Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Prysin

Regarding the recent Tech Quickie

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

That was not my point . My point is that they are creating and maximizing a bottleneck ( which realistically ,nobody has such a bottleneck in their systems)  . They are playing at 1080p with a gpu way out of the cpu's league ( the gpu was overclocked , and the game was played at 1080p , further increasing the bottleneck )

 

A typical setup with a more powerful cpu and/or a less powerful cpu will not see this kind of performance increase if at all.

 

People contently bring up this video as proof that faster RAM makes a big difference in gaming , while all it actually shows is a bottleneck being alleviated .

 

I will say this again : this is in NO WAY a representation of the real world  and what people will get by using faster RAM.

 

So why should Linus and other tech channels care about it ?

I can't guess what your point is, your words were claiming they were just testing with an i3 and testing cpu intensive games. I also don't understand this objection you're posting here, it's the exact same thing you do when testing cpus. Otherwise you're just doing a gpu test like Linus did in his memory speed test with 8xMSAA on FC3 and 4xSSAA on Metro LL or when he tested 2500k vs Skylake by gaming at 4k.


My system

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  Board: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition  GPU: EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0

RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-2400 CAS 11  SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB  HDD0: HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB 7200RPM

HDD1: Seagate 1TB 7200RPM  HDD2: WD Black 1TB 7200RPM  CASE: Phanteks Enthoo Pro  PSU: Antec Neo Eco 620C

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

snip

I do not see how I can be unintentionally biased due to my testing methodology, but I am human, so I am not immune to bias. In fact, I used to be one of the "memory speed doesn't matter" people, and went into the tests thinking it wouldn't matter. I was shocked when it not only mattered, but to the degree of difference it made. 

 

As for that LTT video Linus did, no. That is not what a typical user would do. No typical user is going to attempt to max metro with a ton of AA on a GPU that can't even handle it. 30fps on ultra, to your "typical user" is not playable. At least not when it comes to PC gaming. Not only that, the reason we advise people to use faster ram, is not because of average frame rates. It's impact on average framerates is not that great unless you have a high end GPU like a Titan X, like you see in the DF videos. When using normal hardware such as an i5 and x70 series GPU, you will still see a 10% difference in minimum FPS. This might not sound that great to most people, as it basically means if your minimum FPS dropped down to 50fps, with faster memory, it would only drop down to 55fps. However, 55fps is still closer to 60 than 50, and given how cheap faster ram is, it's a worthy investment from a price:performance standpoint.

 

All of my tests can be replicated. I leave no details out, and I even post screenshots of my BIOS and each individual timing. Assuming you have a CPU with an IMC on par with mine, you can replicate my work quite easily. This in and of itself helps remove any bias from my part, as it would be extremely easy to call me out on it. It's why I often beg people to test for themselves. At worst, it makes little to no difference to them, and they move on. At best, it actually helps them, and they get additional performance from something they didn't know would help. 

 

I highly recommend people read this thread on OCN: http://www.overclock.net/t/1487162/an-independent-study-does-the-speed-of-ram-directly-affect-fps-during-high-cpu-overhead-scenarios

 

So much information (with screenshot proof) is included along with his testing methodology, including testing of latency and even ranks. It is the foundation for which my guide is based on. Not just the main post, but others throughout the thread test themselves, and find similar results on vastly different pieces of hardware. Again, this is with the primary focus being on minimum FPS (the most important number in gaming) and not average, where people seem to be focusing when claiming it makes no difference.


My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I can't guess what your point is, your words were claiming they were just testing with an i3 and testing cpu intensive games. I also don't understand this objection you're posting here, it's the exact same thing you do when testing cpus. Otherwise you're just doing a gpu test like Linus did in his memory speed test with 8xMSAA on FC3 and 4xSSAA on Metro LL or when he tested 2500k vs Skylake by gaming at 4k.

My point is that why should Linus care if faster RAM makes a big difference in extreme bottlenecked scenarios ?

It's not like it applies to anyone ?

 

Why would he give tips that don't apply to anyone ?


AMD Ryzen 7 3.8ghz at 1.3V Corsair vengeance LPX 8GB 2800mhz @ 3200mhz CAS 16 + 2*4GB micron ballistics @ 3200mhz cas 16 ;Gigabyte ga-ab350-Gaming 3; cooler master nepton 240M ; CF r9 290x tri x + r9 290 tri x ; CX750M PSU ; SPEC 03 case with 9 120mm fans ; windows 10 64 bit 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

My point is that why should Linus care if faster RAM makes a big difference in extreme bottlenecked scenarios ?

It's not like it applies to anyone ?

 

Why would he give tips that don't apply to anyone ?

