DDR4 Haswell-E Scaling Review: 2133 to 3200 with G.Skill, Corsair, ADATA and Crucial
by Ian Cutress on February 5, 2015 10:10 AM EST2x GTX 770 SLI Gaming
Next up is a pair of MSI GTX 770 Lightning graphics cards in SLI, which may be more akin to the typical Haswell-E system. Our goal here is to provide enough frames for a full on 120 Hz or 144 Hz refresh rate, ideally at the minimum frame rate level in modern games while still attempting maximum quality settings at 1080p. Even for this system it will be a hard task, and it will be interesting to see how the different memory configurations help with this.
Dirt 3: Average FPS
Dirt 3: Minimum FPS
Bioshock Infinite: Average FPS
Bioshock Infinite: Minimum FPS
Tomb Raider: Average FPS
Tomb Raider: Minimum FPS
Sleeping Dogs: Average FPS
Sleeping Dogs: Minimum FPS
Conclusions at 1080p/Max with two GTX 770s
Similarly to the single GPU arrangement, the only deficit worth mentioning is that of the minimum frame rate in F1 2013. Here we see 114-115 FPS on all the DDR4-2133 C15 kits, compared to 124-126 FPS on everything else except DDR4-2400 4x8 which had 120 FPS. This is a bigger 10% boost from choosing something other than the JEDEC standard.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
Harry Lloyd - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
So no difference whatsoever no matter which test? Not surprising, considering the quad channel controller.I hope to see a similar test when dual channel Skylake comes out. Also, please find some CPU-bound games. BioShock, Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs do not need more than two cores, which makes them completely pointless for this kind of test. Try games like Battlefield 4 MP or Dying Light (extremely CPU-bound and easy to repeat).
Arbie - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
@nwrigley - I also agree. I have a 2008 build using a Yorkfield quad at 3.6GHz, still running 32-bits and the original 4GB of DDR2. The three things I have really needed to add since then are SSDs, a new graphics card (expected), and adapters for USB3 ports. All of these are "bolt-on", not fundamental changes, and the only one I researched was the gfx board. I know a Haswell build would be 2x more powerful and run much cooler, but neither of those justifies a system replacement. I almost never max out the CPU, or even the RAM.This "good enough" syndrome is obviously affecting the industry, and even the websites dealing with it. One well established and very good equipment review site has recently gone, probably because too few people still care about small differences in desktop motherboard, PSU, DRAM, and cooler performance. I suppose this trend will continue.
jabber - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
I have to admit I stopped looking seriously at RAM reviews once we hit DDR2. I wince when I see a reviewer has wasted a week of their life to do a DDR3 'performance' RAM round up. Well thanks for telling us AGAIN that there is a performance difference of 2% or 0.5FPS between stock $50 RAM and the $300 top of the range. Why do they keep doing RAM group tests?nwarawa - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
It wasn't very clear, but it sounded like the ddr3/4 comparison was dual channel vs quad channel. A better apples to apples test would run the x99 system is dual channel.halcyon - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
TL;DR: Does NOT scale.The price difference between 2133 and any of the higher speeds makes no sense, unless you are a super-high res competitive pro-gamer or if you run real-time intensive huge dataloads 24/7.
For even heavy users, workstations, etc - no point. Just buy the most reliable 2133 or 2400 that is the cheapest.
Last graph is horrible, baseline doesn't start from zero. Differences are minimal.
Sad is the day when the element of interest for pro users is : "Firstly is the design, and finding good looking memory".
jnkweaver - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
So for example, when given DDR3-2133 C10 (PI of 213) against DDR3-1866 C10 (PI or 187), the first one should be chosen. However with DDR3-2133 C10 (PI of 213) and DDR3-2400 C12 (PI of 200) at the same price, the results would suggest the latter is a better option.So 213 beats 187 (1st example) but 213 doesn't beat 200? (2nd example)
Wwhat - Saturday, February 7, 2015 - link
So from the looks of the tests the speed absolutely makes no difference, but now what I'm wondering is what happens if you have many things running at the same time, several programs simultaneously, maybe that will bring some differences to light? Or is there really no difference at all? That seems a bit odd, and a flaw in the CPU design since it can't utilize the extra speed. The RAM speed is suppose to be a bottleneck for the CPU after all.Maybe we should hear some comments on the subject from intel and AMD.
DarkXale - Saturday, February 7, 2015 - link
Its not at all a flaw; on the contrary its all about intelligently predicting what data we need to have access to soon.gsuburban - Saturday, February 7, 2015 - link
DDR4 is not that much a performance change and 4 times the cost so, DDR3 will still be around.It's overpriced RAM in the least.
YoloPascual - Sunday, February 8, 2015 - link
DDR4 = half doa tech