Memory Scaling on Core i7 - Is DDR3-1066 Really the Best Choice?
by Gary Key on June 24, 2009 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Memory Pricing
We remember paying over $600 for 2GB of DDR3-1600 C7 rated at 1.90V almost two years ago. About nine months ago, when Core i7 launched a DDR3-1600 C7 6GB 1.65V kit cost us $415. A DDR3-1600 C7 1.65V 6GB kit cost us $140 last week. To add insult to injury, a recently purchased DDR3-1600 C9 1.65V 6GB kit set us back $86 compared to the $195 we paid four months ago. To say things have changed in the DDR3 memory market over the past two years would be an understatement.
In today’s testing, we did our best to utilize retail kits from various manufacturers based on their stock speed and timing ratings for each of our memory settings. We felt this was a better choice than taking a DDR3-2000 kit and using it at different speeds and timings as that would not represent what the actual product for sale at these price points are capable of in our test system. Of course, we violated this principal twice but for good reason. There are not any 1066 C5 kits so we bumped the voltage slightly on the Patriot 1066 C7 kit to run at these timings. Our 1866 C7 kit became incapacitated and we switched to a 2000 C8 kit that actually cost less and performed better.
The price levels listed represent our cost from Newegg at the time of purchase. Of course, prices for 6GB kits vary widely depending on the manufacturer, rebates, specifications, and product availability so consider these prices to represent a current aggregate average. We fully realize that purchasing a DDR3-2000 CAS8 kit for $235 that is capable of running DDR3-1866 C7 at like voltages is usually a better value than a $289 1866 C7 kit. Kit prices range from $80 for the DDR3-1066 C7 kit up to the $260 DDR3-2000 C8 modules for this article.
Our lead off contestant is the Patriot DDR3-1066 C7 PSD36G1066KH 6GB kit that we utilized for both the 1066 C7 and C5 results. This memory kit only required 1.60V for CAS5 operation and comes in at the low price of $80. For those operating on a strict budget, we cannot say enough good things about this kit as it easily reached DDR3-1600 C9 on 1.65V and 1.225V VTT. Speaking of DDR3-1600 C9 kits, we are now seeing these 6GB kits below $90 and if they arrive with the right IC/PCB combination, they could potentially make a great kit for down clocking to 1333 C6, which is one of our sweet spot settings for overall performance on this platform.
We tapped Corsair for our DDR3-1333 C9 kit, SuperTalent for the DDR3-1333 C8 modules, and GEIL for our DDR3-1333 C7/C6 kits. We turned to Patriot once again for DDR3-1600 C9, OCZ for a really great DDR3-1600 C8 setup, Corsair for DDR3-1600 C7, and Mushkin for one sweet DDR3-1600 C6 package. We utilized GSkill’s DDR3-2000 C8 kit for our DDR3-1866 C7 and limited overclock results. We will be reviewing each kit utilized shortly (and others) to determine the overall best value based on clocking abilities, technical support, warranty, and cost.
Memory Designations –
One of the more confusing aspects of selecting DDR3 memory are the two common designations, which are both technically wrong. The first commonly used term describes the theoretical bandwidth, as in PC16000. This numbering system represents the peak transfer rate in MB/s of the module. The other common designation describes the effective clock speed in terms like 2000MHz. If the product description does not contain the effective clock speed and you only see a number like PC8500, then divide it by eight. Therefore, through the magic of math and marketing, PC8500 becomes 1066MHz.
Of course, this is not the actual clock speed, but rather the data rate. In other words, while PC8500 sounds extremely impressive and 1066MHz just a little less so, the actual operating frequency of the DDR3 devices is much less. There is a history on why we have these inflated numbers as it dates back to the time of RAMBUS, but that is a story for another article. We just wish that the memory suppliers would pick one designation and go with it. In the meantime, we will report our numbers today in effective data rate for simplicity state. We will refer to DDR3-1066 5-5-5-18 as simply 1066 C5 as an example.
47 Comments
View All Comments
Seikent - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I'm not very sure if it's relevant, but I missed a load times comparation. I know that the bottleneck there should be the hdd, but I still think that there can be a performance boost.deputc26 - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
ave and min lines are mixed up.MadBoris - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I'll be considering upgrading in October at the same time I go from XP to Win 7.So this is good to know if/when I go Core I7.
I guess I can see how Winrar RAM workload sdtays high since it grabs the buffers of compressed data chunks and writes them to disk as fast as the HW permits, so bandwidth matters then.
While it looks like very few apps can saturate the bandwidth latency benefits/penalties are always having an effect as usual.
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere in the article that tried to explain the technical reasons "why" 2000 doesn't provide advantage over 1066.
I understand the differences of latency and bandwidth. Is it really because no software is using RAM workloads large enough to benefit from increased bandwidth (except compression) or is there another bottleneck in the subsystem or CPU that doesn't allow moving all the data the RAM is capable of?
vol7ron - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
Your question is long, so i didn't read it all, but does bottom of pg2 answer:"That brings us to another story. We had planned to incorporate a full overclocking section in this article but our DDR3-1866 and DDR3-2000 kits based on the Elpida DJ1108BASE, err Hyper ICs, have been experiencing technical difficulties as of late."
They said some other stuff, but it seems like it wouldn't be right to post info on faulty chips.
TA152H - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I'd like to see a test between the crippled i5 memory controller with very fast memory, and the i7 with low cost 1333 Mhz memory. There's really no point in the 1066 memory, except for Dell, HP, etc... to throw in generic machines; it's not much cheaper than 1333 MHz, and the performance bump really seems to be biggest there. I think 1333 MHz (low latency) is a reasonable starting point for most people, the cost seems to warrant the performance. After that, you definitely see diminishing returns.It seems anyone buying an i5 with very expensive memory is probably a fool, but, a few benchmarks might be interesting to validate or invalidate that. Of course, the i5 might be better when released, so even then it wouldn't be proof.
Gary Key - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I wish I could show i5 numbers, but that ability is officially locked down now. I can say that our results today will not be that much different when i5 launches, low latency 1333 or possibly 1600 will satisfy just about everyone. :)strikeback03 - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link
Of course, by the time you can share those numbers we will most likely have to specify whether we are talking about LGA-1366 i7 or LGA-1156 i7. Thanks Intel.kaoken - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I think there is a mistake with the farcry graph. The min and avg lines should be switched.hob196 - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link
Looking closer it might be that you have the SLI min on there instead of the Non SLI min.halcyon - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
It's so nice to see AT calling things as they are.This is why we come here.
Straight up honest talk from adults to adults, with very little marketing speech and numbers do most of the talking.
Excellent test round up, mucho kudos.