You consider an i5-6500 or i7-6700k and a Titan X at 1080p an extreme bottlenecked scenario? There are plenty of people who play on 144 Hz monitors at 1080p with a 980 Ti or SLI 970. Anyone who upgrades to a 70 or 80 series Pascal chip in a couple of months is probably going to be running something more powerful than a Titan X.


My system

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  Board: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition  GPU: EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0

RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-2400 CAS 11  SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB  HDD0: HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB 7200RPM

HDD1: Seagate 1TB 7200RPM  HDD2: WD Black 1TB 7200RPM  CASE: Phanteks Enthoo Pro  PSU: Antec Neo Eco 620C

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I do not see how I can be unintentionally biased due to my testing methodology, but I am human, so I am not immune to bias. In fact, I used to be one of the "memory speed doesn't matter" people, and went into the tests thinking it wouldn't matter. I was shocked when it not only mattered, but to the degree of difference it made. 

 

As for that LTT video Linus did, no. That is not what a typical user would do. No typical user is going to attempt to max metro with a ton of AA on a GPU that can't even handle it. 30fps on ultra, to your "typical user" is not playable. At least not when it comes to PC gaming. Not only that, the reason we advise people to use faster ram, is not because of average frame rates. It's impact on average framerates is not that great unless you have a high end GPU like a Titan X, like you see in the DF videos. When using normal hardware such as an i5 and x70 series GPU, you will still see a 10% difference in minimum FPS. This might not sound that great to most people, as it basically means if your minimum FPS dropped down to 50fps, with faster memory, it would only drop down to 55fps. However, 55fps is still closer to 60 than 50, and given how cheap faster ram is, it's a worthy investment from a price:performance standpoint.

 

All of my tests can be replicated. I leave no details out, and I even post screenshots of my BIOS and each individual timing. Assuming you have a CPU with an IMC on par with mine, you can replicate my work quite easily. This in and of itself helps remove any bias from my part, as it would be extremely easy to call me out on it. It's why I often beg people to test for themselves. At worst, it makes little to no difference to them, and they move on. At best, it actually helps them, and they get additional performance from something they didn't know would help. 

 

I highly recommend people read this thread on OCN: http://www.overclock.net/t/1487162/an-independent-study-does-the-speed-of-ram-directly-affect-fps-during-high-cpu-overhead-scenarios

 

So much information (with screenshot proof) is included along with his testing methodology, including testing of latency and even ranks. It is the foundation for which my guide is based on. Not just the main post, but others throughout the thread test themselves, and find similar results on vastly different pieces of hardware. Again, this is with the primary focus being on minimum FPS (the most important number in gaming) and not average, where people seem to be focusing when claiming it makes no difference.

But again, you are using a low end CPU. What happens when you use a better CPU such as the 6600K?

I don't doubt your results and I think you did a good job in that thread, but we are still not testing all scenarios so I don't think we should make broad statements (which is what Linus does as well). It is entirely possible that both Linus and you are correct, only that you are comparing different scenarios and then making broad statements as if the results from your limited testing applies to everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

You consider an i5-6500 or i7-6700k and a Titan X at 1080p an extreme bottlenecked scenario? There are plenty of people who play on 144 Hz monitors at 1080p with a 980 Ti or SLI 970. Anyone who upgrades to a 70 or 80 series Pascal chip in a couple of months is probably going to be running something more powerful than a Titan X.

an i5 6500 is too weak to pair with a 980ti/titan X and then expect to play at 144hz at 1080p. It simply cannot keep up and STILL is a bottleneck in the system ( not as severe as the i3 system  though ).

 

Those cards are meant for higher resolutions , and the difference significantly decreases when adding a more powerful cpu and/or gaming at a higher resolution .


AMD Ryzen 7 3.8ghz at 1.3V Corsair vengeance LPX 8GB 2800mhz @ 3200mhz CAS 16 + 2*4GB micron ballistics @ 3200mhz cas 16 ;Gigabyte ga-ab350-Gaming 3; cooler master nepton 240M ; CF r9 290x tri x + r9 290 tri x ; CX750M PSU ; SPEC 03 case with 9 120mm fans ; windows 10 64 bit 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

an i5 6500 is too weak to pair with a 980ti/titan X and then expect to play at 144hz at 1080p. It simply cannot keep up and STILL is a bottleneck in the system ( not as severe as the i3 system  though ).

 

Those cards are meant for higher resolutions , and the difference significantly decreases when adding a more powerful cpu and/or gaming at a higher resolution .

A 4.5 GHz Skylake i5-6500 is too weak? Should people not be gaming on 144 Hz monitors?

 

Also I find Linus' recommendations on RAM ridiculous when his audience is enthusiasts who spend the money on high end boards and cpus. Most of the expense from using faster RAM comes from buying the Z-series or X-series motherboard instead of an H-series board. If Linus was truly about appealing to the everyday gamer he'd just tell everyone to get an i5-6400 and an R9 380.


