Puget Systems print logo
Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/142

AMD Performance Results


Compared to the Intel synthetic results, the AMD results are a bit jumbled. The latency and copy speeds improve as the MHz is increased, but oddly the read speed results do not line up perfectly with the frequency like they did on our Intel platform. In fact, the 1600MHz RAM has the best read speeds, followed by the 1866MHz, the 2133MHz and finally ending with the 1333MHz RAM. 


Unlike the Intel configuration, we saw enough variance in one of our gaming benchmarks to warrant a little discussion. X3 and Unigine both showed very minimal fluctuations (within our margin of error), but DiRt 2 gave us some interesting results. What is strange is that the 1866MHz RAM (which is the highest frequency natively supported by this CPU) gave us the lowest benchmark scores. The 1333MHz and 2133MHz sticks were pretty much even, with the 1600MHz following just behind.

X3: Terran Conflict Unigine Heaven




On our application benchmarks, Euler3d did not show enough of a varience for us to single it out this time around, although WinRar once again shows some performance varience. On our AMD system, compression time using WinRar was improved as the frequency was increased. The extraction results, however, are not as straight forward. In short, they are exactly the opposite of what we saw with the Intel system. On AMD, the 1866MHz RAM had the best extraction time, followed by the 1600MHz RAM. The 2133MHz and 1333MHz results tie for third place with only a minor .01 second difference.
Cinebench CPU  Cinebench GPU x264 HD Benchmark
Handbrake 0.9.5 Lame 3.98.2 Windows Media Encoder
Euler3d TrueCrypt - AES TrueCrypt - Various


< Previous Next >

Switching in to analytical mode, are your part failure reports based on frequencies in general or separated by brand, or perhaps IC manufacturer? Does it include memory overclocked by the end user?

As for the scores, I can validate your results 100% (not that you need it.) :) Games rarely have ever showed a benefit when overclocking the RAM frequency compared to overclocking the CPU. However, lower timings do slightly benefit the system's responsiveness like opening and closing big programs.

I often recommend that users buy good names with the lowest memory timings for best overall performance. Sometimes, buying high frequency CAS9 memory, down clocking it and use lower timings works out really well. However, if the user requires the performance of very large programs, it's best to stick with low latency, lower frequency, higher capacity memory for maximum stability.

Posted on 2012-04-03 01:59:52

The failure rates are for the last 12 months between all of the desktop (not saptop or server ECC) RAM we've sold. The majority of the failures occur in-house, although roughly 10% or so do happen in the field. As far as we know, none of the failures were the result of overclocking.

The brands are almost entirely Kingston and Patriot. We've tried other brands, but the failure rates have always been higher so we've largely settled on those two.

Posted on 2012-04-03 22:01:32

We keep track of reliability data by SKU.  While you can trace that down to a certain IC manufacturer, it doesn't guarantee that the ODM isn't jumping from one IC chip to another.  I can say though that we haven't had a situation in which we felt compelled to track by IC manufacturer.  Kingston, by far, puts out the most stable memory we've seen, and it is no coincidence that they are also the most stable in their IC sourcing, and also the most conservative in their frequency binning.  This is all just overclocked 1333, right?  I've haven't looked for a while, but that was the case last time I checked.  In that case, the reliability of the parts is going to be highly dependent on how aggressively the ODM decides to bin their IC chips.  That's why OCZ has a 8% failure rate, and Kingston a 0.5% failure rate! :)

In the case of the numbers in this article, the reliability data was just an aggregate of all brands we've offered at those speeds.  It pretty clearly shows a trend that you would expect as the memory guys "overclock" these IC chips more and more.

Posted on 2012-04-04 04:44:50
Eric Garay

I was here on the 6th and forgot to say Thanks for the replies and clarification. Agreed on the IC jumping which was very common a few years ago. We would see a very good series launch and then a quiet IC jump to something not as costly which also typically means a drop in quality. Validating your own batches and keeping in contact with the vendor is the way to go. It's always smart to go with the ODM that isn't afraid to keep you aware of any changes and that do their own proven validation. You're doing is the most common sensible way. 

Posted on 2012-04-17 00:05:59

Thanks, your article is very useful and informative. You may like to visit Om Nanotech in case you want to have more information on DDR1 supplier

Posted on 2014-09-11 11:29:53
Cankut Bayhan

yeah whats the best is to wait for the rush to fade for a while and go for the non oc required and yet found its place on the main stream of the product range frequencies which is sorta 2000's on ddr4 rams these days...there is no avoiding from obsolescence the brands would like to benefit so it takes a good observation to find the middle man and go along with it.

Posted on 2015-03-17 18:51:40