As in comedy, one of the key elements of RAM is the timing

Subject: Memory | September 10, 2012 - 01:06 PM |
Tagged: kingston hyper x, kingston, ddr3-2133, ddr3-1600, DDR-3 2400, DDR-3 1866, DDR-3

X-bit Labs took five DDR3 kits from Kingston to compare in a handy roundup for those looking to see the difference higher frequencies have on a systems performance.  They range from 1600MHz @ 9-9-9-27 to 2400MHz @ 11-13-13-30  and so offer not only a comparison on frequency but also timings.  If you read all the way through you can see how these kits compare at base frequencies as well as when they are overclocked; which may have a somewhat noticeable effect on synthetic benchmarks, but not so much on the real world tests.

XBT_KHX24C11T1K2-2.jpg

"Today we are going to talk about memory kits from one of the leading DDR3 SDRAM makers for enthusiasts. Our roundup includes such products as Kingston HyperX Genesis KHX1600C9D3K2/8G, Kingston HyperX Genesis KHX1866C9D3K2/8GX, Kingston HyperX T1 KHX1866C9D3T1K2/8GX, Kingston HyperX T1 KHX21C11T1K2/8X and Kingston HyperX T1 KHX24C11T1K2/8X."

Here are some more Memory articles from around the web:

Memory

Source: X-bit Labs
Author:
Subject: Memory
Manufacturer: GSkill

Memory? Why?

Aaah memory.  It has been some time since we last had a memory review, and for good reason.  Memory got pretty boring.  Ten years ago this was not the case.  DDR was just fresh on the scene and we were starting to see memory speeds and bandwidths get to a place where it would have a significant effect on performance.  Latencies were of utmost importance, and the fastest 2.2.2.6 DIMMs running at DDR 400 speeds were often quite expensive.  Then things sort of mellowed out.  DDR-2 did not exactly bring faster performance over DDR initially, and it was not until DDR-2 800 and 1066 speeds that we actually saw a significant boost over previous gen DDR 1.  DDR-3 brought even more yawns.  With the jump to integrated memory controllers from both AMD and Intel, DDR-3 speeds were nearly meaningless.

gskill_001.jpg

The primary reason for this rather vanilla time in the memory market was that of individual bandwidth needs for CPU cores.  Most research into this issue points to an individual CPU core needing only 3 to 4 GB/sec of bandwidth to support its data needs.  AMD and Intel have gone to great lengths to increase the efficiency of not only their memory controllers and prefetchers, but also the internal caches so fewer main memory accesses are needed.  So essentially a quad core processor would really only need upwards of 12 to 13 GB/sec of bandwidth in real world scenarios.  DDR-3 1333 memory modules in a dual channel configuration would be able to support that kind of bandwidth quite easily.  So what exactly was the point of having faster memory?  Also, CPUs using DDR-3 memory are not as sensitive to latencies as we have seen in previous generations of parts.

Click to read the rest of the article.

GSkill Heard You Like Memory…

Subject: Memory | December 6, 2011 - 08:35 AM |
Tagged: x79, SB-E, Sandy Bridge E, Intel, gskill, DDR-3 2400, DDR-3, bulldozer, amd, am3+, 64 GB

So they are giving us as much, and as fast, as we could possibly handle.  GSkill has announced their latest Ripjaw-Z kits specifically aimed at the latest Intel Socket 2011 chips on the X79 platform.  These kits range from 4 x 8GB @ 2100 speeds with 1.5 v up to 8 x 8GB at 2400 speeds at 1.65 v.  For those wishing to push clock speeds up higher, they offer a 4 x 4GB kit at 2500 speeds at 1.65v as well.

64G_Red.jpg

Red is the new black.  This is what 32 GB of memory looks like now.

The past few months I have been using a few sets of GSkill memory with the latest Llano based chips from AMD.  These are 4 x 4 GB 1866 products that run at 1.5v, and they have been pretty phenomenal for me.  Now that we are moving into new CPU architectures from both manufacturers, memory speeds have become important again.  For quite some time people could easily get by with DDR-3 1333 modules and not experience any kind of performance bottleneck.  The reasons for this were due to CPU designs (quad core CPUs rarely required more than 12 GB/sec of bandwidth in most applications) as well as the non-integrated nature of graphics for the most part.

Read the full post here.

Source: GSkill