Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

DDR2 Versus DDR3

by

One of the things we didn’t do in our Socket AM3 launch story (and subsequently received a number of requests for) was to test the same CPU in Socket AM3 and Socket AM2+ interfaces to assess the specific benefits of adopting DDR3 memory right away, if there were any. Thus, we have those numbers here.

We tested the new Phenom II X4 955 (at 3.2 GHz) using Asus’ M3A78-T, a 790GX-based Socket AM2+ board running BIOS 0903, and Asus’ M4A79T Deluxe, a 790FX-based Socket AM3 motherboard running BIOS 0902. The AM2+ platform was rocking 4 GB (2 x2 GB) of our fastest Corsair DDR2-1066 with CAS 5-5-5 timings. The AM3 system featured 4 GB (2 x2 GB) of Corsair DDR3-1600 (running at 1,333 MT/s) with 8-8-8 timings.

The first performance metric, SiSoftware’s new Sandra 2009 with SP3, demonstrates the throughput advantage of DDR3 on the same processor. As we’ll see on the next page, overclocking the memory yields even more raw throughput. But for our purposes, we’ll compare the highest memory speeds officially supported by AMD’s integrated controller.

Encoding apps are some of the most demanding, and here we see Mainconcept favoring the DDR3-based configuration just slightly. Early on, it’s worth noting that transitioning from DDR2 to DDR3 is most definitely not worth it if you're already using a Spider or Dragon system. However, as prices on DDR3 come down (as they have been), enthusiasts who’ve held off on any upgrade will probably want to lean in the direction of the newer technology. As happened with DDR, DDR2’s days were numbered as soon as AMD and Intel both started enabling DDR3 on their respective platforms.

Though certainly less demanding than most of our other tests, iTunes is at least one of those apps that many of us use on a regular basis. This CD conversion runs one second faster on the AM3 board. Though hardly a noticeable improvement, the trend continues.

Both our DivX and Xvid conversions are cut down by three seconds in the shift to DDR3 memory. Again, this is by no means a decisive victory. But it does remind me of a story I wrote back in 2000 about AMD, its 760 chipset, and the move to DDR. The benefits might be small today, but expect the architecture to become ever more reliant on memory bandwidth as DDR3 adoption increases.

The good news is that 4 GB kits of CAS 8 DDR3-1333 are priced around $70—certainly not as high as the horrid prices that used to plague the technology. Just bear in mind that if you buy higher-voltage modules today as a cost-saving measure, you won’t be able to use them down the road should you switch over to a Core i7-based machine, which can be damaged at voltages over 1.65V.

Share:
15
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
jennyh 23/04/2009 12:05
Hide
-1+

I can barely believe this article started off talking about the Dragon platform, then you go and use a 280gtx in the gaming benchmarks even though you know it throws up varying results with the Nehalems.

Here's an idea - use the Dragon platform. I'm sure you can find a 4890 or 4870 X2 lying around somewhere.

mi1ez 23/04/2009 12:29
Hide
-0+

I wouldn't even have spotted that. Good point well made.

It's St George's day, I want a dragon! :D

mi1ez 23/04/2009 12:31
Hide
-0+

Quote :
The newest version of WinRAR, on the other hand, follows after previous iterations and utilizes as many threads as you can throw at it—hence the Core i7’s commanding victory.

More odd is the X3 720s parity with AMD’s X4 940—a CPU that is both 200 MHz faster and one core stronger. Nevertheless, AMD shows very well against Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9550, besting it by 16 seconds in our 334 MB compression routine.

Does this not suggest memory is critical?

Helloworld_98 23/04/2009 17:17
Hide
-1+

would've liked to seen benchmarks with a 720 with unlocked core and overclocked to 3.2ghz involved so we can guage value for money better.

tstebbens 23/04/2009 17:24
Hide
-1+

Quote :We’re still not looking at a Core i7-killer (or even competitor) here. After all, AMD’s fastest offering isn’t able to match even the slowest i7 chip, unless you count gaming, where most of these quad-core chips perform so similarly that it isn’t worth factoring in the tenths of a frame.


These are enthusiast parts and therefore primarily used in gaming machines.

I don't know of anyone who sits at their computer all day doing number crunching tasks (were the i7 excels) who cares about a 20% difference in execution time (you go for a coffee / watch TV / play a game / "play" ;) with your girlfriend) and miss the end of the run anyway; you don't sit there staring at a progress bar until it finishes.

So basically, unless you have a very specific application (you're a video editor for instance), what's the point in paying the 3x - 4x price premium for an i7 over an AMD? If you do, you're a mug - especially if the only reason is to brag you've got a faster machine.

wikd_wizz 23/04/2009 21:55
Hide
-2+

So basically, unless you have a very specific application (you're a video editor for instance), what's the point in paying the 3x - 4x price premium for an i7 over an AMD? If you do, you're a mug - especially if the only reason is to brag you've got a faster machine.

Absolutely right. AMD is offering best buck for money here. Thinking selling my Core2Duo 6600 and going for Phenom II 955.

Anonymous 24/04/2009 18:16
Hide
-0+

Why you don't use DDR3 1600MHz CL7 ???
Who will buy DDR3 1600MHz with CL6 ?

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:52
Hide
-1+

An overclocked X3 720 its a steal.
Superb value for money

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:55
Hide
-0+

An overclocked X3 720 BE its a steal.
Value for money cant get any better than this

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:55
Hide
-0+

An overclocked X3 720 BE its a steal.
Value for money cant get any better than this

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:55
Hide
-0+

An overclocked X3 720 BE its a steal.
Value for money cant get any better than this

diggos 15/05/2009 11:30
Hide
-0+

Quote :We’re still not looking at a Core i7-killer (or even competitor) here. After all, AMD’s fastest offering isn’t able to match even the slowest i7 chip, unless you count gaming, where most of these quad-core chips perform so similarly that it isn’t worth factoring in the tenths of a frame
.

I`m looking to build myself an i7 rig or AMD Phenom II one. What I`m looking at, are video conversions and lots of multitasking apps. It will take me a while to complete that, partly because I`m still saving for it, partly because I still don`t know if it`s worth extra 2000$ for i7 965 setup. And reading this article, I`m more confused than before.

Clearly i7 965 trashes amd in any test, but for what I need, it seems that 955 PhenomII will do just fine.......financially, I cannot afford another upgrade anytime soon....

So...what I really want? A super fast, future proof i7 chip or just a fast quad that will do for now??? I don`t know....I think I`ll stick wit my dual core for the next couple of years, cos I`m too confused..........

greatgooglymugly 21/05/2009 18:29
Hide
-0+

Picture of the heatsinks seems to be reversed in the pic describing the reduction in size of the new heastsink.

luke904 18/06/2009 02:33
Hide
-0+

the 955 is a better processor than the i7 920 simply because of price, its like $50 cheaper, generally plays games better, and is almost as fast in every other area.
another thing to note: motherboards for intel are more expensive than amd ones.

Anonymous 25/06/2009 05:28
Hide
-0+

bueno con una combinacion de un phenom II 955BE 16gb de DDR3-1333 pc3-10500 y cuatro targetas de graficas Ati Radeon HD4890 en un mother MSI
790FX-GD70 y cuatro discos Seagate de 500GB funcionan mejor en graficos que cualquier core i7 a la misma velocida ya que los board con chips intel solo pueden tener 3 targetas de video.

Best offers

Newsletters


OK