Memory Scaling on Haswell CPU, IGP and dGPU: DDR3-1333 to DDR3-3000 Tested with G.Skill
by Ian Cutress on September 26, 2013 4:00 PM ESTOur final set of tests are a little more on the esoteric side, using a tri-GPU setup with a HD5970 (dual GPU) and a HD5870 in tandem. While these cards are not necessarily the newest, they do provide some interesting results – particularly when we have memory accesses being diverted to multiple GPUs (or even to multiple GPUs on the same PCB). The 5970 GPUs are clocked at 800/1000, with the 5870 at 1000/1250.
Dirt 3: Average FPS
It is pretty clear that memory has an effect: +13% moving from 1333 C9 to 2133 C9/2400 C10. In fact, that 1333 C9 seems to be more of a sink than anything else – above 2133 MHz memory the performance benefits are minor at best. It all depends if 186.53 FPS is too low for you and you need 200+.
Dirt 3: Minimum FPS
We see a similar trend in minimum FPS for Dirt3: 1333 C9 is a sink, but moving to 2133 C9/2400 C10 gives at least a 20% jump in minimum frame rates.
Bioshock Infinite: Average FPS
While differences in Bioshock Infinite Minimum FPS are minor at best, 1333 MHz and 1600 C10/C11 are certainly at the lower end. Anything 1866 MHz or 2133 MHz seems to be the best bet here, especially in our case if we wanted to push for 120 FPS gaming.
Bioshock Infinite: Minimum FPS
Similar to Bioshock on IGP, minimum frame rates across the board seem to be very low, with minor differences giving large % rises.
Tomb Raider: Average FPS
Tomb Raider remains resilient to change across our benchmarks, with 1 FPS difference between the top and bottom average FPS results in our tri-GPU setup.
Tomb Raider: Minimum FPS
With our tri-GPU setup being a little odd (two GPUs on one PCB), Tomb Raider cannot seem to find much consistency for minimum frame rates, showing up to a 15% difference when compared to our 1600 C10 result which seems to be a lot lower than the rest.
Sleeping Dogs: Average FPS
Similar to other results, 1333 and 1600 MHz results give lower frame rates, along with the slower 1866 MHz C10/C11 options. Anything 2133 MHz and above gives up to 8% more performance than 1333 C9.
Sleeping Dogs: Minimum FPS:
Minimum frame rates are a little random in our setup, except for one constant – 1333 MHz memory does not perform. Everything beyond that seems to be at the whim of statistical variance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
Rainman11 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
The gaming segment was utterly pointless. Show the difference using a resolution of at least 1080p or don't even bother including it.Anonymuze - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
I'm really curious to see a similar test on HD5000 or (28W) HD5100 - they don't have the benefit of EDRAM like the HD5200 and should be much closer to being memory bandwidth limited than HD4600.Anonymuze - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
..."should be much closer to being memory bandwidth limited"I meant to say "should be much closer to memory bandwidth limits" or "should be much more memory bandwidth limited" - pick one :P
Kathrine647 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . com open the link without spacesHrel - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
This is a lot of pages on content that all just tells you to buy 1866-CL9. Good to know.SetiroN - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Ian, you REALLY should include code compilation benchmarks.80% of the people I know who actually need a powerful CPU/RAM/SSD combination use it to build software.
You took the time to test IGP performance (who the spends money on RAM to play on an HD4000?) when you could have provided much more useful data. :)
dreamer77dd - Saturday, October 5, 2013 - link
AMD might like higher speed RAM then Intel. That could be interesting article also.Laststop311 - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
This article just confirmed my suspicions, that this more expensive faster ram basically has no effect on your system. Basically anything 1866+ is going to be relatively the same performance. I use 2133mhz CAS 8 ram in my system and am totally happy and only paid 105 for 4x4GB kit.SmokingCrop - Sunday, October 27, 2013 - link
What a useless test.. Now we don't even know if resolution matters..No one is going to be doing crossfire so (s)he can play on 1 monitor with 1360x768 pixels..
qiplayer - Saturday, November 2, 2013 - link
I don't understand testing a 3000mhz kit and to evaluate gaming performance use that resolution (extremely low) and even not one gpu.I would suggest to once test the difference with this very interesting test on a triple hd resolution with 2 or 3 gpu. Or even better, as we talk about memory for the enthusiasts, cpu should be overclocked, gpu should be at least 2 and overclocked.
Te title cud be: Aiming at 120hz on 5800x1080, how much to spend on the ram?
Maybe it comes out that 150$ more on memory are enough for 5% higher fps, that are not nothing when spending already some $$$$ on gpu to get the best, another $$$ on cpu and $$$$to put all on water.