Conclusion

The pace of innovation in the computer market is sometimes astounding. Just four days ago we posted a performance review of the new Intel P35 chipset that introduced DDR3 memory. Our DDR3 test DIMMs for the launch were rated DDR3-1066 7-7-7-21. They would overclock to the new DDR3-1333 speed at 9-9-9-25 timings. We expected the quick introduction of DDR3-1333 modules at 9-9-9 timings, since that is one of the reasons for owning a P35 board. However, we did not expect true lower latency DDR3 for several weeks or months.

Kingston has certainly surprised us with the launch of low-latency DDR3 rated at DDR3-1375 even before the P35 boards officially launch at Computex on June 4th. Not only is this Kingston rated at the higher 1375 speed, but it has rated timings at 1333 that equal the best timings available at 1066 with our launch DDR3 memory. That is certainly rapid development, but it is easy to understand when put in perspective. At the high launch prices only early adopters will be tempted by DDR3. This is particularly true when you consider that fast, cheap DDR2 in the P35 motherboards actually performs better in the overlap speeds than the launch DDR3.

Memory makers introduce new products to sell them, and they are keenly aware that potential buyers need a real reason to buy DDR3, and that reason has to be more than just getting a new technology. The reasons people upgrade are faster speeds and better performance than any available on DDR2, and lower latency that allows performance just as good as or better than DDR2 in areas where speeds overlap.

Kingston has hit a home run in both areas, and Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2 achieves timings as low as 5-4-3-10 at DDR3-800 and 6-5-5-12 at 1066 - both at a very modest 1.7V to 1.75V. Performance at these overlap speeds is now roughly on par with the fastest DDR2 running in a new P35 board supporting DDR2. The P965 running the same low latency DDR2 is outperformed by any of the new Intel P35 chipsets running DDR2 or DDR3 memory. At the upper end the new Kingston can reach DDR3-1520 with stability and a magic DDR3-1500 at the tight timings (considering the speed) of 7-7-7.

This low-latency memory manages timings close to the theoretical limits of 5-3-3 at DDR3-800, and it is clear from the performance of this early low-latency DDR3 that buyers will not have to give up any performance in their migration to DDR3. Timings at other speeds are also the best seen to date with DDR3, but there will undoubtedly be even lower latency DDR2-1066 and DDR2-1333 in the future.

Kingston's DDR3-1333 with lower latency timings has given early adopters who will buy new and future technology at any price a reason to buy Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2. Lower latency and higher speeds are required for DDR3 to stand out, and Kingston delivers both.The caveat, of course, is "at any price". However, DDR3 won't really take hold in the market until prices for DDR3 are no longer a 2 to 3 times DDR2 premium. Until they drop to near parity with DDR2 there is no reason to buy a DDR3 P35 motherboard when you can buy a DDR2 P35 motherboard that performs just as well and memory that costs significantly less.

Intel themselves have created this dilemma by supporting both DDR3 or/and DDR2 on the P35 chipset. The P35 is faster than the current P965 and 975X and buyers would move to it for that reason. However, the ability to keep current fast DDR2 which will perform very well on the P35 gives reason to carefully consider whether to buy a P35 with DDR2 support or a P35 supporting DDR3. If that option were not available you might buy DDR3 for the higher P35 performance as well as the future memory technology.

It's refreshing, though, to have Intel consider the pricing and desirability of DDR3 on the new P35, if that is indeed what happened. We suspect though that a market driven by OEMs demanded DDR2 support for price, with DDR3 support ready for a switchover when the prices drop. Whatever the reason the dual support has the advantage of choice for best value or best future-proofing. Unfortunately there is also the downside of higher chipset power consumption since both DDR3 and DDR2 memory interfaces are active whether they are used or not. Hopefully Intel and manufacturers can find ways to correct this undesirable side effect with something as simple and universal as a future BIOS update.

Kingston deserves congratulations for being the first to market with low-latency high speed DDR3. Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2 does exactly what it promises and then some. It gives buyers not so concerned about price the DDR3 performance and higher speeds to choose DDR3 for the future. However, most buyers will wait a while for DDR3 prices to drop, as they surely will. Kingston is the first low-latency high-speed DDR3, but it is certainly not the last. It is good, however, to be first to market with a quality DDR3 product.

Gaming
Comments Locked

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    We ran a complete test suite at DDR3-1500 7-7-7-15. Not surprisingly ALL of the results were a bit higher than those reported at 1520 9-8-8-22.

    As a result we will be replacing the 1520 results on all performance charts with the higher 1500 7-7-7 results. Give us about 15 minutes to complete the update. Enjoy!
  • photoguy99 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    It would be a good accomplishment for Barcelona to come out and surpass Core2 performance that wowed the world last year.

    But how many of these can Barcelona beat:
    1) Original Core2 Quad at 2.66Mhz (probably what they were aiming for)
    2) Add P35 chipset for 5-10% performance increase
    3) Add DD3 at 1333Mhz or higher with low latencies for 5-10% increase
    4) Add Penryn core for 5-10% performance increase at same clock speed
    5) Penryn releases at 3.2 Ghz, add another 10% increase

    When is the pain gonna stop for AMD?

    It seems by this fall the Intel platform is going to be a lot faster that the original Core2 or Core2 quad releases.
  • defter - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    quote:

    5) Penryn releases at 3.2 Ghz, add another 10% increase


    Since Intel has already demonstrated air-cooled 3.33GHz Penryn based quad cores, and desktop Penryn based CPUs will use 1333MHz FSB and support half multipliers, I guess that desktop Penryn based quad core CPUs can be launched at least at 3.33-3.5GHz if necessary.
  • TA152H - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    OK, this post really irritates me.

    You think AMD started design on the Barcelona last year? How else could you possibly say they were aiming for the 2.66 Core 2 before it was even released if this wasn't true? Good grief, think!

    The P35 most certainly does NOT add 5-10% application performance. Maybe in specific applications you will see something like this, but overall, it's not that high.

    DDR3 at 1333 isn't adding much of anything right now. 5-10%???? Where are you getting these numbers from? In fact, in every gaming benchmark they ran, it was either slower or the same as the DDR2-1066. 5-10% my ass.

    Penryn numbers are also made up, it would be extremely optimistic for 5-10% increase in IPC for most applications. Maybe a few will, but broadly, it's probably not true, and absolutely speculative.

    Hmmmm, going from 3.0 GHz they have out now, to 3.2 GHz is 10%? I think it's more like 6.67%.

    In short, all your assumptions are either, at best speculative, or at worst, just wrong.

    Will DDR3 timings go down? Of course, but so will DDR2 since that's the dominant memory. Considering the changes to the Barcelona memory controller, I think you can expect a pretty substantial improvement there, but we won't know until we see it. A lot of stuff we won't know until we see it.

    The big thing that bothers me is AMD still has not fully implement memory disambiguation, and while the scheduling of loads is improved to P6 levels, I'm not sure if it's enough. I'm also not crazy about their substantial x87 implementation, as it's a deprecated technology and more and more becoming dead weight. It's not even part of x86-64.

    So, I'm not saying Barcelona will be better or worse, we'll see soon enough, but the reasons you give are, at best, specious, and at worst pure nonsense.

  • yacoub - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    I would guess they would aim for 20-25% improvement over last year's core2duo so somewhere around 3-4 of your 5 should be the level of Barcelona performance if it works out. In that case since I don't think you won't see all 5 of those combined this year, especially at a competitive price-point I think Barcelona still has a chance. =)
  • Anonymous Freak - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    One of my big gripes with the DDR3 reviews so far, which were the same when DDR2 first came out, is the direct comparison of same-bus-speed results. Of *COURSE* DDR3 at 800 MHz will be slower than DDR2 at 800 MHz. As this review shows, even the best DDR3 timings are slower than the best DDR2 timings.

    But, that's not what DDR3 is designed to do. It's designed to have higher latency in exchange for significantly higher bus speeds, as this test shows. You should be comparing the DDR3-1333 results with the DDR2-800 or 1066 results.

    Just as when DDR2 came out, it had much higher latency than DDR1, but faster bus speeds. Try comparing a top of the line DDR2 rig to a top of the line DDR1 rig now. (Say AMD AM2 vs. 939.) The faster bus speed of the DDR2 rig will just blow away the DDR1 rig, regardless of how good the DDR1 timings are. The same will be true with DDR3. Faster timings will come, as will faster bus speeds. The two will cause DDR3 to completely dominate even the fastest overclocked DDR2. Just look at this review, we have fast, but *within spec* DDR3 performing the same as the ultimate in overclocked DDR2. Just wait until we have the equivalent ultra-high-end DDR3 running at a *fully within spec* 1600 Mhz with 5-3-3 timings; and we'll probably see overclocked settings even higher.
  • lopri - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    I'm afraid that your assertion is not quite the reality. AM2 CPU's memory controller has never been up to the level of Socket 939 CPU's. Under the same configuration sans memory, Socket 939 rig will always win over Socket AM2 rig.
  • takumsawsherman - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    I doubt you will actually see a significant difference between DDR and DDR2 running on otherwise similar chipsets. It wasn't very difficult to find 2-2-2-5-1 or 2-2-2-6 latencies with DDR memory. Even now, I am finding it hard to consistently source DDR2 for a reasonable price that has a reasonably low latency. But if you were to take 2-2-2-5-1 DDR and 3-4-3-9 DDR2 module pairs and run them with similar chipsets, with the same processors, you may in fact get some victories for DDR in your benchmarks.

    Bandwidth isn't everything. For some tasks, latency is far more important. Therefore, it is vitally important for someone to actually test real world scenarios and publish results. That way, people can save their money for an upgrade that might have a chance at improving their performance.
  • bobsmith1492 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Don't forget... latency is not just the CAS number; it is a function of the clock speed and the number of cycles of latency. The overall latency time is the important part. DDRII 800MHz at CAS3 will have better latency than DDRI 400MHz at CAS2 (if either of those exist even...)
  • Chunga29 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Those both exist as unofficial RAM speeds, though the DDR is harder to find these days.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now