My system

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  Board: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition  GPU: EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0

RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-2400 CAS 11  SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB  HDD0: HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB 7200RPM

HDD1: Seagate 1TB 7200RPM  HDD2: WD Black 1TB 7200RPM  CASE: Phanteks Enthoo Pro  PSU: Antec Neo Eco 620C

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

@LAwLz

Ill award you with the gold medal in the "word twisting olympics" but your argument is still invalidated by simply posting the video of linus talkin about RAM. That alone invalidated the whole video.

 

Science is all about controling the variables that can impact your result in an effort to get the most accurate, repeatable result possible. Because science is all about dissecting every aspect of a result in order to validate its integrity, and most importantly, to validate the method for repeating the test. That is what the essence of science is. That is science.

Just throwing a bunch of parts that may or may not represent the target group and then testing things is just that. Testing. There is no science behind what you are talking about. None. Infact, your example of an i5 6600k + R9 290 would probably not show any bottleneck. Why? Because the i5 6600k is so fast, even at stock, that a 290 or even a 980Ti wont be able to push it to its limits.

 

@Coaxialgamer (tagging you here because i cannot be arsed to rewrite my post and quote you in. This post is still dedicated to @LAwLz)

HOWEVER the wast majority of users are NOT using a 6600k. So your "average rig" is simply a measurement of what your highly subjective opinion of average is. Not an actual average as reflected by the PC consumer base.

For a more trustworthy source of information, let us check out Steams latest hardware survey.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

 

Most used #physical cores: 2 (47%) and 4 (44%)

Most common frequency range: 2.3-2.69GHz (intel. 21%), 3.3-3.69GHz (Intel 16%. AMD 5%)

 

If you bothered to actually look into this info, you would know that the most widespread CPUs are AMD quad cores (most likely APUs), Laptop i3, i5 and i7s and older (sandy bridge era) i3s and i5s if we are to go by core count vs most prominent clock speeds.

 

And what is the average GPU?

On average. the most commonly used GPU families are:
Nvidia Kepler: 11.61% (counting 650+ series, 700 series and 800 series mobile GPUs too, minus 750/750Ti/840m/850m/860m as these are maxwell 1.0)

Intel HD 4xxx: 7.07%

AMD GCN 1: 7.2% (GCN 1.0 GPUs within HD 7000 and HD 8000 series, including mobile versions)

 

Meaning most likely, you are looking at a mid range 600 series part, probably around 660Ti or 670 dGPU + old sandy i5, possibly locked version.

This would be the closest we can get to an "average" consumer PC going by Valves hardware survey. A far cry from that 6600k + 290 that you suggest.

 

For a PC like this, as Digital Foundry proved, faster memory can make a noticeable difference. because the CPU will be the bottleneck. Naturally, in laptops you will have a very hard time getting faster memory to work. If possible at all. But then again, that is the downside of laptops. And that is the limiations you buy into when buying a laptop.

 

 

So with that out of the way, let us move on.

Yes, memory impact CAN be negligeble, and it can also NOT be negligeble. It depends. Going from 1600 to 1866 DDR3 wont do a damn shit, going from 1600 to 2133 or 2400 WILL. However it also depends on the kit.

Unless you want to OC the ram manually, most XMP profiles are very conservative. And simply tightening the timings could give you a noticeable improvement in performance. Of course, if you buy a 2400MHz CL9 kit you wont be able to perfect said timings much more, But you will also pay a small fortune for said kit.

 

Then let us move onto the counter evidence.

Every video Linus has made on the topic HAS shown improvements, small, but there. However what system is Linus Running?

Mostly he is using a X99 chip which he then downclocks/disables cores to simulate other CPUs, and this is a problem. Because whilst the performance should be the same, that monstrous 20MBs of L3 cache is throwing wrenches into any form of validation without having to go out and buy each and every chip and redo his tests.

It must also be noted that he has yet to do anything other then select a XMP profile. Even in his video specifically about RAM, he has not even once touched the topic of overclocking or even been clear that overclocking RAM may improve performance.

 

One must also ask, why would Corsair, Crucial, Kingston, Samsung or whatever bother to bin their RAM if they knew that 1600 JEDEC wouldnt be just the same as 3000MHz CL15 DDR3? They wouldnt even bother to spend the time and money to bin the chips, they would just make more elaborate heatspreaders and sell purely on visuals. Or compete on capacity more then speed. Because in the end, its cheaper to make a fancy heat spreader then producing and binning for higher quality chips that still isnt high enough quality to be used in enterprise or server markets.

AND if we assume Linus is right, and that memory speed only affects pro-sumer/enterprise level stuff, then why is these chips sold at all in the consumer market? Everyone knows that as soon as you label something "enterprise" you can milk way more money out of the product, despite harsher validation.

