unless you have some spare budget. Most likely that budget could be put into a bigger SSD or GPU.

    Ian
    Reply
  • just4U - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link

    Something has to be said about the TridentX brand I believe.. since it is getting some pretty killer feedback. It's simply the best ram out there being able to do all that any other ram can and that little bit extra. I don't see the speed increase as a selling point but the lower timings at conventional speeds that users are reporting is interesting.. I haven't tried it though.. just going on what I've read. Shame about the size of the heatsinks though.. makes it problematic in some builds. Reply
  • Peanutsrevenge - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link

    You clearly live in some protected bubble where everyone has well paid jobs and isn't on a shoestring budget.

    I would so LMAO when you get mugged by someone struggling to feed themselves because you're all flash with your cash.
    Reply
  • just4U - Saturday, October 20, 2012 - link

    Peaunut we are not talking 300-500 bucks here.. this is a 20-30 dollar premium which is nothing in comparison to what ram used to cost and how much more premium ram was as well.

    If your on a tight budget get 8Gigs of regular ram which is twice the amount of ram you likely need anyway.
    Reply
  • Tech-Curious - Monday, November 05, 2012 - link

    Thing is, these tests are for integrated graphics, unless I'm misreading something (AFAICT, the discrete card was only used for PhysX support; if I misread there then I apologize).

    Off the top of my head, there are basically three scenarios in which you're likely to want an IGP:

    1) You're building an HTPC, in which case you prioritize (lack of) noise and (lack of) heat over graphics' power. If all you want to run are movies, then the IGP should be adequate regardless of the speed of your memory -- and if you want to play games, no amount of memory is going to turn an Intel IGP into an adequate performer on your average TV set these days. (Better to grab an AMD APU or just give up the ghost and grab a moderate-performance GPU.)

    2) You're looking to run a laptop. But the memory reviewed in this article doesn't apply to laptops anyway.

    3) You're on a tight budget.

    So at best, we're talking about a fraction of a sliver of a tiny niche in the market, when we discuss the people who might be interested in wringing every last ounce of performance out of an IGP by installing high-priced desktop memory. Sure, the difference in absolute cost between the cheapest and the most expensive RAM here isn't going to make or break most people -- but people generally don't like to incur unnecessary costs either.

    And people who are on a budget? They can save $80, just based on the numbers in the article, without making any significant performance sacrifice. That's real money, computer-component-wise.
    Reply
  • tynopik - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    "I remember buying my first memory kit ever. It was a 4GB kit"

    makes you feel old

    my first was 8MB
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    My first computer only had 16k. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now