Memory Test Configuration
The comparison of Kingston DDR3 to earlier DDR3 and DDR2 used exactly the same components in the same test bed wherever possible. For the fairest comparison to both other DDR3 and the best DDR2, the Asus P5K and P5K3 motherboards were both powered by an Intel X6800 processor running at an 8x1333 FSB (333 quad pumped). All that was required to do this was up the base CPU bus to 333, and lowering the default multiplier to 8 (from 11). We did not need to make any changes to CPU voltage and left it at default settings. Due to issues with memory ratios on the P965 we were forced to use 10x266 timings for comparison on that chipset. The P965 was not designed for 1333 FSB speed, so when 1333 is set the available memory ratios do not allow comparison at standard memory speeds. 10x266 or 2.66GHz is the same speed as 8x333 and the same X6800 CPU was used in all three test beds.
The 1333 processor bus does improve performance in some benchmarks compared to 1066. The recent Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look examined the components of increased performance on the 1333 bus and found that the performance impact of the increased bus speed on gaming was minimal.
To fairly compare this new low-latency Kingston DDR3 to existing DDR2 memory, one of the best DDR2 memories tested so far, Corsair Dominator, was also run at the fastest timings available at DDR2-800 3-3-3-9 and DDR-1066 at 4-4-3-11. The Dominator DDR2-1111 cannot run at DDR2-1333, so it was not possible to compare standard speeds above 1066. The same DDR2 memory was also tested on a P965 motherboard at the same fast memory timings of 800 3-3-3-9 and 1066 4-4-3-11. This allows comparison of performance of the current P965 with the fastest DDR2 memory to the new P35 chipset with both the fastest DDR2 memory and the low-latency DDR3 being reviewed.
Every 1066 FSB Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad CPU we had in the lab ran fine at 1333 processor bus at default voltage. The only exception was the top line X6800 at the default 11x multiplier, which did require a modest voltage boost for stable 3.66GHz operation. Of course 1333 is the FSB frequency Intel will be introducing on their soon-to-be-announced processor upgrades.
The comparison of Kingston DDR3 to earlier DDR3 and DDR2 used exactly the same components in the same test bed wherever possible. For the fairest comparison to both other DDR3 and the best DDR2, the Asus P5K and P5K3 motherboards were both powered by an Intel X6800 processor running at an 8x1333 FSB (333 quad pumped). All that was required to do this was up the base CPU bus to 333, and lowering the default multiplier to 8 (from 11). We did not need to make any changes to CPU voltage and left it at default settings. Due to issues with memory ratios on the P965 we were forced to use 10x266 timings for comparison on that chipset. The P965 was not designed for 1333 FSB speed, so when 1333 is set the available memory ratios do not allow comparison at standard memory speeds. 10x266 or 2.66GHz is the same speed as 8x333 and the same X6800 CPU was used in all three test beds.
The 1333 processor bus does improve performance in some benchmarks compared to 1066. The recent Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look examined the components of increased performance on the 1333 bus and found that the performance impact of the increased bus speed on gaming was minimal.
| Memory Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 (x2, 2.93GHz unlocked, 4MB Unified Cache) 10x266 - 2.66 GHz 8x333 - 2.66GHz |
| RAM | Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2 (2GB kit - 2x1GB, DDR3-1333 7-7-7) Corsair CM3X1024-1066C7 (2GB Kit - 2x1GB- DDR3-1066 7-7-7) Corsair Dominator CM2X1024-8888C4 (2GB Kit - 2x1GB - DDR2-1250 5-5-5) |
| Hard Drive | Samsung 250GB SATA2 enabled (8MB Buffer) |
| System Platform Drivers | Intel - 8.3.0.1013 |
| Video Card | Leadtek WinFast 7950GT 256MB |
| Video Drivers | NVIDIA 93.71 |
| CPU Cooling | Intel Retail HSF |
| Power Supply | Corsair HX620W |
| Motherboards | Asus P5K3 Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR3) Asus P5K Deluxe (Intel P35 DDR2) Asus P5B Deluxe (Intel P965 DDR2) |
| Operating System(s) | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
To fairly compare this new low-latency Kingston DDR3 to existing DDR2 memory, one of the best DDR2 memories tested so far, Corsair Dominator, was also run at the fastest timings available at DDR2-800 3-3-3-9 and DDR-1066 at 4-4-3-11. The Dominator DDR2-1111 cannot run at DDR2-1333, so it was not possible to compare standard speeds above 1066. The same DDR2 memory was also tested on a P965 motherboard at the same fast memory timings of 800 3-3-3-9 and 1066 4-4-3-11. This allows comparison of performance of the current P965 with the fastest DDR2 memory to the new P35 chipset with both the fastest DDR2 memory and the low-latency DDR3 being reviewed.
Every 1066 FSB Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad CPU we had in the lab ran fine at 1333 processor bus at default voltage. The only exception was the top line X6800 at the default 11x multiplier, which did require a modest voltage boost for stable 3.66GHz operation. Of course 1333 is the FSB frequency Intel will be introducing on their soon-to-be-announced processor upgrades.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
We ran a complete test suite at DDR3-1500 7-7-7-15. Not surprisingly ALL of the results were a bit higher than those reported at 1520 9-8-8-22.As a result we will be replacing the 1520 results on all performance charts with the higher 1500 7-7-7 results. Give us about 15 minutes to complete the update. Enjoy!
photoguy99 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
It would be a good accomplishment for Barcelona to come out and surpass Core2 performance that wowed the world last year.But how many of these can Barcelona beat:
1) Original Core2 Quad at 2.66Mhz (probably what they were aiming for)
2) Add P35 chipset for 5-10% performance increase
3) Add DD3 at 1333Mhz or higher with low latencies for 5-10% increase
4) Add Penryn core for 5-10% performance increase at same clock speed
5) Penryn releases at 3.2 Ghz, add another 10% increase
When is the pain gonna stop for AMD?
It seems by this fall the Intel platform is going to be a lot faster that the original Core2 or Core2 quad releases.
defter - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link
Since Intel has already demonstrated air-cooled 3.33GHz Penryn based quad cores, and desktop Penryn based CPUs will use 1333MHz FSB and support half multipliers, I guess that desktop Penryn based quad core CPUs can be launched at least at 3.33-3.5GHz if necessary.
TA152H - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
OK, this post really irritates me.You think AMD started design on the Barcelona last year? How else could you possibly say they were aiming for the 2.66 Core 2 before it was even released if this wasn't true? Good grief, think!
The P35 most certainly does NOT add 5-10% application performance. Maybe in specific applications you will see something like this, but overall, it's not that high.
DDR3 at 1333 isn't adding much of anything right now. 5-10%???? Where are you getting these numbers from? In fact, in every gaming benchmark they ran, it was either slower or the same as the DDR2-1066. 5-10% my ass.
Penryn numbers are also made up, it would be extremely optimistic for 5-10% increase in IPC for most applications. Maybe a few will, but broadly, it's probably not true, and absolutely speculative.
Hmmmm, going from 3.0 GHz they have out now, to 3.2 GHz is 10%? I think it's more like 6.67%.
In short, all your assumptions are either, at best speculative, or at worst, just wrong.
Will DDR3 timings go down? Of course, but so will DDR2 since that's the dominant memory. Considering the changes to the Barcelona memory controller, I think you can expect a pretty substantial improvement there, but we won't know until we see it. A lot of stuff we won't know until we see it.
The big thing that bothers me is AMD still has not fully implement memory disambiguation, and while the scheduling of loads is improved to P6 levels, I'm not sure if it's enough. I'm also not crazy about their substantial x87 implementation, as it's a deprecated technology and more and more becoming dead weight. It's not even part of x86-64.
So, I'm not saying Barcelona will be better or worse, we'll see soon enough, but the reasons you give are, at best, specious, and at worst pure nonsense.
yacoub - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
I would guess they would aim for 20-25% improvement over last year's core2duo so somewhere around 3-4 of your 5 should be the level of Barcelona performance if it works out. In that case since I don't think you won't see all 5 of those combined this year, especially at a competitive price-point I think Barcelona still has a chance. =)Anonymous Freak - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
One of my big gripes with the DDR3 reviews so far, which were the same when DDR2 first came out, is the direct comparison of same-bus-speed results. Of *COURSE* DDR3 at 800 MHz will be slower than DDR2 at 800 MHz. As this review shows, even the best DDR3 timings are slower than the best DDR2 timings.But, that's not what DDR3 is designed to do. It's designed to have higher latency in exchange for significantly higher bus speeds, as this test shows. You should be comparing the DDR3-1333 results with the DDR2-800 or 1066 results.
Just as when DDR2 came out, it had much higher latency than DDR1, but faster bus speeds. Try comparing a top of the line DDR2 rig to a top of the line DDR1 rig now. (Say AMD AM2 vs. 939.) The faster bus speed of the DDR2 rig will just blow away the DDR1 rig, regardless of how good the DDR1 timings are. The same will be true with DDR3. Faster timings will come, as will faster bus speeds. The two will cause DDR3 to completely dominate even the fastest overclocked DDR2. Just look at this review, we have fast, but *within spec* DDR3 performing the same as the ultimate in overclocked DDR2. Just wait until we have the equivalent ultra-high-end DDR3 running at a *fully within spec* 1600 Mhz with 5-3-3 timings; and we'll probably see overclocked settings even higher.
lopri - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link
I'm afraid that your assertion is not quite the reality. AM2 CPU's memory controller has never been up to the level of Socket 939 CPU's. Under the same configuration sans memory, Socket 939 rig will always win over Socket AM2 rig.takumsawsherman - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
I doubt you will actually see a significant difference between DDR and DDR2 running on otherwise similar chipsets. It wasn't very difficult to find 2-2-2-5-1 or 2-2-2-6 latencies with DDR memory. Even now, I am finding it hard to consistently source DDR2 for a reasonable price that has a reasonably low latency. But if you were to take 2-2-2-5-1 DDR and 3-4-3-9 DDR2 module pairs and run them with similar chipsets, with the same processors, you may in fact get some victories for DDR in your benchmarks.Bandwidth isn't everything. For some tasks, latency is far more important. Therefore, it is vitally important for someone to actually test real world scenarios and publish results. That way, people can save their money for an upgrade that might have a chance at improving their performance.
bobsmith1492 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
Don't forget... latency is not just the CAS number; it is a function of the clock speed and the number of cycles of latency. The overall latency time is the important part. DDRII 800MHz at CAS3 will have better latency than DDRI 400MHz at CAS2 (if either of those exist even...)Chunga29 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link
Those both exist as unofficial RAM speeds, though the DDR is harder to find these days.