 

So in the end, just the fact that memory overclocking is a thing, and that faster kits are sold to consumers in the first place, is evidence enough to call bullshit on Linus.

 

@MageTank on the other hand just skimmed over the isolation part and went straight to broad spectrum testing in his thread about DDR4 overclocking.

 

Sure one can make a test show the results one may want. One can also just bash a test for showing the results YOU dont want. The only reason we are calling bullshit on Linus is because his videos ARE bullshit.

 

Hell, let me go over his statement about APUs.... Linus claim it is better to select a reputable brand over faster speed. Let me show you how great that works out with APUs...

 

 

 

However what Linus is saying is complete utter bullshit that would outright HURT performance of anyone listening to him and building a system with his advice/opinion in mind.. Effectively Linus is trolling nearly 2.4 million people into wasting their own money on bullshit.

 

The issue I and everyone else has with Linus's videos is just like Louis Rossman had with his "reflowing" method".... its not a REAL working method with roots in anything but loose inaccurate, unscientific testing or even worse, simply an observation of a trend.

 

So @LAwLz the deal is. As i am writing this, @LinusTech has 2,502,740 followers. That is more people following this man on youtube, then there is populations in some countries..... And you defend him lying to them? Despite reputable and most importantly, repeatable evidence proving him wrong?

Tell me. Where is your morals? Where is your sense of honesty?

 

I question whether Linus has lost his morals. Because he is with an increasing rate producing more and more content with less and less root in facts.

 

But hey. I could be wrong. Maybe Linus is right. Maybe i am just deluding myself into believing that the FPS numbers increased, while infact they didnt, just because i know the RAM speed increased. Perhaps all of us who say Linus is wrong as just tailoring the results the way we want them so that we all can spread bullshit. Maybe all the Memory manufacturers spend time and money validating higher speed kits, because the people who does this validation is really friendly, and the companies doesnt want to let them go in the name of profit.

 

Or maybe Linus IS wrong, and maybe you are just whiteknighting this whole thing as you tend to do in a lot of other threads.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 hour ago, Coaxialgamer said:

an i5 6500 is too weak to pair with a 980ti/titan X and then expect to play at 144hz at 1080p. It simply cannot keep up and STILL is a bottleneck in the system ( not as severe as the i3 system  though ).

 

Those cards are meant for higher resolutions , and the difference significantly decreases when adding a more powerful cpu and/or gaming at a higher resolution .

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1646?vs=1261

 

Oh my, would you look at that... a 6600 is just marginally faster then a 4690k, despite being clocked lower. That would make a 6500, which is clocked 100MHz lower then the 6600, about equal to or marginally slower then a 4690k....

 

A 6500 can easily power a Titan X.

You know why? Because even at stock JEDEC 2133MHz. DDR4 is way faster then even a CL8 1600MHz DDR3 kit. Because bandwidth is higher, MHz is higher and the IMC is better, faster and more responsive then in any previous Intel CPU. So CPU bottlenecking will be less prevalent then you think.

 

Oh and incase you wonder. Ive built a 6500 setup... Cinebench R15 scores are 155 single, 555 Multi. Was done with 2666MHz DDR4. Although, ive found that RAM, almost never ever affects Cinebench at all. So there is that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Prysin said:

-snip-

Wow... You sure is extremely irrational. First you say my point is completely invalid because I posted a video of Linus doing a benchmark which disagrees with your results, and then you call me a white knight when all I have been saying is "I don't think we can make broad claims without proper testing". Have you listened to yourself? You even agree with me if you actually read your own post. You are saying that with a 6600K and a 290 there probably wouldn't be a big difference.

 

The problem with the Steam hardware survey is that it mixes in stats from laptops, and (I assume, haven't seen it) the tech quickie video is aimed at people like in the new builds section of the forum, which are building desktops. It's not like you get to choose which RAM you get in laptops, right? If we compare the number of people with quad cores to the people with 2.7GHz CPUs or higher, we will see that they are very close to each other. That leads me to believe that a big chunk of those dual core users are using laptops which are clocked at about 2GHz.

 

Going by the Steam hardware survey, I would guess the most common DESKTOP is a quad core Intel processor at about 3GHz, a GTX 970, 8GB of RAM and a 1920x1080 monitor. How about testing the impact of RAM frequency on a system with those specs? None of this i3 + Titan X stuff, and none of this super powerful CPU + bad GPU stuff because the results from those kinds of tests are not an accurate depiction of what a person looking to buy a gaming PC today will get.

You have to keep that in mind as well. It is people who are buying a computer today that will be interested in this. People who already have their old Sandy Bridge CPU will most likely keep using the same RAM they already got until they do a platform upgrade, and people with laptops will most likely not be changing out their RAM either.

