Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-3200 Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

sudz

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
38
0
18,540
2
How about a price to performance ratio to Other clockspeeds.

For example, 2x8 LPX 2400 CL14 kit. I got it for 105 bucks CAD (so like 80 USD) instead of 190.

Is it really worth more than double the price?
 

joex444

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2006
1,279
0
20,160
239
Why do you run WinRAR benchmark that takes about 30 seconds to complete when you have 1 second resolution. You don't actually expect DDR4-3200 compared to DDR4-2400 to give you a 3.3% boost on overall system performance when your previous benchmark showed that the gain in pure memory bandwidth is around 10-15% and the latency boost is around 3%.

If you want to benchmark RAM, it seems like you understand that you need benchmarks that are RAM constrained and compression is part of it, though that's largely CPU bound not RAM bound. In terms of WinRAR specifically, this benchmark offers nothing because your resolution is so poor you can only separate dual cores from quad cores from hex cores, you can't distinguish hex cores with DDR4-2400 from hex cores with DDR4-3200. On top of that, WinRAR is more dependent on the disk so using an M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 drive should be distinguishable from a SATA-III SSD, is distinguishable from a HDD. You could make the WinRAR benchmark more meaningful by using a bigger data set -- if 1.3GB takes 30 seconds then 15GB should take about 346 seconds and now you can resolve to within 1/346 = 0.29%. Well below what anyone really cares about.

For RAM constrained applications, look into more scientific applications. Also worthwhile would be X99 in dual channel vs X99 in quad channel.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor

it seems that part of the article got "cleaned" :)
Test System Configuration
CPU Intel Core i7-6700K (Skylake), LGA 1151, Overclocked to 4.40 GHz at 1.30V
Motherboard Gigabyte Z170X-Gaming G1, BIOS F5i (10/06/2015)
CPU Cooler Noctua NH-U12S
Graphics Gigabyte GV-N970G1 GAMING-4GD: GTX970 1178-1329 MHz GPU, GDDR5-7012
Hard Drive Crucial MX200 CT500MX200SSD1 500GB SATA 6Gb/s SSD
Sound Integrated HD Audio
Network Integrated Gigabit Networking
Power be quiet! Dark Power PRO 10 BN603 850W ATX 12V v2.3, 80 PLUS Platinum
Benchmark Configuration
Autodesk 3ds Max 2013 Version 15.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080
WinRAR Version 5.0: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3"
Grid 2 Steam Version, In-Game Test, High Quality, No AA
Battlefield 4 DirectX 11, 100-sec. Fraps "Tashgar", High Quality
SiSoftware Sandra Version 2014.02.20.10, Memory Bandwidth, Cache & Memory Latency Benchmarks

 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor

I'll ask the benchmark team about a longer WinRAR benchmark. At this length, it only shows major differences.

Also, please check out the ASRock X99E-ITX/ac review. It only has dual-channel mode, and gets compared to quad-channel boards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-x99e-itx-ac-motherboard,4127.html



 

phil brinkle

Reputable
Dec 21, 2014
12
0
4,510
0
Was it so difficulult to take some photos of the modules? Shame on you TH! I would have never imagined that TH can write such a poor technical review.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor

Here you go: both sides of the modules are shown:


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY