Corsair's Internal Benchmarks: Why 6GB is Better than 3GB
Corsair's Internal Benchmarks: Why 6GB is Better than 3GB
Posted 11/18/2008 at 8:06am
| by Paul Lilly
12
Comments
Print
Intel's Core i7 release hasn't just changed the processor game, it's also ushered in a new era of memory choices. Up until Core i7, power users found themselves pondering whether to slap a 2GB or 4GB kit of RAM into their system, but that was before triple-channel memory. Now the choice (for upgraders and new builders) comes down to 3GB or 6GB, and Corsair looks to shed some light on the decision by performing some in-house benchmarking.
The tests, which were performed using an Asus P6T Deluxe motherboard, Core i7-965 Extreme Edition CPU, two Nvidia 280 GTX videocards in SLI, and two Seagate 320GB 7200.10 hard drives in a RAID 0 array, heavily favored the 6GB kit. Corsair's results were sometimes significant, with the minimum frame rate in World of Conflict jumping by 50 percent when upgrading from 3GB to 6GB, and netting over a 3-fold increase in Crysis Warhead. Even game loading times saw a boost.
"The analysis shows that 3GB of system memory is insufficient to run modern games, such as Warhammer Online and Crysis Warhead, resulting in poor performance," Corsair wrote (PDF). "The lack of memory when using 3GB of RAM results in increased hard disk drive access, sometimes called thrashing. This causes in-game stuttering, which reduces the minimum frame rate."
This isn't the first time Corsair has released internal benchmarks. Previously, the memory maker found that upgrading from 2GB to 4GB provided "significant performance benefits." This time around, Corsair says "the message to enthusiasts who are looking to build a Core i7 system for gaming is clear - installing 6GB of memory will provide significantly higher frame rates and a considerably smoother gaming experience."
Thoughts on Corsair's testing methodology or results? Hit the jump and let us know.
More like this
Keith E. Whisman
November 20, 2008 at 1:03am
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you can quote me on that...
50% increase in performance using 6gigs over 3gigs? Bullshit. You want to sell ram, that want to sell lots and lots of ram because they are hurting. This is bullshit all out bullshit to get people to buy lots and lots of ram.
I'm not going to argue that you won't see a perfomance boost as you will and God why wouldn't you use as much ram as you can possibly get? I just don't fucking believe in those BULLSHIT performance numbers. Anyone that payed hundreds of dollars just to have 640k of ram back in the day rembers how for many years ram cost more than it's wieght in gold.
Now with ram so cheap people like me look at having gobs and gobs of ram as a luxery that I dreampt about when I was younger.
Now the memory makers are going broke. They are resorting to lying to us. Corsair I love you. You don't have to lie to me. I will still be happy to buy your ram. Just don't lie about those performance numbers because they are BULLSHIT and I know it.
Perhaps what they neglected to point out is that they were running prime95, a virus scan and a defrag at the same time while benchmarking the 3gig machines. The 6gig machines were benchmarked with nothing running in the back ground. That's the only way I can think of a game seeing a 50% improvement in performance from 3 extra gigs of ram.
AndyYankee17
November 20, 2008 at 6:37pm
hey mpc, wanna do some of your own benchmarks? I'd be very interested in getting a second opinion from an unbiased source.
winmaster
November 18, 2008 at 5:54pm
This is a groundbreaking study. You mean the more RAM is better than less RAM? That's crazy. And I'm sure that Consair's completely unbiased. They're only one of the biggest RAM makers out there, and the economic crysis isn't affecting them at all.
*cough, sarcasm, cough, cough*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
dankers
November 18, 2008 at 3:52pm
I thought I remember reading Vista ultimate can handle a lot more ram than that, but I can't find the article now maybe I was mistaken. Anyway I just picked up a 4 gig kit from Corsair. I have to say i didnt think it would make as much of a difference as it did. Anyone want to buy a 2 gig Patriot kit? Dirt cheap...
soccer1105
November 18, 2008 at 11:28pm
32 bit can only go up to 3 GB, but a 64 bit OS can go WAY higher. I don't remember the exact number but it's in the hundreds of tera-bites...maybe higher...peta-bites? of coarse that's the "mathematical" limit. It all depends on how the OS is programed.
K0BALT
November 18, 2008 at 2:08pm
actually Vista 32bit can only "see" between 3-3.5gb. Even if you have 4gb installed. 64bit can run up to 16gb.
AndyYankee17
November 18, 2008 at 11:53am
not really a surprise, people should go study up on virtual memory.
the more physical memory you have the less the machine has to access your hard drive.
bloodgain
November 18, 2008 at 8:30am
"Major RAM manufacturer and retailer says you should buy more memory!"
They have to be totally unbiased in their testing, I'm sure. I know I'm convinced. RAM manufacturers have to know best about how much RAM I need, and they would never do anything that looked empirical but was just another way to boost memory sales. In fact, I'm going to go out and buy 6GB of DDR3 right now, and I don't even have DDR3 compatible system! I figure I should be prepared, you know, because those RAM prices probably aren't going down for a while. </sarcasm>
Velcrow
November 18, 2008 at 10:33am
LOL, my thoughts exactly. Although it would be interesting to see the 3GB setup with a SSD or atleast the Velociraptor in RAID. If they wanna throw the 'enthusiast' word out there then be true to the word. Not to mention this benchmark is pointless since any true enthusiast will get 6GB+ ANYWAYS. We're well aware of the benefits, thanks.
whiskey In Ur Liver
November 18, 2008 at 8:12am
What OS are these bench marks on? For example, if I have Vista 32, will i see these benefits, or do I have to go 64 bit on this?
bear
November 18, 2008 at 8:29am
You can find the OS used for these benchmarks on page 2, under "Test Platform" within the analysis report. It is likely that you would have to upgrade to 64-bit since 32-bit can only address 4GB of total memory so you wouldn't get any benefit from anything beyond that.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
Where have all the memorable videogame enemies gone?
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Multi-Monitor Usage On The Rise http://t.co/eWfJfCEG16 hours 24 min ago
- maximumpc: Windows 8 Consumer Preview Coming On February 29 http://t.co/3Nd04FdR22 hours 12 min ago
- maximumpc: Can RIM *ever* catch a break? Not today! App World numbers not as great as previously reported http://t.co/3ERRhr311 day 18 hours ago
