Super Talent & TEAM: DDR3-1600 Is Here!

by Wesley Fink on 7/20/2007 11:30 AM EST
Comments Locked

31 Comments

Back to Article

  • metalgrx - Thursday, December 13, 2007 - link

    If you check the official site of TEAM ( http://web.teamgroup.com.tw/teamgroup/en/productDe...">http://web.teamgroup.com.tw/teamgroup/e...php?pd_i... you ll see the PC3 12800 DDR3 1600MHz CL7 (2*1GB),7-7-7-21-2T, 1.75V~1.85V which is available in my country and i must say it's quite cheap compared to the other options...what do you think about this? To set it clearly...should i buy it?
  • Bozo Galora - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    FWIW: I picked this little blurb up from EVA's forum:

    Quote:
    BTW... The Micron Z9's are just Engineering samples (rev B), while the D9's are going to be on the market soon (if not already out there), and those are the non-Engineering samples.

    Hopefully the D9's can overclock as well as the Z9's (or even better)

    (Unquote)

    So it looks like the DDR3 will also have D9's
  • DigitalFreak - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    Wait a sec... so all this Z9 memory being reviewed isn't what will actually be available for sale? I thought these were retail DIMMs?
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link

    We have kits identified as Retail from both Super Talent and OCZ. Both have also announced the availability of these parts and pricing for the retail parts. TEAM has told us the TEAM kit is an Engineering Sample, but that retail kits will be announced soon.

    EVGA boards use nVidia chipsets and do not support DDR3. I would guess EVGA and its users would not be happy with DDR3-2000 chips being available as it would likely hurt their sales.
  • Bozo Galora - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    Another fine memory review - you da man, Wesley.

    Please ignore all the knuckle draggers - they have nothing better to do in their boring empty lives than to argue just for for the sake of arguing.

    Keep up the good work - don't let the losers get to you.
  • theprodigalrebel - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    TEAM's timings are listed as 5-4-3-9 2.1V @ 1900MHz in the 'Highest Speed' column.
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    The charts have all been corrected and now show the correct DDR3-1900 TEAM settings of 9-8-7-18 at 2.1V. Since our Web Editor is traveling and not available I ended up redoing the charts myself, so I added a few things like larger type to communicate the winner at each memory speed.
  • strikeback03 - Monday, July 23, 2007 - link

    while you're at it, last page, 4th paragraph from the end mentions DDR2-2000 DIMMs, assume that should be DDR3.
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    Thank you for pointing that out. It will be corrected.
  • MadBoris - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    At first I was like wow.

    Then I saw all DDR2 comparisons were at 33% less CPU frequency.
    We need to get back to real world thinking here.

    As an example if I am buying a MOBO capable of DDR2 or DDR3 with a 2.8 GHZ CPU. I would like to know what the actual performance difference would be on that platform for extra cost of DDR3. As it is, by guessing, a faster CPU would probably be a better value and keeping DDR2.

    Anyway, unique charts and data this time guys. I know it shows the scaling of memory speed and I am sure this some amazing electronic achievement in some laboratory, but it doesn't communicate much value to me until I see some apple to apple comparisons.

    I'm sure that will come around next time, looking forward to it.
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    1333 and 1066 are both at 2.66GHz - which was the best we could do. We would definitely prefer to compare ALL memory speeds at the same CPU frequency as we have done in all memory testing in the past. However, as we point out in the article, with just a 1333 strap and a 333 multiplier it just isn't possible. With boards with 1600.166 and possibly 2000 atraps we can do fixed CPU speed and varied memory speed again.

    Suggestions for test speeds are welcomed.
  • rjm55 - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    I can see where a 1600 strap is now almost a must on motherboards with these new 1600 kits. Does anyone know of ANY Intel P35 motherboard that has support for the 1600 or 1666 strap?
  • LTG - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    quote:

    few computer parts offer the kind of breakthrough performance advantage we see in these new DDR3-1600 kits

    Please cite an example of "break though performance".

    It seems any benchmark gains were largely due to CPU speed differences.



  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    I consider almost doubling memory speed in less than 2 months qualifies as breakthrough, just as a 6 GHz CPU would be a breakthrough. It is true that memory is just one component in overall performance and that the impact of doubling memory speed is definitely not the same as doubling CPU speed or doubling video speed would be. That still does not change the fact that the Z9 chips are a significant memory development.

