Does Memory Speed really matter in the Real World?

There have been skeptics in the computer industry who have boldly stated that Dual-Channel 266 memory will give performance as fast as you can get — in the real world — with a Canterwood or Springdale motherboard. Another popular variation of this is that memory over DDR400 (PC3200) will make no difference in real-world performance of an 875/865 system. To determine whether these statements held any validity, we decided to first take a look at the influence of memory speed alone on our chosen benchmarks.

We wanted to isolate performance variation as much as possible to Memory. The very design of the Intel 875/865 chipsets makes this difficult, since we have very limited settings for memory ratio. We finally decided to test stock 800FSB settings with different memory speeds, and to also test the highest standard CPU FSB setting we could run at different memory timings. To keep variables at a minimum, we looked at our benchmark results for memory that would perform at both 533 and 400 at the same timings. We settled on two 512 MB DS OCZ 4000 DIMMs. We ran the memory at stock 2.4GHz at 2.5-3-4-6-1 and at a high overclock of 1066FSB at the same 2.5-3-4-6-1 timings. Since we required 2.75V for stable operation at 1066FSB at these timings, we decided for consistency to set the vDimm to 2.75V for all tests. At each setting, we varied only the memory speed at the available 1:1, 5:4, and 3:2 ratios.

Double-Sided Memory

Standard 800FSB (2.4Ghz) Performance at Varied Memory Speeds —
2 x 512 MB DS DIMMs
Memory DDR Speed Quake3 fps UT2003 Flyby fps UT2003 Botmatch fps Sandra UNBuffered Sandra Standard Buffered Super PI 2M places
(time in sec)
266 MHz 300.30 188.66 65.55 INT 1854
FLT 1814
INT 3759
FLT 3787
144
320 MHz 313.70 193.26 67.57 INT 2138
FLT 2123
INT 4254
FLT 4256
138
400 MHz 328.07 198.27 69.16 INT 2594
FLT 2640
INT 4700
FLT 4724
132

1066FSB (3.2GHz) Performance at Varied Memory Speeds —
2 x 512 MB DS DIMMs
Memory DDR Speed Quake3 fps UT2003 Flyby fps UT2003 Botmatch fps Sandra UNBuffered Sandra Standard Buffered Super PI 2M places
(time in sec)
355 MHz 382.67 235.82 85.13 INT 2415
FLT 2394
INT 5043
FLT 5039
107
426 MHz 403.56 239.96 87.82 INT 2924
FLT 2875
INT 5711
FLT 5688
104
533 MHz 424.5 249.24 91.53 INT 3532
FLT 3542
INT 6308
FLT 6252
100

Since there is much confusion about when and whether Intel’s PAT is activated, and its effect on performance, each setup was checked with CPU-Z 1.18C. Under the “Memory”’ tab, with this version of CPU-Z, there is a box for “Performance Mode”, which will indicate “enabled” or “disabled”.


In all configurations, except one, with the ASUS P4C800-E with 800FSB or higher selected, both Synchronous and Asynchronous, CPU-Z indicated Performance Mode “enabled”. We will talk more about the exception later.

As you can clearly see from the tables above, gaming performance continues to improve as memory gets faster on the Intel 875 motherboard. As we move from an 800FSB CPU running 266 memory to the CPU running the same speed with DDR400 memory, we see Quake3 frame rate increase a bit over 9%, while UNBuffered Sandra increases about 40% in memory bandwidth. At 1066 constant CPU speed with memory increasing from 355 to 533, we see a larger increase of 11% in Q3 frame rate, while Sandra UNBuffered increases about 46%. The increase in Quake3 frame rate from 800/266 to 1066/533 — which admittedly includes a large boost in CPU speed — is significant, at 41%.

UT2003 also shows a similar pattern of increases over the same range, with increases over the whole range of 32%-39%. Sandra UNBuffered measurement of memory bandwidth shows a 90% increase over the same range from 800/266 to 1066/533. As we would expect, both UT2003 and Quake3 appear to respond more to a CPU speed increase than a memory increase, but alone, the increases in game benches from memory speed increases are real and significant.

Our pure number-crunching benchmark, Super PI, is shown to be more sensitive to memory speed than you might expect. We saw increases of 7% to 9% in the “memory only” increases at a fixed CPU speed. These increases are only a little smaller than those found in our Quake3 tests.

It is conclusive from these benchmarks that Memory Speed does matter in real-world performance on Intel 875/865 motherboards. Game benchmarks, Super PI, and Sandra Memory Tests all benefit from increases in memory speed. This was true up to the highest memory speed that we tested — DDR533. The differences, when we looked at just the effect of memory alone, varied from 9% to 11% at a given CPU speed, with the limited memory ratios Intel has provided us on the 875/865 chipsets. You will have to decide if the increases in performance from using faster memory are worth the cost of that speedier memory. For some, these increases will matter a great deal, while for others, they will not be worth the cost.

Performance Test Configuration Memory Configuration (continued)
Comments Locked

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #12: You are completely wrong. OCZ IS A PAID ADVERTISER. You should follow your own advice and look more carefully at the sponsored links.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    it has been going downhill for a longtime. fewer updates,less content
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I totally agree with #14. Anandtech is just going down hill. It's funny how even though you say OCZ isn't any sort of advertiser that it's name is plastered all over the site and you always proclaim it better.

    You are pleasing the people that your advertisers are pimping. Simple economics. Please the folks that are advertising the product because you are giving it such high ratings.

    Only blind people can't see what's going on. Business is business. I bet if you gave Corsair the high honor's then these so called Atacom people would be promoting Corsair.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    "We asked major memory manufacturers to supply DDR500 or the fastest memory that they had available for comparison in our High-Speed memory roundup."

    That is rather disappointing. The incentive for manufacturers to cherry-pick modules for review on a site as influential as Anandtech is simply to great to be ignored.

    Otherwise, a very nicely done review.
  • Icewind - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Meh, my 3700 Corsair is doing plenty well for me. Rather spend the money on a 5900 Ultra that will make more of a difference in my system
  • KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #11: OCZ is not a paid advertiser. If you pay attention to those links, you'll see its companies like ATACOM, Newegg, and SVC promoting OCZ memory. If you do not feel comfortable with OCZ, then I would suggest not using those merchants.

    Kristopher
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    What do you know... Another of their "PAID ADVERTISER" wins out again! This site has become nothing but pimping their fricken advertisers. Who believes the spew that has come from this site lately? Ever since the OBVIOUS BS review of the GeForce FX 5900. This site lost all credibility.

    Whoa! What do you know... "Sponsored Links (Get Listed)... And look whose down there. OCZ... Blah! This site is nothing about padding the pockets.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    ^^^ huh?

    Anyway, great review Wes, you rock!
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    oh bleh.. all of a sudden i feel... not cool
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    4 chips per side is single-bank memory. It behaves like single-sided.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now