|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best viewed @ 1024 x 768 and higher
More Testing: At 1600MHz, the Front Side Bus and memory pour a great amount of extra performance in to 3DMark05. Stock performance alone shows that the memory helps provide a good amount of bandwidth to the test system. But, keep in mind that the E6600's 266MHz Bus has to be increased to 400MHz in order to get to the 1600MHz memory frequency option. At this point, the E6600 would normally be running at 3.6GHz with a multiplier of 9. Since, we don't want the system to be unstable, the Multi was dropped to 7 and the memory set to 1800MHz to eliminate any possible CPU or motherboard instabilities. The BIOS auto settings defaulted the memory to 9-9-9 where as setting the memory frequency held true to 8-8-8 timings with 2.1 volts. The 9-9-9 timings actually took a step backwards in performance and scored lower due to the higher memory timings even though a few more megahertz could be squeezed from the modules.
As with all overclocking, if the memory matches the Front Side Bus, performance gains can be quite noticeable. With the memory operating at 1600MHz, which is higher than the 1066 and 1333MHz Core 2 Duo processors, the system responds quicker to program execution and any game frame rates. If your graphics card is just a few frames short of "glass", then you'll be happy. Since most users who'll purchase this kind of memory don't usually go for the budget graphics card, they'll be more inclined to stick with the memory's rated frequency and turn their system in to something more extreme based. As far as saving money and going for a kit
capable of matching something closer to what Patriot Memory has been able to do
with their 1866MHz or OCZ's 1800MHz DDR3 kits, these modules are a good choice.
You're not going to reach 1866 without higher timings, but you can at least
hover around 1800MHz and not have had to pay for the price of an 1800MHz kit. On
the same note, if you have the money for a qualified extreme 1600MHz kit, then
chances are you have the means to skip ahead and purchase the faster kits so you
won't have to worry about whether or not the kit you purchased is capable.
Since, most current DDR3 motherboards aren't all tuned for 1800MHz, these
G.Skill
DDR3-1600 modules are looking better and better as the right choice. The DDR2 versus DDR3 battle has died down a bit since DDR3 first arrived. Using some of the hardware forums and IRC channels dedicated to hardware, I've been able to see a lot of what many random users on the outside have had to say about it. Most of the educated users have cited DDR2 as being the optimal upgrade if someone is coming from an older DDR based system. (I'll leave out what the uneducated users had to say as it might damage your PC.) As far as the current best bang for buck performance, they are correct. DDR2 is still found all around the stores at really low prices for the 800MHz. Even the extreme kits are more affordable if you're looking to get some extra performance out of your system with higher frequency 1066 to 1200MHz DDR2 memory. Until NVidia's next DDR3 supported chipsets
arrive on new motherboards, DDR2 is still the only optimal solution for the 680i
platforms. Stock DDR2 and DDR3 systems are comparable in terms of 3D
performance. There isn't a huge difference when it comes to stock settings. But,
on a Intel based platform comparing DDR2 to DDR3, you will notice some gains.
This is especially true where the 1333 FSB Core 2 Duo is concerned. At 1066MHz,
DDR3 and DDR2 will offer very little difference. Since DDR2 can't scale to
1333MHz without some very crazy voltage, DDR3 is the only option since it can
operate natively and scale much higher.
<< Installation & Testing | VH Main Page >>
Got News? Send 'em in!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |
|