Corsair’s Gaming Performance Analysis - 6GB vs. 3GB

jmke · 18th November 2008, 15:52

With the introduction of the Intel Core i7 processor series, which features an on-die, triple-channel memory controller, consumers now have a choice between 3GB (3 x 1GB) and 6GB (3 x 2GB) system memory densities.

http://www.corsair.com/appnotes/default.aspx

18th November 2008, 17:29

Hm, some decent minimum framerate improvements there. But it requires GTX 280 SLI at medium resolutions...

Didn't think there would even be that much, but considering Vista was still caching game files to virtual memory despite 6GB of physical memory...

jmke · 18th November 2008, 18:48

overall the gain is very small in my humble opinion, especially when you take into account the extra cost, the benefit doesn't outweigh the extra $$$

19th November 2008, 00:23

Gains are small indeed. But I was not expecting any, nor was I expecting them to be consistent on MIN framerates... can think of many more games that exhibit the same virtual memory caching even with 4GB installed. The Average/Max scores are the least important, the MIN is the rate this helps the most.

Agreed that it's not worth the extra cost by itself, but it's a good reason to keep in mind if you have others to get 6GB over 3GB. Can find 6GB kits below $200, even the good 1600MHz kits are $270 with rebates starting to appear.

19th November 2008, 08:49

The same results raised some eyebrowns when Intels and SLC SSDs provided a minimum framerate boost because data was loaded faster from the HD so the explanation why it is like that is sound.

The most important question is however, how does it do on XP? Because if only 2 Gig of 3 GB gets used, the OS or the Game is pretty stupid and it wouldn't surprise me one bit when Vista is once again to blame.

Massman · 19th November 2008, 08:57

I agree with Rutar: the question should not be why the MIN fps raises that much with the extra memory, the question should be why is it so low to begin with. Vista might be to blaim for this, not the amount of memory, which (if I'm not mistaken) was already shown by Jmke in his GTX280/4870X2 testings.

19th November 2008, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar

The most important question is however, how does it do on XP? Because if only 2 Gig of 3 GB gets used, the OS or the Game is pretty stupid and it wouldn't surprise me one bit when Vista is once again to blame.

XP is 32bit, and therefore no program can use >2GB of memory regardless on XP. The only expection is if you use the /3GB switch in the boot.ini, AND the program is compiled with the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header.

20th November 2008, 15:33

2 GB would still be more than what was used by a single program

jmke · 20th November 2008, 15:35

open up some 10+Mpixel pics in Photoshop

8Gb recommended

18th November 2008, 15:52	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Corsair’s Gaming Performance Analysis - 6GB vs. 3GB With the introduction of the Intel Core i7 processor series, which features an on-die, triple-channel memory controller, consumers now have a choice between 3GB (3 x 1GB) and 6GB (3 x 2GB) system memory densities. http://www.corsair.com/appnotes/default.aspx __________________

18th November 2008, 18:48	#3
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	overall the gain is very small in my humble opinion, especially when you take into account the extra cost, the benefit doesn't outweigh the extra $$$ __________________

19th November 2008, 00:23	#4
Kougar Posts: n/a	Gains are small indeed. But I was not expecting any, nor was I expecting them to be consistent on MIN framerates... can think of many more games that exhibit the same virtual memory caching even with 4GB installed. The Average/Max scores are the least important, the MIN is the rate this helps the most. Agreed that it's not worth the extra cost by itself, but it's a good reason to keep in mind if you have others to get 6GB over 3GB. Can find 6GB kits below $200, even the good 1600MHz kits are $270 with rebates starting to appear. Last edited by Kougar : 19th November 2008 at 00:25.

19th November 2008, 08:57	#6
Massman [M] Reviewer Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Waregem Posts: 6,466	I agree with Rutar: the question should not be why the MIN fps raises that much with the extra memory, the question should be why is it so low to begin with. Vista might be to blaim for this, not the amount of memory, which (if I'm not mistaken) was already shown by Jmke in his GTX280/4870X2 testings. __________________

20th November 2008, 15:35	#9
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	open up some 10+Mpixel pics in Photoshop 8Gb recommended __________________

18th November 2008, 17:29	#2
Kougar Posts: n/a	Hm, some decent minimum framerate improvements there. But it requires GTX 280 SLI at medium resolutions... Didn't think there would even be that much, but considering Vista was still caching game files to virtual memory despite 6GB of physical memory...

19th November 2008, 08:49	#5
Rutar Posts: n/a	The same results raised some eyebrowns when Intels and SLC SSDs provided a minimum framerate boost because data was loaded faster from the HD so the explanation why it is like that is sound. The most important question is however, how does it do on XP? Because if only 2 Gig of 3 GB gets used, the OS or the Game is pretty stupid and it wouldn't surprise me one bit when Vista is once again to blame.

20th November 2008, 15:33	#8
Rutar Posts: n/a	2 GB would still be more than what was used by a single program

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ATI Cypress Gaming Performance Analysis	jmke	WebNews	0	22nd February 2010 14:27
3GB vs. 6GB Memory Performance Analysis on X58	jmke	WebNews	0	12th February 2009 17:25
List of Tripple-channel Memory Kits	jmke	WebNews	0	9th December 2008 11:02
Performance Analysis for Core 2 and K8	jmke	WebNews	0	1st November 2008 11:49
CORSAIR AND DELL USHER IN 1600MHz MEMORY FOR EXTREME GAMING PERFORMANCE	jmke	WebNews	1	3rd June 2008 17:17
High Performance AMD Phenom™ X4 Processors Lead the Charge to HD Desktop Gaming and V	jmke	WebNews	0	27th March 2008 15:09
DDR-3 Gaming Performance Analysis	jmke	WebNews	0	26th June 2007 13:54
Futuremark Corporation Develops Performance Analysis Tools and Services for Vista	jmke	WebNews	0	16th May 2006 14:52
Intel Dual-Core Gaming Performance Analysis	jmke	WebNews	0	19th March 2006 02:56
Hitachi Deskstar 250GB SATA Hard Drive RAID gaming performance analysis	Sidney	WebNews	0	5th October 2004 05:25