Does Memory Performance Bottleneck Your Games?

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]Is it entirely possible that a quad-channel memory architecture has to make compromises, such as how many DIMMs you can run per channel at a rated speed?[/citation]We already have seen this issue crop up even on two-channel setups. It even affects some systems at stock speeds, but it becomes a bigger issue when overclocking. One DIMM per channel is more desireable if you're planning on doing any overclocking that stresses the memory controller or the memory itself.

Anyway, a big part of the why performance in most games isn't heavily affected by main memory bandwidth/latency is due to the CPU using multiple levels of increasingly larger and smarter cache. They have worked to minimize the impact of slow system memory. Now, graphics is a different story, and that's why this gets turned completely upside down when talking about APUs and running anything on the integrated GPU.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]maxinexus[/nom]Could have included single channel as well[/citation]
The only single channel chips on the market are low-cost, low-power chips that are bottlenecked elsewhere. Otherwise they'd be using faster memory and/or a second channel, although both of those might drive power use up.

If you meant testing single channel, on a dual channel-capable system, that's... well at first glance that seems idiotic. I'm not gonna lie, I downrated you for it. But you know what... some OEMs do ship systems configured with only one channel operational. It might not be a bad idea to test it just to show people why they need to make sure they're running dual channel, even if they have to crack open the box and install their own RAM.

It might come in handy just so that we could send a link to the article to our foolish friends that buy poorly configured big-name OEM machines.

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]looniam[/nom]well call me the glass is half empty guy. if there is no real world difference then it is NOT worth spending one penny more.[/citation]

the problem with you glass half empty people is the glass is always full, just not always with what you want in it. air counts. iair can be weighed and measured.lemons aren't the only thing life gives when making lemonade!

 

[sempifi99]

You are not using DDR in any system capable of playing BF3 on Ultra at 60 FPS. In fact if you are talking about the system in your sig you are using DDR3. DDR was made obsolete with Core2. DDR2 was made obsolete with Core i5/i7. At least in Intel builds. If you have an i7 970 you have DDR3 even if you don't know it.

Great article Crashman. I wish you had included single channel performance though.

Wow... what a troll. Ever think I may have more than one computer genius?!

 

[Deleted member 217926]

Wow... what a troll. Ever think I may have more than one computer genius?!

I'm a troll for questioning the validity of you stating that you have a DDR based system that can max BF3 at 60FPS when the last motherboards to support DDR were released in about 2004? Since you need a GTX 480/GTX 570 level card get those numbers at 1920 x 1080 or a GTX 560 Ti at 1680 x 1050 you can see my cause for skepticism. The last boards I saw with DDR support were the very earliest LGA 775 boards supporting the Pentium 4 5xx and 6xx series. By the time Pentium D was released DDR2 was the norm. So that's one hell of a Pentium 4 you have not to bottleneck a GTX 570.

 

[sempifi99]

I'm a troll for questioning the validity of you stating that you have a DDR based system that can max BF3 at 60FPS when the last motherboards to support DDR were released in about 2004? Since you need a GTX 480/GTX 570 level card get those numbers at 1920 x 1080 or a GTX 560 Ti at 1680 x 1050 you can see my cause for skepticism. The last boards I saw with DDR support were the very earliest LGA 775 boards supporting the Pentium 4 5xx and 6xx series. By the time Pentium D was released DDR2 was the norm. So that's one hell of a Pentium 4 you have not to bottleneck a GTX 570.

No, you are a troll for assuming I was lying. And saying 2004 is not far off, the computer was built in 2005 and it has an updated graphics card... let me list the specs for you below.

Motherboard: Asus K8N-DL
CPU: Dual Opteron 285
Ram: Quad Quimonda 2GB PC3200R
Gpu: EVGA GTX 680

 

[Deleted member 217926]

No, you are a troll for assuming I was lying. And saying 2004 is not far off, the computer was built in 2005 and it has an updated graphics card... let me list the specs for you below.

Motherboard: Asus K8N-DL
CPU: Dual Opteron 285
Ram: Quad Quimonda 2GB PC3200R
Gpu: EVGA GTX 680

I suppose I am a troll for assuming anyone posting on this site is more intelligent than to put a $500+ GPU on anything that old. Also 8GB support was rare to almost nonexistent on DDR based systems. You have one of the few boards that even support that much RAM. That also made my think you were incorrect in your first post. I suppose with the dual CPU setup the 680 is not bottlenecked as bad as it sounds like it would be. There are probably about 5 people in the whole country with a setup like that though so you an see where my wrong assumptions came from. Anyway sorry for assuming.

 

[blader15sk8]

I wish TOMS would do this with an AMD APU running the integrated graphics, that is where it REALLY matters. And don't stop at 2133, go to 2400, 2600, etc.. the few benchmarks I've seen show that AMD APU's really benefit from the extra bandwidth, and if that's what it takes for the AMD APU to be a viable alternative to a dedicated GPU, this needs to be known!

 

[sempifi99]

I suppose I am a troll for assuming anyone posting on this site is more intelligent than to put a $500+ GPU on anything that old. Also 8GB support was rare to almost nonexistent on DDR based systems. You have one of the few boards that even support that much RAM. That also made my think you were incorrect in your first post. I suppose with the dual CPU setup the 680 is not bottlenecked as bad as it sounds like it would be. There are probably about 5 people in the whole country with a setup like that though so you an see where my wrong assumptions came from. Anyway sorry for assuming.

Again... your attempts to call me stupid only prove my point that you are trolling and don't really care anything about the conversation. Yet you are probably right that not many people own a setup similar to this. The pair of CPU cost $20 on ebay and have performance comparable to a Athlon x4 640, a CPU I assume you are more familiar with, the ram cost $25 and the board was laying around in my basement, but probably would have been near $20 too. I originally had a an old GTX 260 on there, but decided to break my dual GTX 680 setup as micro-stuttering was ruining any extra fps gain from the second card. I threw the extra GTX 680 on there for fun. It preformed well enough that I decided to keep the system around and let my kids game on it.

 

[BestJinjo]

The decision for RAM choice right now can't be any easier:

1) Samsung Electronics ECO Green Extreme Low Voltage 30nm UDIMM 8 Dual Channel Kit DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM MV-3V4G3D/US = less than $50 for 8GB (Amazon / MicroCenter)

2) Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Low Profile Desktop Memory Model BLS8G3D1609ES2LX0 = less than $50 for 8GB (Newegg)

3) Crucial Ballistix Tactical 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Low Profile Desktop Memory Model BLT2K4G3D1608ET3LX0 = less than $50 for 8GB (Newegg)

All of those will hit DDR3-2133mhz-2400mhz because they are 30nm 1.35V chips underclocked to DDR3-1600. The Samsung ECO Green DDR3-1600 have a proven track record in the overclocking community. Can't go wrong with those:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Samsung/MV-3V4G3/6.html

With these 3 options, you hit all 3 points: (1) low profile which means it fits under larger CPU air coolers (2) great price (3) amazing overclocking speeds guaranteed.

 

[mubin]

Thats a article worth reading for not buying high speed memory 😉

 

[marraco]

The authors do not understand frame by frame analysis at all. This article is useless.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]True, but at the same time we are only talking about 1866, and while it will void the warranty, the idea of such a small OC doing any damage to your CPU is a little weird. The only times I have ever heard of someone damaging a processor from the Pentium3 era to now has only been when doing much more extreme OCs where you are pushing the system some 50%+ outside of spec. And even then most of the time the system merely becomes unstable, and you reset your settings, and most of the time you are just fine.That being said, I cannot wait for DDR4 to come out. It will bring much faster stock memory speeds, much higher densities (minimum DDR4 size I am hearing is 4GB), and lower voltages which will keep those higher densities cooler. Hopefully Intel will change their memory controller a bit to take better advantage of the frequency difference, that is something that AMD has always been a little better at.[/citation]

Last I checked, AMD has been behind Intel in memory controller efficiency in both latency and bandwidth since Nehalem rolled out. As it stands now, Intel is something like 35% ahead in bandwidth comparing AMD's top FX models to Intel's i5s and i7s with the same memory kit at the same frequencies and timings. I think latencies are a little closer between AMD and Intel than bandwidth, but Intel still has an advantage these days. Intel has been ahead since they dumped the on-board memory controller, IE since they dumped the LGA 775 socket.

 

[alvine]

[citation][nom]jase240[/nom]I would like to see how faster RAM effects loading times, that's the ONLY reason I can imagine paying a little more. And even then 1866 would probably be fine, considering most will overclock to 2133 well. Although in reality 1600 can do the job just fine and it could overclock nicely too if you get the right RAM.[/citation]
loading times are affected by you hard drive

 

[jaquith]

Wow, talk about not reading the article! Here's a hint, from the article you didn't read:Bottom line: Buy the fastest memory you can afford, AT LEAST DDR3-1866, unless you're certain that the slower memory you're buying can be overclocked

Thomas - first nice article and l-o-n-g overdue.

There's a side cost of ultra-high frequency RAM - system stability. So for the few frames, on average if that, I recommend memory that's your CPU's Rated Memory Frequency + 1 notch higher; small (OC). So if your CPU is rated at e.g DDR3-1600 then purchase a DDR3-1866 kit (e.g. 2x4GB) and call it a day. Spend your resources on something that does have a much more profound impact i.e. a faster GPU or better CPU; depending on your current CPU/GPU(s). Also, if your GPU(s) + 'games' can easily render higher than your monitor's refresh rate then anything you're adding is a total waste, not to mention the unsightly tearing (use vSync/Adaptive vSync).

Meaning RAM is the last priority, yes assuming a decent 8GB kit; more GB's if doing something more than gaming e.g some higher form of render/data use.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Soooooooo you guys aren't going to try this same thing with 16GB's or RAM and the 8350?

 

[redgarl]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]...then you won't be buying all this other expensive hardware. Nobody needs Crossfire to play games, nobody needs Eyefinity to participate in the gaming experience, and anyone who has that much money to spend on gaming can probably justify a few dollars extra for RAM.[/citation]

CF is worth it. 2 smaller cards in CF make you save about an 100$ for the same performance than a highend card. I have yet to see a game that my twin 6850 cannot handle.

 

[pit_1209]

So ddr4 is not needed then.

 

[Adroid]

I think this test would have been much better on an Ivy Bridge system. It is a well established fact by now that on sandy bridge ram over 1600 DDR3 makes little difference.

There are far fewer reputable articles on DDR 3 speeds on Ivy bridge for gaming. I would really really appreciate seeing one done!!!

 

[zakaron]

[citation][nom]digitalwitchcraft[/nom]i have 8GB ddr2 800MHz Kingston RAM CAS6. i built my PC 3 years ago. I would like to know: is there any 'massive' bottleneck compared to 1600MHz for example?i recently bought HD7950 boost. my CPU is Phenom II x4 940 @ 3GHznice article btw[/citation]
You have a similar system to mine: I have the Phenom II x3 720 but with an unlocked 4th core all running at 3.5Ghz. I've got the 7870 OC'd a bit too. DDR2 800 (4GB) slightly OC'd to 1000Mhz due to my FSB setting @ 250. But to be honest, you are not going to see an appreciable difference in DDR2 memory even if you went with 1066 rated DIMMs. The processor will be the largest improvement, but for anything worthwhile you are looking at a new motherboard which will inheritantly support newer memory anyway. If you can run games smoothly, and I suspect you can on a reasonable resolution with your current system, then I would not worry about memory speed right now. Especially with the price of DDR2 compared to DDR3. Now that's a completely different gripe!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]zakaron[/nom]You have a similar system to mine: I have the Phenom II x3 720 but with an unlocked 4th core all running at 3.5Ghz. I've got the 7870 OC'd a bit too. DDR2 800 (4GB) slightly OC'd to 1000Mhz due to my FSB setting @ 250. But to be honest, you are not going to see an appreciable difference in DDR2 memory even if you went with 1066 rated DIMMs. The processor will be the largest improvement, but for anything worthwhile you are looking at a new motherboard which will inheritantly support newer memory anyway. If you can run games smoothly, and I suspect you can on a reasonable resolution with your current system, then I would not worry about memory speed right now. Especially with the price of DDR2 compared to DDR3. Now that's a completely different gripe![/citation]

Well since the question was comparing the bottle-neck for his/her system between DDR2-800 CAS6 and DDR3-1600 (lets go with CAS8 for a fairly common, but slightly better than average kit), I think that it is the comparison best addressed to answer his/her post. I'd say that it's a considerable bottle-neck. It's probably not huge, but considerable. Whether or not it is a perceivable bottle-neck on gaming performance for his/her system, I wouldn't know.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]pit_1209[/nom]So ddr4 is not needed then.[/citation]

It is important for some things such as decreasing cost per GB and greatly improving performance of integrated graphics. It is not important for alleviating the memory bottle-neck on CPU performance for most people because only a minority of workloads are very memory bandwidth bottle-necked.

Stuff such as rendering, compression/decompression, and many FPU workloads could benefit greatly from greater memory bandwidth, but the general populace doesn't do much of that and other memory-bandwidth bottle-necked workloads to a point where its performance is a significant issue.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Gin Fushicho[/nom]Soooooooo you guys aren't going to try this same thing with 16GB's or RAM and the 8350?[/citation]

High RAM capacity is not a factor in performance and won't make a noticeable difference. It's far less important after you have 4GB or more system RAM for even intensive modern games than even RAM bandwidth and latency on systems that aren't using APUs. System memory capacity is by far one of the least important factors in gaming performance. So long as you have enough, IE usually between 2GB and 6GB, having more does not help. In fact, often times it is very, very slightly detrimental to performance.

 

[youssef 2010]

It's a good article but seriously, measuring efficiency for a 2% performance difference? Come on

 

[Angry Bellic]

I don't see the meaning of people using 64+ GB of RAM, I mean I am a HARDCORE GAMER WHO ONLY PLAYS GTA IV AND GTA IV EFLC ( 😀 ) And I only got 16 GB of RAM whats the use of 64/32/128 GB of RAM, anyway?