 

34 minutes ago, Prysin said:

But hey. I could be wrong. Maybe Linus is right. Maybe i am just deluding myself into believing that the FPS numbers increased, while infact they didnt, just because i know the RAM speed increased. Perhaps all of us who say Linus is wrong as just tailoring the results the way we want them so that we all can spread bullshit. Maybe all the Memory manufacturers spend time and money validating higher speed kits, because the people who does this validation is really friendly, and the companies doesnt want to let them go in the name of profit.

Well considering you reject what I'd consider sane builds and favors tests done on horribly designed systems with extremely overpowered GPUs and really underpowered CPUs, I think there is a real possibility that your results and conclusions are wrong. That's why I was asking for more evidence before we can make and broad claims (and that goes for Linus as well). If you take a few deep breaths and look at what I wrote again you might understand what I wrote a bit better. I was saying that both sides (the "faster RAM is fantastic!" and "faster RAM is useless!") might have valid points. It might all depends on the rest of your system as well as which programs you use. Your tests favors faster RAM speeds so that is what you will champion, while Linus' tests do not favor it so that is what he champions. The truth might be somewhere in the middle, which is why I don't think we should crucify either side (because right now you might be guilty of exactly the same thing as Linus) before doing some proper and unbiased testing of multiple scenarios.

 

How does that sound?

 

 

34 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Or maybe Linus IS wrong, and maybe you are just whiteknighting this whole thing as you tend to do in a lot of other threads.

Wait, you think I am a whiteknight? Got any examples? I think I throw shit at companies and people all the time.

 

 

Edit: And no, I was not twisting your words at all. You said that it was only in some circumstances you could see the benefit of faster RAM clearly, and suggested using a low end CPU paired with 300 dollar RAM (the only 4266MHz RAM kit I could find) to demonstrate the difference.

If you can't demonstrate the difference with a modern (as in bought today), well balanced (so no 100 dollar CPU and 300 dollar RAM) PC build then maybe Linus has a point that RAM speed doesn't matter?

 

I am not at all twisting your words here. You flat out said "only in some circumstances will you see the benefit clearly".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 4170 and a 290, what should I run to test this ram theory?  

 

Also have 4670k and a g3258 and some 760s


Intel 4670K /w TT water 2.0 performer, GTX 1070FE, Gigabyte Z87X-DH3, Corsair HX750, 16GB Mushkin 1333mhz, Fractal R4 Windowed, Varmilo mint TKL, Logitech m310, HP Pavilion 23bw, Logitech 2.1 Speakers

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

I have a 4170 and a 290, what should I run to test this ram theory?  

 

Also have 4670k and a g3258 and some 760s

if you want to you can try comparing framerates with 1600mhz ram and 2400mhz ram


AMD Ryzen 7 3.8ghz at 1.3V Corsair vengeance LPX 8GB 2800mhz @ 3200mhz CAS 16 + 2*4GB micron ballistics @ 3200mhz cas 16 ;Gigabyte ga-ab350-Gaming 3; cooler master nepton 240M ; CF r9 290x tri x + r9 290 tri x ; CX750M PSU ; SPEC 03 case with 9 120mm fans ; windows 10 64 bit 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Wow... You sure is extremely irrational. First you say my point is completely invalid because I posted a video of Linus doing a benchmark which disagrees with your results, and then you call me a white knight when all I have been saying is "I don't think we can make broad claims without proper testing". Have you listened to yourself? You even agree with me if you actually read your own post. You are saying that with a 6600K and a 290 there probably wouldn't be a big difference.

 

The problem with the Steam hardware survey is that it mixes in stats from laptops, and (I assume, haven't seen it) the tech quickie video is aimed at people like in the new builds section of the forum, which are building desktops. It's not like you get to choose which RAM you get in laptops, right? If we compare the number of people with quad cores to the people with 2.7GHz CPUs or higher, we will see that they are very close to each other. That leads me to believe that a big chunk of those dual core users are using laptops which are clocked at about 2GHz.

 

Going by the Steam hardware survey, I would guess the most common DESKTOP is a quad core Intel processor at about 3GHz, a GTX 970, 8GB of RAM and a 1920x1080 monitor. How about testing the impact of RAM frequency on a system with those specs? None of this i3 + Titan X stuff, and none of this super powerful CPU + bad GPU stuff because the results from those kinds of tests are not an accurate depiction of what a person looking to buy a gaming PC today will get.

You have to keep that in mind as well. It is people who are buying a computer today that will be interested in this. People who already have their old Sandy Bridge CPU will most likely keep using the same RAM they already got until they do a platform upgrade, and people with laptops will most likely not be changing out their RAM either.

 

Well considering you reject what I'd consider sane builds and favors tests done on horribly designed systems with extremely overpowered GPUs and really underpowered CPUs, I think there is a real possibility that your results and conclusions are wrong. That's why I was asking for more evidence before we can make and broad claims (and that goes for Linus as well). If you take a few deep breaths and look at what I wrote again you might understand what I wrote a bit better. I was saying that both sides (the "faster RAM is fantastic!" and "faster RAM is useless!") might have valid points. It might all depends on the rest of your system as well as which programs you use. Your tests favors faster RAM speeds so that is what you will champion, while Linus' tests do not favor it so that is what he champions. The truth might be somewhere in the middle, which is why I don't think we should crucify either side (because right now you might be guilty of exactly the same thing as Linus) before doing some proper and unbiased testing of multiple scenarios.

 

How does that sound?

 

 

Wait, you think I am a whiteknight? Got any examples? I think I throw shit at companies and people all the time.

The APU testing, i dont even need to redo my tests there.

 

all 3 of the APU systems ive built.

That is 2x A10 7850k and 1x A10 7870k has shown clear, undisputable differences with 2x sticks over a single one, and 2400MHz over 1600 JEDEC.

 

Ive even tried running single 1x 8GB 2400MHz and the difference is easily noticeable. However, i must note, my own 7870k build is using a Gigabyte A88XNWIFI board which is probably fucked in some way, as @MageTank and i found out last night, it doesnt respond well to memory OC at all (the board), and this may explain why i only see differences between 1600 JEDEC and 2400 XMP. Because anything inbetween didnt seem to make any noticeable difference.

 

However the A10 7850k setups are done on identical ASRock A88X ITX boards, and both of them responded better to memory speed increase then my board seems to do (FPS wise)

 

I have also tested the effect of iGPU OC, vs CPU OC vs RAM OC vs RAM + IGPU vs RAM + CPU...

Ive ran Tomb Raider (2013 reboot) benchmark at 720p medium settings about 30 times or so in a day.

Conclusion:

2400MHz, 2x 4GB sticks, 1GB VRAM reserved through BIOS, 1066MHz iGPU, stock CPU > any other combination there is what so ever. Hell, even when running CPU at 4.6GHz, iGPU at 866MHz, RAM at 2400MHz 2x4GB with 1GB VRAM reserved in BIOS i repeatedly ended up 4 FPS (average) lower then the former combination did.

 

I can prove, empirically that APUs MUST HAVE FAST RAM. Simply by making a "10 seconds worth of investigation" comparison.

R5 250 dGPU = R7 iGPU at 1066MHz (GPU power wise)

R5 250 dGPU has 86GB/s bandwidth

R7 iGPU even with 2400MHz 2x4GB Sticks of RAM has theoretically 36GB/s bandwidth. Realistically you probably have 30GB/s bandwidth.

 

An APU is memory bandwidth starved. The CPU (even Piledriver cores) aren't remotely close to being bad enough to bottleneck the iGPU more then the RAM is bottlenecking the iGPU.

 

 

I can right away tell you that AMD CPUs (Athlon 860k, Athlon 845 Carrizo, FX 8320) doesnt respond well to faster memory. This is probably due to their sub par IMC.

Sure, i do not own a good RAM OCing board when it comes to FX or APUs/ the 845, but lets just say, AMD IMC is shit. And i can play around with OC all day long and i still wont get much performance out of the RAM due to a straight up disgustingly bad IMC.

 

So if i want to produce results, i need to simulate different intel CPUs using my i7 4790k. However then we return to the issue with Linus's videos. L3 Cache and its effect on the testing.

 

I can cut down the i7 to a i3 both in clock speed, and core/thread count. But i still cannot get around the issue that i have a i3 with 8MB of L3 cache....

 

Also, you've been whiteknighting in a few of the other rant threads about Linus. Whether it is intentional or not, i dunno. But that is how you come across as you repeatedly take the stance that "person who are adressing a issue must be wrong. Linus are very likely not wrong."

 

 

@Yoinkerman

Contact @MageTank and have him help you overclock your RAM.

the speeds i will test with are:

1600 JEDEC

1600 custom timings

2133 custom timings

2400 XMP

2400 custom timings

max MHz custom timings

 

it must be at least 2x4GB sticks.

the sticks SHOULD be on the mobo QVL list (to eliminate incompatibilities or instabilities)

CPUs must be at stock speed

GPUs must be at stock speed

 

All tests done with v-sync (since thats how magetank has tested things)

 

The games i will use to test my R9 295x2 and i7 4790k are

Tomb Raider 2013 (Benchmark)

Ryse Son of Rome (intro)

Rainbow Six Siege (Benchmark)

Guildwars 2 (online, running in Lions Arch around bank/crafting. The base game is free so you can DL it)

Ashes of the Singularity DX12 mode

 

I will also do AIDA64 benchmarks, Cinebench R15 and CPU-Z Benchmark.

 

ill see if i can get it done by friday.

Ill also test my Athlon 845 (Excavator/Carrizo. Locked CPU), and see if i can push it to 2400Mhz RAM (although it doesnt seem to improve anything in AIDA64 testing)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prysin said:

-snip-

a bunch of stuff related to APUs

-snip-

I think most people will agree that faster RAM makes a difference when it comes to APUs. I have not seen Linus' video so I can't tell if he talked about those or PCs with discrete graphics cards in them. Again, this is the problem with making generalizations (which I think both sides are guilty of). Very rarely are things black and white. Like I have repeatedly said over and over in this thread, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. That the impact of RAM speed is highly dependent on what your other components are as well as what you are using the computer for. You seem to agree with this as well since you said that RAM speed doesn't seem to matter when you got a non-APU AMD chip.

 

So again, if you reread my posts you will probably notice that you agree with me. There is no need for you to be so hostile.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Also, you've been whiteknighting in a few of the other rant threads about Linus. Whether it is intentional or not, i dunno. But that is how you come across as you repeatedly take the stance that "person who are adressing a issue must be wrong. Linus are very likely not wrong."

Got any examples because I genuinely have no idea which threads you are referring to. Maybe you are getting me mixed up with someone else? The only Linus related threads I have posted in recently have been this thread and threads about the quality of his content going down. In the "quality doing down" threads and I have been flaming Linus quite hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

That is pretty much irelevant , as in this case , there is a serious cpu bottleneck ( i3 + titan X ? ). In a more balanced configuration , there typically isn't much of an increase in performance.

@MageTank Did the same test with an i5 and yielded similar results. It's not because of the bottleneck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I think most people will agree that faster RAM makes a difference when it comes to APUs. I have not seen Linus' video so I can't tell if he talked about those or PCs with discrete graphics cards in them. Again, this is the problem with making generalizations (which I think both sides are guilty of). Very rarely are things black and white. Like I have repeatedly said over and over in this thread, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. That the impact of RAM speed is highly dependent on what your other components are as well as what you are using the computer for. You seem to agree with this as well since you said that RAM speed doesn't seem to matter when you got a non-APU AMD chip.

 

So again, if you reread my posts you will probably notice that you agree with me. There is no need for you to be so hostile.

 

 

Got any examples because I genuinely have no idea which threads you are referring to. Maybe you are getting me mixed up with someone else? The only Linus related threads I have posted in recently have been this thread and threads about the quality of his content going down. In the "quality doing down" threads and I have been flaming Linus quite hard.

First of all, i must apologize for calling you a whiteknight. I did indeed have you mixed up with someone else. My bad.

 

Second of all.

i have here simulated an i5 4690k running full turbo (3.9GHz) all the time with my R9 295x2.

I have then swapped RAM kits to see if there is any difference.

 

Settings are "Ultra/Best visuals", 1920x1080. No V-sync.

 

In GW2, there was a marginal improvement on average, but not much. In Tomb Raider 2013, no change. In Rainbox Six Siege, no change.

With the exception of the DX9 based GW2, neither Tomb Raider or Rainbow Six Siege is very CPU intensive, considering that my 8320 scores consistently within 10-15% of my 4790k in those two games....

CPU-Z saw no real change.

 

Cinebench R15 Multi Thread increased from 590 points to 609 points. However this could be within margin of error. Although there was a consistent difference of 8-19 points when benching....but i dun fuck up and forgot to screen all the runs.

 

However Ashes of the Singularity, that is a WHOLE other story.

 

First up. AIDA64 Memory and Cache test:

667a0aY.png
rFBgFqm.png

naN9v5I.png

 

Tomb Raider 2013

1600MHz

V6Cp4XG.jpg

J83B6NE.png

 

2400MHz XMP

ydWAGSD.jpg

DoRmx8N.png

 

Ashes of the Singularity

1600MHz

cBrPmMV.png

MByHlGi.png

 

2400MHz XMP

powtxtq.jpg

2JGi4QA.png

 

2400MHz Custom timings

GGLW5hB.jpg

 

As you can see, depending on the game, even a 4690k will benefit from faster memory.

Although, i do not own Fallout 4 which is another game which shows notable gains going with faster RAM even on decent CPUs.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the salt in this thread is A+ 10/10 would NaCl again.


i7-7700 | Asrock H270M-ITX | Fractal Design Core 500 | 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX | EVGA GTX 1080 Ti | 850 EVO 500GB | 850 EVO 250GB | WD CavGreen 2TB

EVGA SuperNOVA 550W | Steel Series Elite Prism | Final mouse 2015 | WASD Keyboards V2 (MX Blue) | Acer Predator 1440p 144Hz

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Prysin said:

First of all, i must apologize for calling you a whiteknight. I did indeed have you mixed up with someone else. My bad.

 

Second of all.

i have here simulated an i5 4690k running full turbo (3.9GHz) all the time with my R9 295x2.

I have then swapped RAM kits to see if there is any difference.

 

-snipping out all the benchmark stuff-

No problem on the mix up.

 

Good job on the tests. Again, I haven't seen the video so I don't know what Linus says, but I think the results from your test tells a pretty clear story. The importance of RAM speed varies from "makes no difference" to "can make a significant difference" depending on the rest of your system and what programs you are running.

I don't know what claims Linus makes (don't watch TechQuickie nor do I have a Vessel subscription) but I totally agree with you that with a great audience comes a great responsibility, so Linus should be careful what he says in videos which are meant to be educational.

RAM speed can matter, and it might not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But again, you are using a low end CPU. What happens when you use a better CPU such as the 6600K?

I don't doubt your results and I think you did a good job in that thread, but we are still not testing all scenarios so I don't think we should make broad statements (which is what Linus does as well). It is entirely possible that both Linus and you are correct, only that you are comparing different scenarios and then making broad statements as if the results from your limited testing applies to everything.

You calling my 4.4ghz 6600T low end? Now that's just gonna hurt it's feelings :(

 

My "broad statements" are also backed up by people with vastly different hardware configurations. From older enthusiast platforms to current high end consumer platforms. From both AMD and Nvidia users, and on cards as old as the 560 Ti, to as new as Titan X's and R9 3xx cards. I am not just providing my evidence as a source, but every other piece of evidence i've gathered on the subject. I also include statements from users on this very forum that have also noticed the same boost, on Haswell Xeons (Basically locked i7's) and GTX 970's. 

 

I do see your point though. It's exactly why I keep begging people to test this for themselves. The more information (even if it goes against my claims) the better. It helps us pinpoint exactly what we are seeing, why we are seeing it, and exactly when/if its beneficial. 

 

If it helps, I can test on my brothers 4790k and his GTX 970. That seems like a common enough configuration. If it shows tangible performance gains on that kind of setup, would you deem it plausible enough to continue investigating?


My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually less information than I expected.

 

Why is RAM speeds mentioned on your processor? What do they do?

Why is RAM speeds mentioned on your motherboard? What do they do?

What are some actual and measurable benefits to faster RAM, other than real world examples?

Are there any limitations to faster RAM? Are there any limitations for slower RAM?

What speed of RAM to ultimately choose?

 

I expected these to be answered on the Techquickie video. :|


Quote

The problem is that this is an nVidia product and scoring any nVidia product a "zero" is also highly predictive of the number of nVidia products the reviewer will receive for review in the future.

On 2015-01-28 at 5:24 PM, Victorious Secret said:

Only yours, you don't shitpost on the same level that we can, mainly because this thread is finally dead and should be locked.

On 2016-06-07 at 11:25 PM, patrickjp93 said:

I wasn't wrong. It's extremely rare that I am. I provided sources as well. Different devs can disagree. Further, we now have confirmed discrepancy from Twitter about he use of the pre-release 1080 driver in AMD's demo despite the release 1080 driver having been out a week prior.

On 2016-09-10 at 4:32 PM, Hikaru12 said:

You apparently haven't seen his responses to questions on YouTube. He is very condescending and aggressive in his comments with which there is little justification. He acts totally different in his videos. I don't necessarily care for this content style and there is nothing really unique about him or his channel. His endless dick jokes and toilet humor are annoying as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
11 hours ago, maulemall said:

I have learned more from you guys in this thread about memory than I would have in school... THANKS

you're welcome

 

6 hours ago, Shahnewaz said:

This is actually less information than I expected.

 

Why is RAM speeds mentioned on your processor? What do they do?

Why is RAM speeds mentioned on your motherboard? What do they do?

What are some actual and measurable benefits to faster RAM, other than real world examples?

Are there any limitations to faster RAM? Are there any limitations for slower RAM?

What speed of RAM to ultimately choose?

 

I expected these to be answered on the Techquickie video. :|

It is not only less then one would expect, it is not even correct. Like factually correct.

 

Implying that aestetics has any real value over performance is simply sickening.

RAM are made by like 4-5 different makers (regardless of RAM stick brand). And almost every brand ive ever seen on the internet has Lifetime Warranty. So the whole "reputable brand" thing is rather irrelevant

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think digital foundry clearly showed that ram can impact performance a lot and that faster ram can be worth it.

Ofc not like 100$ more for same capacity like dominator platinums but like getting a 2400mhz stick instead of 2133, that jump isn't expensive but gives you a small boost 


Longboarders/ skaters message me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×