    It is also true that potential gains are dampened by the current lack of straps above 1333 for DDR3. However, those will come sooner, rather than later, now that memory exists that can run at 1600/1666 and 2000.

  • LTG - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    Well, you still didn't answer the question so I'll repeat:

    Whats one single example of "breakthrough performance" provided by this memory?

    Wait, let's make it easier - shouldn't the article provide any examples of significant performance differences at the same CPU speed (aside from artificial benchmarks)?



  • bryanW1995 - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    A 50% increase in memory speed is not "breakthrough"? This is enthusiast/overclocking memory, it's not designed for the wannabe. Which one are you?
  • DigitalFreak - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    It's not when there is only a minuscule real world performance increase. It's the same situation as the P4 clock speed crap. The P4 may have run at 3.6Ghz, but it was still bested by an A64 running a Ghz or more slower.
  • TA152H - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link

    The fallacy with your argument is that the tests presented do not include every "real world" situation (no amount of tests could), and there will be situations where the extra memory performance will exhibit extraordinary improvements, depending on the software. I was not crazy about their choice of operating systems either, and you would expect the memory difference to be more in Vista than in XP, simply because Vista uses more memory and resources, and should have a lower cache hit percentage.

    It's also useful within a hardware context too, not everyone will be buying a Core 2 with 4 MB cache. Right now, yes, it will be what most people get, but when AMD goes to DDR3, and DDR3 prices drop so it becomes mainstream, it will be used on systems with a smaller cache and you'll see a better improvement in speed. So, it's informative.

    Also consider that DDR3 does all this with lower voltages than DDR2, so is meaningful in a performance/watt criteria.

    If all you are walking away with is a 2.5% improvement with a huge increase in cost, that's not much of interest because it's not worth it for most people. But, extrapolate from that in terms of different hardware and software, and the incredible changes in DDR3 performance lately, as well as the inevitable price drops, and you might get more value out of the review.

    DDR2 is obsolete. I said it a month ago, and I'm saying it again. It's low cost, but the performance is not there. It is fading fast (even faster than I thought, to be honest). In less than a month it went from being very competitive in performance and much lower cost against a technology that was showing potential but little real world current value, to already being a low cost, low performance alternative. It is not power efficient either, so all that remains to happen for DDR3 is for the price points to drop. Obviously, the performance delta will increase, but it's already better at that. Reviews like this are useful in that they show this to be true and they will give you a way to plan your next system, or perhaps put off a system purchase until a better time.

    Would you buy a DDR2 based system now? It would be like buying a DX9 based video card. Why buy obsolescence when already the next generation is showing real improvements. Time will make the differences greater.
  • strikeback03 - Monday, July 23, 2007 - link

    Speaking of voltage, no complaints over the 2.25V they used with the Super Talent DDR3? You complained about 1.7 volts in the Kingston article after all.

    And the comparison with DX9 video cards is not a great once for making your point either, as you already know that most people who comment here disagree with you on that point as well.
  • domski - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link

    quote:

    TextAlso consider that DDR3 does all this with lower voltages than DDR2, so is meaningful in a performance/watt criteria.

    quote:

    DDR2 [...] is not power efficient either, [...]


    Do you have any real-world power consumption figures to back up these assertions?

    Don't get me wrong -- I believe you. But I would be interested to see the magnitude of the difference in both absolute power consumption and performance per watt.


  • TA152H - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link

    There are a number of reviews that show power, but the numbers are pretty low in terms saving, because what you get from lower voltage you lose in higher speeds necessary to match DDR2 performance. I really should have said the extra performance doesn't come with the power penalty you'd expect, because the voltages are lower.
  • TA152H - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    I can see your point, because you are looking at it from a strictly system perspective, but his point is, it's a breakthrough from memory perspective. So, you're both right, you're just not talking about the same thing.

    Now, one thing that happens a lot with these reviews is their choices parts to test with the test item is questionable/poor, or incomplete. They end up with results that aren't as meaningful as they could be. I'll give a few examples, they benchmark mid-range and low-end DX10 cards, with Intel's high end CPU that would almost never be paired with it. Keeping in mind DX10 cards move work from the CPU to the GPU (or they should), it's not a meaningful benchmark and makes the cards look worse than they might with a lower end CPU (since this CPU is more likely to benefit from the offloaded work). Then they test the 1333 FSB processors with, of all things, 800 MHz DDR2 memory. Now, they test memory on a processor with 4 MB, instead of something smaller. This is not so bad, really, and I think he made a good choice because it is not too surprising to see this CPU, or any high end Intel CPU, with super fast expensive memory. But, if they tested it with a smaller cache CPU, you would probably see a much greater difference. So, I think both would have been helpful, because it's not easy to show a big memory difference when you're sitting on so much cache, although I think he made the right choice if he had only one test to make. But I think an additional one with a 2 MB or 1 MB processor might have given a better indication of what the memory can do, and I don't think it's meaningless because a lot of people will buy those and overclock them. Still, it would be more academic than real, but it would tend to add credibility to his point. This memory in some situations would have a really significant boost, but 4 MB of cache is hiding a lot of the performance improvement.
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    If you read the article you would see a long discussion of the difficulty of setting up the same CPU speed at different memory speeds. At present the only upper strap on P35 boards is the 1333 strap. We really need 1600, 1633, and perhaps even 2000 for more flexibility in USING and TESTING memory.

    Since you are so clever, why don't you figure out a set of multipliers and CPU speeds that can generate the SAME CPU speed at 1066 (or 1000) 1333, 1600 (or 1666), and 2000 using the 333 multiplier that is available in 1333, and having just a 1333 and 1066 strap. I can assure you we will use it if you can porvide a solution.

    I never mind criticism as it is how we imporve our performance, but I would appreciate it if you would actually read what is written before throwing rocks. That is common courtesy.
  • qpwoei - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link

    Regardless of whether there is a solution or not, the fact remains that the numbers presented in this article are close to worthless with regard to comparing performance with respect to memory speed. The only useful numbers are the maximum speeds for the memory. Overall, this was a really poor article, and definately not up to the usual Anandtech standard (which is probably why people are laying into it so much).

    In particular the sentence:
    quote:

    However, few computer parts offer the kind of breakthrough performance advantage we see in these new DDR3-1600 kits.

    reeks of vendor press-release and almost made me write off Anandtech as being able to produce even halfway competent memory reviews. With Core 2, memory speed has next to no impact - you show it here in this very article, with the jump from DDR3-1066 to DDR3-1333 (a 25% increase in memory speed) only giving a 0.9% increase in performance. The *best* you're going to get from DDR3-2000 is a 3.2% performance increase, though in reality you'd be lucky to break 2.5%. "Few computer parts" - any CPU or GPU upgrade would get you a better increase in performance than the RAM.

    There's a couple other things which do not make sense as well in this regard. Why did you use 8x400 instead of 7x400? You could even run it at 7x400 and 6x400 to get an idea of the effect of CPU speed and get a rough idea of how it'd work at the "ideal" 6.7x400 setting.

    Ditto for 417 - Using 8x417 is pointless, testing at 6x would be closer and again testing at both 6x and 7x would provide an idea of where it fits in.


    So, how to fix it? My first suggestion to improving the tests is to bin the E6420, or at least only use it for corner cases. The 8x max multiplier is just too limiting. Either use a 266 MHz FSB CPU (E6600 for example), or use that X6800 that you've been using previously.

    Then figure out how the FSB:RAM ratios affect performance. I don't have this particular board, but from what I've read the available RAM:FSB ratios are 1:1, 5:6, 4:5, 3:4, 5:8, 3:5, amd 1:2, limited such that the RAM speed is not allowed to go below 200 MHz (eg: the 1:2 ratio is only allowed at FSB speeds of 400 MHz and higher). The configurations to test, then, would be:
    {} 200x10 = 2000 1:1 vs 250x8 = 2000 4:5
    {} 240x10 = 2400 5:6 vs 267x9 = 2403 3:4
    {} 267x6 = 1602 3:4 vs 200x8 = 1600 1:1
    {} 320x6 = 1920 5:8 vs 240x8 = 1920 5:6
    {} 333x6 = 1998 3:5 vs 200x10 = 2000 1:1
    {} 400x6 = 2400 1:2 vs 240x10 = 2400 5:6
    This will allow relative comparisons of all the ratios (the memory speed and CPU speed are identical for each pair compared).

    Assuming no significant differences show up above, you can move on to testing with non-1:1 ratios, which frees you up a lot. Even if there are slight differences, these can be somewhat taken into account later on. For example, your tests today could have been done with (give or take a MHz or two for rounding):
    {} 333x9 = 2997 4:5 (1066)
    {} 333x9 = 2997 1:1 (1332)
    {} 500x6 = 3000 4:5 (1600)
    {} 500x6 = 3000 5:6 (1667)
    {} 500x6 = 3000 1:1 (2000)

    Even with your less-than-ideal E6420, you could have done:
    {} 444x8 = 3552 3:5 (1066)
    {} 444x8 = 3552 3:4 (1332)
    {} 500x7 = 3500 4:5 (1600)
    {} 500x7 = 3500 5:6 (1667)
    {} 500x7 = 3500 1:1 (2000)

    This is just from messing around in Excel for half an hour. With a bit more thinking, there's probably some even better options.
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link

    Thank you for your suggestions. Your scheme is better than the variation from 2.66 to 3.5, but it still will not be apples to apples. We have already compared high multipliers like 500 to equivalent speed at say 333 and there is a significant difference in our test results - minor in some tests and major in others. Our amplification article looking at the FSB speed increase component and the P35 component in the P35 performance improvements examined this. That was comparing 266 to 333 - the difference in 333 to 500 is even greater. Ideally all memory test speeds would be at the same FSB and multiplier.

    I ran your numbers through the BIOS and at 333x9 the ratios provide 800, 1067, and 1333 memory speeds. At 500x6 you can select 1000, 1200, 1600, and 2000. No 1667 available, but the 1067 and 1333 would be at much slower FSB speeds even though the 333x9 CPU speed is the same as 500x6. 333 is really 333.3333... We are ignoring the fact that 1:1 is the preferred ratio, but as we have shown in the past, that is not really a big concern as the impact is really minimal on the Intel chipsets - much smaller than you would expect.
  • qpwoei - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - link

    What BIOS version are you running on that board? The 2.58 BIOS as shown at
    http://www.octech.jp/modules/wordpress/index.php?p...">http://www.octech.jp/modules/wordpress/index.php?p...
    shows a much better range of ratios.

    I'd forgotten about the "Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look" article, so I went back and had a closer look. I was really surprised about the results in there - and then I remembered that the Core 2 FSB bandwidth is only half the memory bandwidth and it made sense again :) I think that trying to benchmark memory on a platform with a bottleneck between the memory and CPU is going to be very difficult.

    It looks like you're basically hosed, then, apart from the ratios that Intel provide. Increasing the CPU speed warps the results, increasing the FSB speed warps the results, so all you've got left is the FSB:RAM ratio, which really doesn't help you too much. Personally, I wouldn't bother with the "real world" results (ie: simply stick to the synthetic memory benchmarks) since they don't really add anything to the article. However, it would be interesting to see one article with a benchmark at each of the memory ratios offered by the P5K3 (keeping FSB and multiplier constant).

    I've got a few more ideas, but I'll just email you directly to save cluttering up the comments too much. Also, I'm probably going to be picking up a P5K3 (and a Q6600 like world + dog after the price cuts) so I'll probably be doing a bit of investigation on my own :)



    Oh, for the easy days of memory benchmarking on the K8 ...
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, July 23, 2007 - link

    Let me clarify a bit. THese ratios are available when the FSB strap is set to Auto. That means at the various memory speeds the strap may be 200, 266, or 333. We want the strap constant at 333 if at all possible for consistent results and comparisons.

    The issue of the memory strap probably deserves a separate article for those not familiar with this concept and its impact on memory performance.
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, July 23, 2007 - link

    The additional ratios shown on the Japanese website are only available if an "Auto" setting is used for FSB.
  • LTG - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    I didn't say the test setup was easy, maybe it's not even practical right now to realistically measure the gains of this memory.

    However until it is able to be measured well, do you think it's appropriate to conclude that this memory "offers breakthrough performance advantage" ?

    You ask for constructive criticism. I would suggest that you not issue such grand conclusions until it's possible to perform benchmarks that support them.

    Is that throwing rocks?

  • retrospooty - Sunday, July 22, 2007 - link

    "I would suggest that you not issue such grand conclusions until it's possible to perform benchmarks that support them. "

    Perhaps you are overemphasizing the word "breakthrough". It CAN mean a revolutionary new way of doing things, or discovery, but it can also mean a barrier having been surpassed... for example 1600mhz was not possible with DDR2, thus its a breakthrough of sorts. Another example is the latest 1TB hard drives. Hardly revulutionary, but you could call them breakthrough for surpassing the 1TB mark.

  • retrospooty - Friday, July 20, 2007 - link

    thanks.

    I would really like to see the effects of latency on the new DDR3 platform. Now that more options are availbale, it would be great to see scores using the lowest and highest latency settings achievable at 1066, 1333, 1600 etc...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now