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 ESTSingle GTX 770 Gaming
The normal avenue for faster memory lies in integrated graphics solutions, but as Haswell-E does not have integrated graphics we are testing typical gaming scenarios using relatively high end graphics cards. First up is a single MSI GTX 770 Lightning in our Haswell-E system, running our benchmarks at 1080p and maximum settings. We take the average frame rates and minimum frame rates for each of our tests.
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 a GTX 770
The only real deficit observed throughout our testing is the DDR4-2133 C15 4x4GB kit dropping down to 121 FPS in F1 2013 from a 126 FPS average from the other kits, resulting in a less-than 5% drop by choosing the default JEDEC kit in the 4x4 configuration. Moving up to the 4x8 and 8x8 produces 125 FPS, but anything above 2133 C15 gets around the top result from 125-127.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
galta - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Yes, yes, it is wrong: whoever spends money on "enthusiast" RAM has more money than brains, except for some very specific situations.The golden rule is to buy a nice standard RAM from a reputable brand and use the savings to beef-up your CPU/GPU or whatever.
Murloc - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
yeah but e.g. with corsair ram I always bought the mainstream XMS one instead of the Value Select sticks, but given that I haven't done any tweaking in my last rig, I might just as well have bought the cheaper one without the heatsinks.Maybe in my next build I will do that if there is a significant price difference.
galta - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
You just proved my point: crucial is pretty reputable and they have no thrills RAM that are generally the cheapest on the market.Corsair is always fancy ;)
Kidster3001 - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
The word "Enthusiast" with respect to computers is synonymous with "Spends more than they need to because they want to." If you're making the Price/Performance/Cost purchase then you are not an Enthusiast. Every year I spend money on computer stuff that I do not need. Why? Because I am an Enthusiast. You may consider this "wasting money", perhaps it is. I don't "need" my 30" monitor or my three SSD's or my fancy gaming keyboard and mouse. I did spend money on them though. It's my hobby and that's what hobbies are for.... spending money you don't need to spend.Stick with your cost conscience, consumer friendly computer parts. They are good and will do what you need them to do. Just don't ever try to call yourself an Enthusiast. You'll never have the tingly feeling of powering up something that is really cool, expensive and just plain fun. Yeah, it costs more money but in reality, that's half the fun. The tingly feeling goes away in a month or so. That's when you get to go "waste" more money on something else. :-)
sadsteve - Friday, February 6, 2015 - link
Hm, I don't necessarily agree with you on size. With the size of digital photos today, a large amount of RAM gives you a lot more editing cache when Photoshopping. I would also imagine it's useful for video editing (witch I don't do). For all my regular computer use, yeah 16GB of RAM is not too useful.Gunbuster - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
So a 4x4 2133 kit for $200 or a 3333 kit for $800 and 2% more speed in only certain scenarios. Yeah seems totally worth $600 extra.You could buy an extra Nvidia or two AMD cards for that and damn sure get more than 2-10% speed boost.
FlushedBubblyJock - Sunday, February 15, 2015 - link
Shhh ! We all have to pretend 5 or 10 dollars or maybe 25 or 50 is very, very ,very very important when it comes to grading the two warring red and green video cards against each other !just4U - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Is there no way for memory makers to come up with solutions where they improve the latencies rather than the frequencies? The big numbers are all well and good at the one end but the higher you go at the other end offsets the gains.. at least that's the way it appears to me.menting - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
there is. The latency is due to physical contraints, so you can improve it by stacking (technology is just starting to slowly become mature for this), or by reducing the distance a signal needs to travel, which is done by smaller process size as well as shortening the signal distance (smaller array, smaller digit lines, etc). But shortening the signal distance comes at a cost of either|or|and smaller DRAM density, more power, etc, so companies don't really do it since it's more profitable to make larger density DRAM and/or lower power DRAM. The only low latency DRAM I know of is the RLDRAM, which has pretty high power and is fairly expensive.ZeDestructor - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
That, and with increasingly larger CPU caches, less and less of an issue as well.