rodzoom :
Not really fair since 1866 is just a few dollars more than 1600, and I've been buying 1866 for AMDs since 2 years... maybe in an HP, AMD pc might only have 1600mhz ram, but you can bet that all independent builders are using 1866 in AMDs...
AND they're not using ddr3 2000+mhz ram that is in use in Tom's review...for AMD or Intel...
By the way...They ram you need to use is totally dependant on the chipset used and motherboard specs...I always (for 10 years) installed the maximum native ram, today that's 1866 for AMD and 1600 for Intel 1155...
My point was, that AMD has some good points too...
I can almost always get a kit of DDR3-1600 2x4GB for around $40. Sometimes a little under, sometimes a little over. DDR3-1866 fluctuates far more and is usually more like $10 to $20 more expensive, at least when I look. When I find a good kit cheap enough on sale, I'll recommend it over DDR3-1600 at a similar price, but that's usually not going on. Oftentimes, DDR3-2133 is no more expensive than DDR3-1866 and sure, it's probably even more rarely used, but even most system builders for AMD use DDR3-1600, not DDR3-1866.
rodzoom :
By the way, what does 10% faster ram (1866) give you? Its got to give something...
I guess, In real world use,,, you get quicker response every time you click... faster startup and shutdown... it allows the processor to utilize its resources better...
I suspect that for all everyday normal uses (internet, email, facebook, Office etc) an AMD quad core with 1866 ram could be more responsive than corei7 with 1600mhz ram...I would really like to see this tested...
I suspect as well, why does AMD 8 core not score better than Intel i5 and i7, because the software is not optimized for AMD 8 core, eventually they will shine when the right software and patches come out... Unfortunately for AMD everything is optimized for Intel.
By the way using faster than 1600 in Intel 1155 guarantees you will crash your motherboard eventually... it may take a few days or weeks, but there is a reason why Intel says its 1600mhz max... it will never be 100% stable over 1600mhz...and since I build PCs for other people, I can't give them a pc with overclocked processors and overclocked ram, highest native specs only...
DDR3-1600 to DDR3-1866 is almost absolutely no difference except for APUs and even then, it only makes a difference in graphics performance and again, even then, although a welcome improvement, it's far from a big boost. The improvement is only enough to go from say 30FPS to around 33FPS or 34FPS.
You are completely wrong about an APU with DDR3-1866 beating an i7 with DDR3-1600. The i7 would win in every way, granted it probably wouldn't be a big difference for basic use since that sort of work isn't highly perfomrance-intensive.
The simple fact that AMD's AM3+/FM memory controllers are less effective than Intel's Sandy/Ivy memory controllers allow Intel with DDR3-1600 to have slightly more bandwidth at slightly lower latency than AMD with DDR3-1866, so even if your incorrect assumption that memory performance was so important that a small difference could counteract a huge CPU performance difference, you'd still be wrong in saying that AMD would win in that example.
Using faster RAM than DDR3-1600 in Intel in absolutely no way guarantees that the system will bust sooner than it would with lower frequency memory. If anything, only using high voltage DDR3 memory would ensure that and even then, it still doesn't make a big difference in longevity. The frequency doesn't impact longevity much at all. Since the memory controller is in the CPU, the failrue would have to be in the CPU and we all know that CPUs are easily the most reliable hardware component in the system. Worst case scenario is the CPU lasts 15 years instead of 15 years and a month when it comes to higher frequency memory.
Higher voltage memory can hurt some of the poor yield CPUs, but that isn't what we're talking about and you don't need high-voltage to get even up to DDR3-2133 and even DDR3-2400 memory. Intel doesn't even say that there will be issues with memory frequencies over DDR3-1600.
They simply didn't do a lot of testign with higher frequencies when they came out with their platforms because higher frequencies didn't make much of a performance difference for most work and were very rare at the time. Intel only says that using high voltage memroy is likely to cause issues and even then, that can be counteracted with a BIOS setting to raise one of the other voltages in the CPU to alleviate the issue with high voltage memory (this is tested and proven to be perfectly safe).
Furthermore, to say that any CPU is better than another, especially with CPUs that have such radically different performance profiles as Intel's quad core models and AMD's eight core models, is extreme over-simplification of a topic too complex to be simplified. Yes, in highly threaded work, AMD's CPUs excel and tend to best the i5s and trade blows with the i7s. Perhaps with better optimization, they can even beat the i7s more consistently in such highly-threaded workloads. However, instead of AMD relying on further optimization, they could simply fix their mistakes instead. AMD's incredibly slow cache is easily holding them back more than any optimization issues and I speak as someone who is a proponent of AMD'S CPUs when the task(s) suit(s) them.
Also, I build and sell computers to clients too, so that you do isn't going to help your credibility, especially with how much of what you said (no offense intended) being wrong.
If you want to focus on CPU work that actually benefits from better memory, then talk about stuff such as compression/decompression, rendering, folding, AVX accelerated work, and such. These benefit from fast RAM while not much else does.
the basic works are not limited by ram speed or bandwidth. faster memory's effects are barely noticeable outside benchmarking or (amd)igpu-based gaming.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram