Time to find out how this stunning looking high end Corsair RAM kit performs. Take note that all the speed results of sub 2666Mhz are simulated Platinum versions. Real world performance can vary, depending on the IC's being used.

To start off we are utilising Superpi 32M, a favourite amongst benchers. Ideal to show off their tweaking skills, RAM clocks and insane timings. A nice scaling can be observed, especially when comparing 1600Mhz C9, a commonly used RAM frequency, versus the blistering 2666Mhz speeds. A whopping 16 seconds difference thanks to the massive increase in bandwith, Wprime 1024 is a mere CPU test and the results remain within the margin of error. Why include it then you might ask ? Just to show that not all applications benefit from faster RAM.

The AIDA bandwith test shows where the gain in SuperPi 32M comes from: the READ and COPY results get a massive boost from higher clock frequencies. Likewise a drop in latency is observed from 34ns at 1600Mhz to 30ns at 2800mhz. The big difference in Copy at 2400mhz versus higher clocks is not a fluke. The tertiary tWWSR timing is set a bit too loose by the ASUS Gene V board ( this setting is at 7 for 2666Mhz and higher, while being 5 at 2400mhz )

Y-cruncher, a multi threaded SuperPi version that stresses the IMC and the CPU cores hard. We've already observed Prime95 and OCCT stable setups crash during this test. Maybe a nice addition to the stability test suite of some of our readers. Light scaling is visible, but not as heavily as with the single threaded version.

The AIDA CPU tests have similar outcome as with the first chart on this page. PhotoworXX, relying on bandwith, while CPU queen is a pure CPU test and it's output is hardly influenced by increased bandwith. Again as with the AIDA Bandwith test, the 2666 and 2800mhz results are partly crippled, due to the loose tertiary timings. But more on that on the next page.

Both our Maxon Cinebench 64Bit suites show very mild scaling with extra RAM performance. Nothing earthshattering, but an improvement is an improvement.

The X264HD encoding test is where we can truely show you how fast RAM can boost your system's performance. A healthy boost for the Pass 1 test, this with RAM clocks up to 2400mhz. With even higher RAM clocks, the scaling becomes less impressive. The Pass 2 test scales too, but the gain is minimal.

3D action time , but this time we opted to only included synthetic tests. In our previous RAM reviews it was more than clear that Games hardly run better with extra RAM bandwith. Note that we are referring to real time game playing tests; Thus not utilising integrated game benchmarks. First up is the old, but amongst benchers beloved 3DMark2001. The 3D01 scores gain big time when going from 1600 to 1866Mhz RAM frequency. But from there on the performance is hardly influenced, gaining 400 points with almost 1000mhz higher RAM frequency.

If we look at the outcome of the two other Futuremark synthetic benchmarks we can see that the scores hardly  budge with high RAM frequencies. Similar to what we experienced while doing the game tests in previous RAM reviews. For gaming purposes 1600mhz RAM clocks is a good balance between performance and cost.