Stock settings results

Time to get started with the benchmarking. As we explained on the previous page, we're starting with a non-tuned system: just plug the memory modules in (reset the bios first if it's not a first build) and start up. The motherboard sets the memory then at 1.9 Volts, 800Mhz and 5-5-5-15 timings, if your memory SPD settings allow that anyway (which is the case for all of the memory tested today).

After that we just booted to windows, XP in our case, and started testing. No tweaks, no hidden performance enhancements, just straight out of the box testing.

On this page and the following, we provide you with two ways of viewing the results: an easy to use result table, where the best performing memory for each test is highlighted in green, and below our table, the individual graphs to see what the differences are in the individual tests.

First the overview table (click on it to open in a new window) :




Now for the individual graphs, first is the bandwidth for which we use SiSoftware's Sandra application. The System ANalyser, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant is an information and diagnostic utility which has a very handy benchmark suite, in which you can compare your system to a range of other reference systems. The Bandwidth is one of the available benchmarks. Alternatively for latency we can use the Everest application from Lavalys, which consistently gives higher results, but the scaling is the same as Sandra's :



Here we see our three new memory kits coming out on top, but only very slightly. Differences are very small indeed.

Next up is the latency, from Lavalys again:



In our latency test a top three comes forward: the G.Skill modules come out on top together with the Team Group and the OCZ Reaper kit. The others are not far behind; only the Corsair PC6400C3F has a rather low score.

Next up is SuperPi, very well known to follow bandwidth and latency results rather closely:



For this test bandwidth and latency clearly have not been followed, as the results are mixed. The difference between the fastest and the slowest kit is 0.7s or only 1.5%.

Let's look at Cinebench now:



Surprisingly the PC6400 Flex kit jumps out here; the rest is all together around the 445 mark.

PC Mark 2005 now:



The OCZ Reaper and again the PC6400 Flex kit come out on top. OCZ seems to have done some pretty good SPD programming, being able to get away with some advantages on stock speeds.


3D Mark 2006 next, first the CPU score:



... and the total score :



The largest variations could be expected on the cpu side here, but the graph clearly shows that there is zero difference between the kits in 3D06. For the total score the OCZ PC6400 a Reaper again have a nice score, together with the PC6400 dominator. Differences are hardly worth mentioning though, and probably due to statistical variance.

Finally, our game test: Prey :



The graph is ordered by average frame rates between the two game tests, and shows that there's quite some variance going on. The OCZ Flex comes out great again, while the Reapers fall back.

Time to look at the cas 3 settings now...>