Intel Performance Results
To start things off, we used MaxMem to give us our write, read, copy and latency results. Since read speeds and latency are based primarily on the frequency and not greatly affected by the timings, we see a gradual increase in performance as the frequencies become higher. One unexpected result is that the frequency does not affect the write speeds by a significant amount.
These results are great to show that higher frequency RAM is better at sustained read and copy tasks, but in order to answer if it is enough to overcome the increased timings we have to run some real world benchmarks.
Our gaming benchmarks could not be any more clear: on Intel-based systems, you gain little to no performance advantage with the higher frequency RAM. The only benchmark that showed any appreciable variance was DiRt 2 with very low settings. Even then, the variance was very minor with only a 1.5% variance between 1333MHz and 2133MHz.
On our application benchmarks, we finally saw some performance variances, although the results are a bit strange. While the 2133MHz RAM did perform the best, the 1600MHz and 1866MHz RAM were both worse than the RAM running at 1333MHz. Due to this, it appears that we cannot make a blanket statement for WinRar when it comes to the performance of higher frequency RAM.
Euler3d also gave us some mixed results that are almost exactly the opposite of our WinRar benchmark. Again, the 2133MHz RAM is faster than 1333MHz RAM, but 1600MHz and 1866MHz RAM are both faster than the 2133MHz RAM. So once again, while we see some performance differences, they do not line up exactly with the frequency speeds.
All of our other application benchmarks (shown below) showed only minor variations not significant enough for us to specifically comment on.
|Cinebench CPU||Cinebench GPU||x264 HD Benchmark|
|Handbrake 0.9.5||Lame 3.98.2||Windows Media Encoder|
|TrueCrypt - AES||TrueCrypt - Various|