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 ESTConclusions on Haswell-E DDR4 Scaling
When we first start testing for a piece, it is very important to keep an open mind and not presuppose any end-results. Ideally we would go double blind, but in the tech review industry that is not always possible. We knew the results from our DDR3 testing showing that outside of integrated graphics, there are a few edge cases where upgrading to faster memory makes sense but avoiding the trap of low base memory can actually have an overall impact on the system - as long as XMP is enabled of course.
Because Haswell-E does not have any form of integrated graphics, the results today are fairly muted. In some ways they mirror the results we saw on DDR3, but are more indicative of the faster frequency memory at hand.
For the most part, the base advice is: aim for DDR4-2400 CL15 or better.
DDR4-2133 CL15, which has a performance index of 142, has a few benchmarks where it comes out up to 3-10% slower than the rest of the field. Cases in point include video conversion (Handbrake at 4K60), fluid dynamics, complex web code and minimum frame rates on certain games.
For professional users, we saw a number of benefits moving to the higher memory ranges, although for only very minor performance gains. Cinebench R15 gave 2%, 7-zip gave 2% and our fluid dynamics Linux benchmark was up +4.3%. The only true benchmark where 2800+ memory made a significant difference was in Redis, which is a scalable database memory-key store benchmark. Only users with specific needs would need to consider this.
There is one other group of individuals where super-high frequency memory on Haswell-E makes sense – the sub-zero overclockers. For these people, relying on the best synthetic test results can mean the difference between #5 and #20 in the world rankings. The only issue here is that these individuals or teams are often seeded the best memory already. This relegates high end memory sales to system integrators who can sell it at a premium.
Personally, DDR4 offers three elements of interest. Firstly is the design, and finding good looking memory to match a system that you might want to show off can be a critical element when looking at components. Second is density, and given that Haswell-E currently supports four memory channels at two modules per channel, if we get a whiff of 16GB modules it could be a boon for high memory capactiy prosumers. The third element to the equation is integrated graphics, where the need for faster memory can actually greatly improve performance. Unfortunately we will have to wait for the industry to catch up on that one.
At this point in time, our DDR4 testing is not yet complete. Over the next couple of weeks, we will be reviewing these memory kits individually, comparing results, pricing, styling and overclockability for what it is worth. Our recent array of DDR4-3400 news from Corsair and G.Skill has also got some of the memory manufacturers interested in seeing even higher performance kits on the test bed, so we are looking forward to that. I also need to contact Mushkin and Kingston and see if those CL12/CL13 memory kits could pose a threat to the status quo.
Edit: Mushkin actually emailed me this morning about getting some product for review.
We have a couple of updates for our testing suite in mind as well, particularly the gaming element and are waiting for new SSDs and GPUs to arrive before switching some of our game tests over to something more recent, perhaps at a higher resolution as well. When that happens, we will post some more numbers to digest.
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