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
JlHADJOE - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Will be interesting to see another article like this when we have CPUs with integrated graphics and DDR4.OrphanageExplosion - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
"For any user interested in performance, memory speed is an important part of the equation when it comes to building your next system."Doesn't your article actually disprove your initial statement?
And surely your gaming benchmarks might make more sense if - once again - you actually tested CPU intensive titles as opposed to the titles you've tested? The GPU will barely touch your expensive DDR4, if at all.
The only scenario I can see DDR4 making a real difference will be in graphics work with AMD APUs, and even then we'll need to see really high-end, fast kits that should just about offer comparable bandwidth with the slowest GDDR5 to offer a literally game-changing improvement.
Sushisamurai - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Errr... Memory speed did make a difference (small IMO) when it came to DDR3. This article tests if it holds true to DDR4 - however, without an iGPU the other tests don't really show a significant difference when price is factored in. I mean, sure, there's a difference, but not worth the price premium IMO.A future AMD comparison would be nice, when AMD decides to support DDR4... Otherwise, it was a nice article.
FlushedBubblyJock - Sunday, February 15, 2015 - link
That's called the "justify wasting my life to write this article, tag and hook and sinker line, plus the required tokus kissing to the kind manu's that handed over their top tier for some "free" advertising and getting out the word.It's not like the poor bleary eyed tester can say: " I didn't want to do this because one percent difference is just not worth it, my name is not K1ngP1n and I'm not getting 77 free personal jet flights this year to go screw around in nations all over the world.
vgobbo - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
I really enjoyed this review!But... Intel processors are massive cache beasts, which reduces a lot the pressure put on memory (except for games, which I believe was the most interesting part of this review). Said that, I wish to see a review on an AMD system, which have a lot weaker cache structure and memory buses.
Is this possible to happen, or I'm just a dreamer? ;D
Anyway, this was another outstanding review of Anandtech! Loved it! Thank u guys!
dazelord - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Interesting, but isn't Haswell-E/X99 accessing the memory in 256bit mode using 4 dimms? I suspect the gains would be much more substantial in 128bit/ 2 dimm systems.willis936 - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Good stuff but after seeing a fair bit of memory roundups in my time I think this mostly confirms what everyone has been thinking: DDR4 is incredibly underwhelming in the performance space. You not only get better bang for buck with DDR3 right now but comparable, if not better, performance in the high end kits.galta - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
You've got it wrong. Nobody goes for DDR4 because of the memory, it's because of the new CPU and chipset.Ask yourself: do you really need extra cores and/or pci lanes? Or, do you want them and have the money to pay for it? If the answer is "yes" than you'll go for 5xxx and DDR4 is incidental.
Otherwise, go 4xxx and DDR3 will also be incidental.
It makes no sense to talk about memory as if it could be chosen independently from CPU/chipset.
rmh26 - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Ian could you post more information about the NPB fluid dynamics benchmark. Specifically which benchmark CG, EP, FT ... and which class problem S, W, A, ...etc. In my own research I have found the simulation time to scale nearly linearly with the memory frequency for large enough problems. I am wondering how much the cache has to do with masking the effects of memory frequency on performance. As a the size of the problem gets larger the cache will no longer be able to mask the slowness of the memory. In general memory, and moreover interconnects between computers play a very important role in some HPC applications the rely on solving partial differential equations. In fact there have been suggestions to move away from the standard HPC Linpack benchmark used to create the top 500 lists as this compute intensive benchmark does not accurately reflect the load placed on supercomputers.http://insidehpc.com/2013/07/replacing-linpack-jac...
Dasa2 - Thursday, February 5, 2015 - link
Congrats anandtech you screwed up another ram review further misleading peopleThe games you chose to review are so badly GPU bottlenecked its sad. Do you not know that ram performance affects cpu performance?
You could run Dirt 3 with a i3 2100 vs a 5ghz 5960x and get the same score
How about putting some different CPU in amongst your ram benchmarks like 4460-4690 5820-5960x so people can see how faster ram compares to spending more on the CPU...
A 4690k with 1600c11 ram can perform slower in games than a 2500k with 2133c9 ram