Real World Performance Question (1600 to 2400)

[h4rm0ny]

Hi!

I currently have a Phenom II X6 (1100t) OCd to a 24/7 4.00GHz (modest, I know) running on a Sabretooth 990FX motherboard with 2x2GB + 2x4GB sticks of 1600 RAM.

I'm looking to upgrade the processor to a Piledriver CPU and I'm considering taking the opportunity to boost the memory also. Same size but 2400.

I use this box for database development work and a modest amount of 3D rendering (Maya-style, not Game-style) and some 2D artwork (painting in ArtRage).

My question - in the real world, not benchmarking, do you think I'd see a performance benefit from upgrading the memory?
Thanks for all advice.

H.

 

[Woomack]

You won't see any difference on AMD platform. On Intel all depends from application but in most cases it's also low performance improvement.
Optimal seem 1866 for all new platforms ( without higher CPU overclocking ). Looking at prices you can get faster RAM like 1866/2133 almost in the price of 1600 so I would take faster kit.

 

[h4rm0ny]

You won't see any difference on AMD platform. On Intel all depends from application but in most cases it's also low performance improvement.
Optimal seem 1866 for all new platforms ( without higher CPU overclocking ). Looking at prices you can get faster RAM like 1866/2133 almost in the price of 1600 so I would take faster kit.

Oh, that's disappointing. Why specifically on an AMD platform wouldn't it make a difference as opposed to Intel? The Piledriver CPU I was looking at supports 2400MHz. Is it due to limitations of the motherboard?

 

[Woomack]

AMD is officially supporting up to 1866. Anything above is overclocking. Intel has official memory support up to 1600 and I think that only IB-E series have 1866.
Main difference is memory controller which is in the CPU. AMD memory controller is slow and no matter how high will be memory clock, memory controller will limit real bandwidth. The only way to make higher bandwidth on AMD is to overclock CPU-NB. Since overclocking of CPU-NB is limited to about 2500MHz then it won't change much ... you can get +2-3GB/s. Phenoms could run CPU-NB much higher.
It looks like on Intel base memory bandwidth and memory controller performance are higher. If you are overclocking Intel CPU then memory bandwidth is raising even without touching memory clock. On AMD CPU clock will also help but not so much and CPU-NB, as I already said, is limited so it also won't help so much.
Also if there is info that board supports 2400+ memory clock, it doesn't mean that CPU's memory controller will be stable at this speed.

I don't think that getting Piledriver will be so big upgrade in your case but for sure it will be cheaper than switch CPU and mobo to Intel.

 

[h4rm0ny]

AMD is officially supporting up to 1866. Anything above is overclocking. Intel has official memory support up to 1600 and I think that only IB-E series have 1866.
Main difference is memory controller which is in the CPU. AMD memory controller is slow and no matter how high will be memory clock, memory controller will limit real bandwidth. The only way to make higher bandwidth on AMD is to overclock CPU-NB. Since overclocking of CPU-NB is limited to about 2500MHz then it won't change much ... you can get +2-3GB/s. Phenoms could run CPU-NB much higher.
It looks like on Intel base memory bandwidth and memory controller performance are higher. If you are overclocking Intel CPU then memory bandwidth is raising even without touching memory clock. On AMD CPU clock will also help but not so much and CPU-NB, as I already said, is limited so it also won't help so much.
Also if there is info that board supports 2400+ memory clock, it doesn't mean that CPU's memory controller will be stable at this speed.

I don't think that getting Piledriver will be so big upgrade in your case but for sure it will be cheaper than switch CPU and mobo to Intel.

Thanks for all that. I understand now.

Well that's a shame, but all makes sense. I would like to increase past the 12GB I currently have so that either leaves me buying a little more at 1600 or just replacing the lot. If it's only from 1600 to 1866, I'm not sure that I'd get much difference out of that...

Yeah, I'm hoping to see a boost from Piledriver, but I'm aware it may not be what I'd really like. Some of the workload I throw at these is very parrellizable but it's also often quite mathematical and with the Piledriver architecture actually sharing the floating point units, one per two cores, that's actually less than my current "real" six core. But I'm hoping overall it will be a boost. If nothing else, it's a big clock-boost.

But basically, I have nowhere else to go other than replace the whole lot with Intel! I find it absurd that a chip from three years ago can still be around the top of the available range.

 

[Woomack]

I would get Intel ... and I actually sold AMD some months ago ( FX8120 and FX8320 ) just because I didn't like it as 24/7 platform. It's fun for overclocking but I like Intel much more ( looking at performance and generated heat ).

 

[EarthDog]

Why do you want more than 12GB of ram? Do you actually NEED it? Meaning are you close or using all 12GB? Just make sure you NEED it as performance will not increase with getting more ram if you are not using all of what you have already.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Why do you want more than 12GB of ram? Do you actually NEED it? Meaning are you close or using all 12GB? Just make sure you NEED it as performance will not increase with getting more ram if you are not using all of what you have already.

I'm getting a bit close and it's the PC that I use professionally so if I can futureproof it all in one go to reduce downtime, there's an incentive there.

I know 12GB is a silly amount. I've hit 10GB of usage. And I mean actual usage, not just Windows 8's kleptomaniac caching. I do database work which can be a real disk-thrasher and it's worsened when I'm doing that work in a guest VM on the system. So I sometimes create RAM disks and use them as a fake partition. Postgres expects you to want stability and data security, so it's hitting the hard drive all the time. But when doing development work I often actually don't care as it's all dummy data anyway. What I want, is to be able to just crunch through stuff as fast as possible. So I'll use a RAM disc as a small place to store that tables files and then everything is staying in volatile memory and it's blinding fast. You would never do such a thing on a real system but it's a neat approach for dev.

Also, I do some 3D rendering which can be a bit RAM-hungry, though I've never used more than about 9GB with that, so far. Maybe one day.

 

[EarthDog]

Cool!

I would go 2x8GB sticks so that leaves room for upgrading.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Cool!

I would go 2x8GB sticks so that leaves room for upgrading.

I think that's a good plan. What about the 1866? It's not worth upgrading to that from 1600, is it? I suppose if I'm actually replacing the RAM I might as well, but it's not really giving me anything extra I'll be able to notice.

 

[EarthDog]

Replacing, absolutely. Upgrade by itself, nope.