Too many times have we seen the effects of cheap memory. Although inviting
at first, it often results in stability issues, if not now but in the
future. Some memory is a made of a mish-mash of different brands of chip. They
often skimp on costs by having an ultra thin layer of gold for the connections,
meaning that after as little as 2 installations the connections can wear away
causing the memory to fail. Most cheap memory is high latency, with very little
flexibility for overclocking.
In a recent memory labs in Custom
PC magazine, they came to the conclusion that low latency memory was expensive
and offered very little extra performance for the money. In doing our own benchmarks
for another publication, results were similar, with SysMark only performing
up to 2.5% faster. But that doesn't mean low latency memory has no reason for
People who want to buy low latency memory are generally the same people who
buy high end graphics cards. They don't offer particularly good value for money,
but they do offer the very best performance available at that point in time.
To cater for this particular niche market, we decided to use games as our benchmarking
We have used 4 different types of memory, in different configurations. Hopefully,
we can highlight the performance difference between low and high latency memory
and the variants in between.
The test system was:
- MSI K8T Neo
- Athlon 64 3200+ (Socket 754)
- Gainward Geforce 5950 Ultra
Test were performed using the following benchmarks:
- 3D Mark 03 (Build 340) @ 800x600
- Far Cry, Maximum Settings @ 640x480 using custom made demo
- Call of Duty @ 800x600 using custom made demo
The settings have been deliberatly kept low, to prevent the graphics card
or CPU causing a bottleneck.
<< Back | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | Next >>