bit-tech.net

Intel Lynnfield Memory Performance Analysis

Comments 1 to 25 of 27

Reply
mbvg 2nd November 2009, 10:44 Quote
still going strong with my dual core e5300 @2.6ghz with 2gb of memory ;) which i built this summer and is fine for what i need (homework and school work mostly). will think to upgrade when it gets a bit slow or breaks but with this in mind when prices go down in a year or 2 will upgrade then :) and give older parts to rest of family
13eightyfour 2nd November 2009, 10:57 Quote
I went with the Blue Ripjaws because they match my MSI GD65 motherboard perfectly, Its silly i know but with the performance difference being so small, they might aswell look good.
Gremlin 2nd November 2009, 11:04 Quote
Great article, surprised by the performance numbers though I was expecting a bigger spread in results

Rich any chance for an AM3 article like this? I know how boring and mind numbing the testing is but it'd be a good read to see if the AMD chips perform differently with memory latency/frequency changes than the Intel platform does
Claave 2nd November 2009, 11:09 Quote
I'd imagine (from experience, and because AMD CPUs also have integrated dual-channel memory controllers) that the results will be much the same as you see in this article.

Plus, Rich could probably do with a break from memory for a while! :D
Gremlin 2nd November 2009, 11:14 Quote
Heh yeah I figured he could, Not to mention a break from the AMD platform with all the **** the 965 is giving him heh, but it'd be pretty cool to still cover the memory spectrum that way, I don't think any other site has done it

I know they have the IMC just not sure how much it differs from Intel's TBH, never really seen them compared using the same memory and this style of test, they might prefer different things considering AMD's is much more mature
frontline 2nd November 2009, 11:15 Quote
Nice article, but agree that an AM3 article would be nice too :)

Looks like gaming performance has very little in terms of gains/losses, at least when it comes to frames per second.

When playing online first person shooters, is lower latency more desirable than higher frequencies?
Yoy0YO 2nd November 2009, 11:35 Quote
Great article. Looks like theres very little differences in Rams.
I gotta say, that Hyber Tx1 something looked ridiculous.
Ripjaws look reeeeeal fine.
mi1ez 2nd November 2009, 11:53 Quote
Secotr 5s are the best looking outright (IMHO) but you obviously have to take into account colour of your mobo, graphics card, case, CPU cooler etc.
yakyb 2nd November 2009, 11:54 Quote
cheap ram FTW
Claave 2nd November 2009, 12:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin
I know they have the IMC just not sure how much it differs from Intel's TBH, never really seen them compared using the same memory and this style of test, they might prefer different things considering AMD's is much more mature

Ahhh, but the AMD memory controller can handle higher DIMM voltages, so it'd be unfair to AMD for us to test its CPUs with any of this memory anyway.

That's not to say that you can't use Lynnfield memory in an AMD rig and get a lot of overclocking headroom though.
Autti 2nd November 2009, 13:54 Quote
Interesting results, i really thought high end memory would make a bigger difference than 1600 CAS9
Scootiep 2nd November 2009, 14:49 Quote
So after reading this article, I'm of the opinion that, when it comes to gaming, GPU > CPU > Mobo > SSD > RAM. Basically just make sure you meet the minimum RAM requirements with a good namebrand and make sure it looks pretty?
Mongoose132 2nd November 2009, 15:13 Quote
That's the conclusion I drew as well, but then I never really spent more than a passing thought on memory, other than getting enough. :P
Gremlin 2nd November 2009, 15:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
Ahhh, but the AMD memory controller can handle higher DIMM voltages, so it'd be unfair to AMD for us to test its CPUs with any of this memory anyway.

That's not to say that you can't use Lynnfield memory in an AMD rig and get a lot of overclocking headroom though.

I wouldn't call it unfair since there's nothing stopping anyone from just using it at its rated voltage, but yeah AMD handles the higher volts quite happily so it gives you some wiggle room for sure if you were to OC

I'm more asking because I have seen literally hundreds of threads on enthusiast forums since AM3 came out with people spouting the old adage from all the previous AMD evolutions that lower latency over higher frequency is the most valuable asset,

A definitive article would put all that to rest "whats better on AM3, high freq vs lower latency?" because for all we know since nobody tested it AMD's IMC might perform much different than said

Hell it doesn't even need much to test to be honest just some ram ran at different frequencies and latencies, If you guys don't wanna do it send me some ram and ill do it all for you free of charge! :P
bradders2125 2nd November 2009, 15:57 Quote
I bought the G.Skill Ripjaws for my P7P55D Deluxe when I won it. The colour is almost identicle to the motherboards heatsink colour.
FeRaL 2nd November 2009, 17:31 Quote
Sorry to be a little off topic, but what is the consensus concerning latency and speeds for Bloomfield?
wuyanxu 2nd November 2009, 20:54 Quote
low end RAM FTW! the most important factor in RAM IMHO is the amount, 8GB is not enough at all, we want 16GB!

Corsair Dominators 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24 designed for AMD works perfectly at stock speeds 1.55v.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/wuyanxu/WyXQuad_BuildLog/ee36cb17.jpg
Bindibadgi 2nd November 2009, 21:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeRaL
Sorry to be a little off topic, but what is the consensus concerning latency and speeds for Bloomfield?

An educated guess would be the two systems are similar, except Bloomfield doesn't OC as far because of triple channel limitations.
kenco_uk 2nd November 2009, 21:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sifter3000
What bodes better for Intel's new dual channel CPU: high clock, low latency or both? We run the numbers for both so you know what memory kit to pair with your new Lynnfield system.

:)

Linkeh?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2009/11/02/intel-lynnfield-memory-performance-analysis/1 - Bindi
phuzz 3rd November 2009, 09:24 Quote
I'd be interested to see the differences between 4Gb and 8Gb (especially given that you could buy an extra 4Gb instead of springing for high performance memory).
lord_moggo 3rd November 2009, 17:28 Quote
What happened to:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=171053&page=8
Did they ever pick a winner cause I thought I was the only one with a new idea so I had my hopes up... :(
John_T 3rd November 2009, 20:44 Quote
It may not be the 'sexiest' subject, (and it may be as boring as hell collating all the info) but it's definitely useful to see...
Bindibadgi 3rd November 2009, 20:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_moggo
What happened to:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=171053&page=8
Did they ever pick a winner cause I thought I was the only one with a new idea so I had my hopes up... :(

Yea we did :) It was announced somewhere...
roadie 6th January 2011, 12:48 Quote
Would love to see you guys do a similar round up for Sandy Bridge. Wonder if its increased performance means that it will be held back by "only" 1600Mhz C9 memory at all?
Bindibadgi 6th January 2011, 13:06 Quote
Check back next week ;)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums