Memory Performance: 16GB DDR3-1333 to DDR3-2400 on Ivy Bridge IGP with G.Skill
by Ian Cutress on October 18, 2012 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
- G.Skill
- Ivy Bridge
- DDR3
As we go up the memory speeds, moving from 1333 to 1600 to 1866 means that the next stop is DDR3-2133. DDR3-2133 will be the next checkpoint for processors to accept by default in the future, and as a result there is a price premium for all memory kits equal and above this mark. In our case, the G.Skill F3-17000CL9Q-16GBZH comes in at $130, some $35 more than the DDR3-1866 kit. That is quite a hefty chunk, adding 37% on the price of memory for only a 14.3% increase in absolute MHz value terms. As we will see in the memory benchmarks later, the 2133 MHz point does offer improvements over the 1866 kit, but not by as much as 37%.
Visual Inspection
In the land of G.Skill and kit naming, RipjawsZ is the last step in the Ripjaws line before we hit Trident. The Ripjaws naming scheme was devised in anticipation of the Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E processor lineup where the majority of processors can achieve the speeds of all of the Ripjaws kits. The look of the RipjawsZ kits are less edge-driven than the RipjawsX, with a rounded module end, but more bulk in terms of heatsink with the top edge still being ~1cm taller than the module. This causes issues when paired with large heatsinks, despite large heatsinks being the aim of the processors paired with this kit.
Again, the test with this module in a large heatsink environment gives us the following:
JEDEC + XMP Settings
| G.Skill | |||||
| Kit Speed | 1333 | 1600 | 1866 | 2133 | 2400 |
| Subtimings | 9-9-9-24 2T | 9-9-9-24 2T | 9-10-9-28 2T | 9-11-10-28 2T | 10-12-12-31 2T |
| Price | $75 | $80 | $95 | $130 | $145 |
| XMP | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Size | 4 x 4 GB | 4 x 4 GB | 4 x 4 GB | 4 x 4 GB | 4 x 4 GB |
|
|
|||||
| MHz | 1333 | 1600 | 1867 | 2134 | 2401 |
| Voltage | 1.500 | 1.500 | 1.500 | 1.650 | 1.650 |
| tCL | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 |
| tRCD | 9 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| tRP | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 12 |
| tRAS | 24 | 24 | 28 | 28 | 31 |
| tRC | 33 | 33 | 37 | 38 | 43 |
| tWR | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 16 |
| tRRD | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7/6 |
| tRFC | 107 | 128 | 150 | 171 | 313 |
| tWTR | 5 | 6 | 8/7 | 9/8 | 10/9 |
| tRTP | 5 | 6 | 8/7 | 9/8 | 10/9 |
| tFAW | 20 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| tCWL | - | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| CR | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
crackedwiseman - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
OK, just one question: why in the hell are the IGP memory tests done on an i7? The results would be much more meaningful if the tests were on an AMD A10 or similar - it has a beefier IGP, and thus would be more bandwidth-bound.creed3020 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
100% Agree. Doing these tests against a Trinity APU would have been much more interesting from a iGPU point of view. It it well known that AMD APUs benefit from increased memory bandwidth, AT has yet to test Trinity for this yet they did it for Llano.silverblue - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
It makes sense to test; HD 4000 is far superior to HD 3000 and it is worth knowing if that extra power is bandwidth limited. Generally, it is a little, though nowhere near as much as AMD's equivalents are.JonnyDough - Monday, October 22, 2012 - link
Not to mention, it's surprising to me that AMD wasn't mentioned as a company trying to match memory to motherboard. AMD started making their own memory modules, an interesting fact I think.SeanJ76 - Saturday, June 21, 2014 - link
AMD is a decade behind Intel, in processor technology and instructions, it really doesn't matter what AMD attempts to do....SeanJ76 - Saturday, June 21, 2014 - link
No one gives a shit about APU you moron......these are desktop tests!hp79 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
Maybe because more people use intel? I agree that it would have stood out more if it was AMD's IGP, but doing the test on intel IGP is also okay and gives an idea of what to expect. I think the article is fine. Besides, do people really play games with IGP? If I am playing demanding games, I want the frame rates to be minimum 60 fps. That's why I use a dedicated graphics card. This might change when AMD's IGP gets even more powerful, but for now I think it's still not there yet.zcat - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
> Besides, do people really play games with IGP?Some of us do. My miniitx i7 is primarily for work & everyday use, but its HD4000 is fast enough for Portal 2 and Diablo 3 to be very playable @ 1920x1080p with AA off.
However, I know the limits of IGP, and intend on upgrading to an overclocked GeForce GTX 650 Ti very soon in order to play some more demanding games this winter.
sking.tech - Monday, October 22, 2012 - link
you may want to reconsider your choice of video "upgrade"nvidia's 2nd number is more significant than the first as far as overall gaming graphics power goes... You'd do better going for a 560 TI than a 650 for approx the same cost
Dirk Broer - Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - link
You should first look at what chip actually powers the card -and it's capabilities- before staring yourself blind on the last two digits. Besides that, a GTX 560 Ti is more expensive than a GTX 650.