- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores | Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :) |
---|
Thanks!
Yeah thats bandwidth stuff...I thought you had some real world benchmarks you completed and were basing that off of. Not sure why you wont provide any links. I have tried looking, trust me, and havent found anything leading me to believe otherwise but more to the contrary. Oh well.
Here is just one quick link: http://techreport.com/review/20377/...of-memory-speed-on-sandy-bridge-performance/2
Yeah thats bandwidth stuff...I thought you had some real world benchmarks you completed and were basing that off of. Not sure why you wont provide any links. I have tried looking, trust me, and havent found anything leading me to believe otherwise but more to the contrary. Oh well.
Here is just one quick link: http://techreport.com/review/20377/...of-memory-speed-on-sandy-bridge-performance/2
(Repeat conclusion ad nauseum)Among the tests we ran, only the Euler3d fluid dynamics simulation enjoyed a substantial benefit from faster memory configurations. Video encoding and file compression ran a little bit quicker with higher memory frequencies and tighter timings, but most of our application tests showed little or no improvement in performance. Neither did the games, which only managed to squeeze a few extra FPS out of our fastest memory configuration.
Although there are certainly cases where pairing Sandy Bridge processors with low-latency or high-frequency memory can yield impressive gains, it's hard to find a common desktop application or game whose performance improves enough to justify the additional expense. If you're looking to set benchmarking records or to compensate for personal shortcomings, K-series Sandy Bridge CPUs at least make it easy to run exotic DIMMs at blistering speeds.
Last edited: