USB 3.0 Backup

Our backup testing takes a typical set of user files – specifically just under 8000 files across 7.5 GB, some large files but mostly small.  For USB 3.0 testing, these files are copied from our SSD onto an OCZ Vertex3 which is connected via a SATA 6 Gbps to USB 3.0 device using the UASP protocol that the ASMedia controller on our test bed affords as well as the chipset driven Intel USB 3.0 under ASUS' Turbo mode.  The copy test is conducted using DiskBench, a copying tool with accurate copy timing.

USB 3.0 Copy Test, ASMedia + UASP

USB 3.0 Copy Test, ASMedia

USB 3.0 Copy Test, Intel + Turbo

USB 3.0 Copy Test, Intel Chipset

In the USB 3.0 testing, we find some interesting results:

USB 3.0 ASMedia + UASP: 2400 C11 is between 1600 C9 and 1866 C9
USB 3.0 ASMedia: 2400 C11 is between 1866 C9 and 2133 C9
USB 3.0 Intel + Turbo: 2400 C11 performs similar to 1600 C9
USB 3.0 Intel: 2x8 GB 2400 C11 is better than 4x4 GB 2400 C10

In most motherboards, the USB 3.0 Intel result will be the main point of the test (ASMedia and UASP are limited to ASUS at the minute), and it seems the Intel chipset likes denser modules for USB 3.0 testing.

Thunderbolt Backup

Similar to our USB 3.0 Backup test, Thunderbolt testing carries the same files directly through to our LittleBig Disk which contains two 120 GB Intel SSDs in RAID-0.  The copy test is conducted using DiskBench, a copying tool with accurate copy timing.

Thunderbolt Copy Test

Our 2400 C11 kit performs similar to the 2400 C10 and better than the 2133 C9, meaning that Thunderbolt is a big fan of memory MHz.

Gaming Tests: Portal 2, Batman AA, Overall IGP Conversion, Compression and Computation
Comments Locked

30 Comments

View All Comments

  • Tchamber - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    It would be nice to see how memory impacts gaming with a graphics card. Or does the difference get so small that there's no meaningful difference?
  • Magnus101 - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    I think it already is no meaningful difference in most games, even with the integrated GPU!
    As with all memory performance tests, the real world difference is so small that it makes no sense to throw money at higher speced memory.
    Almost in all circuimstances, perhaps except some special cases like they highlighted in an earlier article hear at anand.
    The biggest difference there was for Winrar64 compression (not the usual unpacking we normal user do almost daily) and that was still only 20% differece between 1333 and 2400.

    I haven't seen any benchies with memory for compilers (programing) or for DAW (music making, like with cubse, sonar and so on), but I suspect it is the same old story of almost no difference.
  • tekphnx - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link

    Second Life at max settings is a notable exception. I recently upgraded from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2000 on my i5-760 @3.8ghz with GTX670, and saw a jump of 5-6fps in minimum framerates.
  • JonnyDough - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link

    I COMPLETELY agree. This article is BOGUS. Here's why:

    If you're going to spend money on higher end memory then you may as well fork over a little for a discreet graphics card instead. It will make much more difference in games.

    Intel integrated graphics are only good for office usage still. No real gamer or anyone doing heavy GPU calculations, cares about Intel IGPs.

    Show us what this more costly memory does for a real gamer and we'll consider purchasing it. Three frames per second more on an IGP is not worth the money spent on this memory.
  • IanCutress - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link

    That's the thing - not everyone that has a PC uses it for gaming. As alluded to by Magnus, there are other things that do not need a discrete GPU but are still used by a large number of enthusiasts - VMs, compilations, even non-parallel scientific simulations. You whack in a stupidly large matrix into memory and it will bog down. Failing that, how about financial calculations? Now put all that inside a mITX chassis and board where you're limited to two memory slots. Sure 2x8GB 2400 C11 may not be your first port of call, but if saving an extra 3-5% time on whatever you do actually has a financial impact on your work portfolio, then the early investment could pay off in the long run. Then again, it may not and that 2x4GB 1333 C9 is looking a little sweeter.

    No article is bogus, as you put it. Sure there are good things to review and some that are not so good. If we solely focused on the good, then we'd all be sitting around patting each other on the back for doing a service to the industry. I like reviewing all sorts - you get to see the niggles of the smaller companies that can't invest, or you can point out when a top company is just being stupid. Thus when you get a really good product that shines out from the rest, it is something special to behold.

    Ian

    PS There are plans for a compilation benchmark in future reviews. I'm trying to organise a decent one that I can strap a timer to without sitting in front of the screen for 20 minutes waiting for it to finish.
  • Runamok81 - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link

    True, not everyone uses a PC for gaming. But do you really think the "frost white" Evo Veloce memory is targeted towards the financial or enterprise sector? As silly as it is, Enthusiasts with money than sense WILL pay a premium to raise their benchmark synthetics.
  • ytoledano - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    Sticks like these coupled with a X79 motherboard with 8 DIMMs populated are biting into server territory - I'm sure! I'm running a 3930K + 48GB (I will soon have to upgrade to 64) as a dedicated SQL server. How much would similar performance cost me if I'd built the system around a Xeon? Probably twice.
  • Blibbax - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    Roughly £400 extra for the Xeon equivalent of the 3930K.
  • quixver - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - link

    You are missing out on ECC though.
  • Beenthere - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    Anyone who has actually tested higher RAM frequencies or RAM quantities above 4 GB. in a typical modern desktop PC knows that frequencies above 1600 MHz. produce no tangible system performance gain in either Intel or AMD powered PCs. Tangible means a change in system performance that you can actually see and or feel. In addition more than 4 GB. of RAM produces minimal gains unless you operate your PC with many applications open or functioning concurrently, which most people don't. CAD, modeling, and some other business applications CAN benefit from more RAM but many consumer apps don't.

    Be advised that RAM benches grosssly mis-represent the actual SYSTEM gains because they assume the RAM is saturated 100% of the time, which it is not. If you run real applications and compare 1333 MHz. to 2400 MHz. you will likely not even be able to tell the difference between the two because DDR3 RAM @ 1333+ MHZ. is not a system bottleneck.

    The RAM mfgs. are doing everything they can to convince enthusiasts to buy high priced high frequency RAM because this is very profitable for them. When you test with real applications and see how tiny the system gains are, you will wish that you had bought 1600 or 8166 MHz. RAM at a reasonable price and used the cash for a faster CPU or GPU.

    If you have money burning a hole in your pocket then by all means buy the fastest RAM you can find. Then you can brag at how cool it is... even if you can't actually use the highest frequency in your PC. Understand that your CPU may not be able to run the RAM anywhere near it's rated frequency. Typically Deneb CPUs top out around 1600 MHz., Thubans around 1800 MHz., Zambezi at 2000+ MHz. and Vishera around 2400 MHz. based on initial testing for Vishera. No one cares about Intel CPUs so I won't post on them... <LOL>

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now