[O/C]X58 vs. P55 Quick Memory Comparison

[Overclockers.com]

X58 vs. P55 Quick Memory Comparison
by Ross

Some may have noticed that P55 (Lynnfield) systems seem to overclock memory “better” than X58. I did. Most notably, memory that would barely run 1100 MHz on X58 for me was magically running over 1300 MHz on P55 after some tweaking. If all other things are equal, that would be amazing, so we’ll take a very quick peek at how memory performs on both platforms.

Click here to continue reading.


Discuss this article below. If you are interested in contributing to the front page (www.overclockers.com), please feel free to contact splat, mdcomp, or hokiealumnus.

 

[EarthDog]

Very well written article.

What real world results does the slower and faster memory yield?

 

[Ross]

I will try to play with some more when I can and include other tests. I didn't have much time when I started, that's why it's a "quick peek" It seems like the upcoming 1366 stuff could be noticably different with memory compared to 45nm, but we'll need to wait and see what retail processors and official supporting BIOSes do.

 

[Vandall]

nice written article

additionally i found this here:

Memory Comparison - all inclusive

very informative

 

[Ross]

I actually like that benchmark, it's nice and quick

 

[Vandall]

hi,

I actually like that benchmark, it's nice and quick

yes, same here
i originally found it at www.hwbot.org


best

 

[TwL]

This is the most ridigulous compare ever.

None of these systems are even near stable level nor they can be at stable level (Hell, not even for Hypers) and you are speaking of 'memory performance' compare.

 

[Dooms101]

I wish I knew more about Intel chipsets, getting a little confused by the Intel terminology

 

[hokiealumnus]

This is the most ridigulous compare ever.

None of these systems are even near stable level nor they can be at stable level (Hell, not even for Hypers) and you are speaking of 'memory performance' compare.

How do you figure? I saw nothing in the article indicating the systems were unstable. Not that they necessarily need to be to compare memory bandwidth. Your conclusion seems a bit odd; why is this ridiculous exactly?. Please elaborate on why you have such a problem with it.

 

[MattNo5ss]

This is the most ridigulous compare ever.

None of these systems are even near stable level nor they can be at stable level (Hell, not even for Hypers) and you are speaking of 'memory performance' compare.

to OCForums!

"Stable" is a vague term that can mean different things based your desired use, 24/7 stable, Everest stable, SuperPi 32M stable, etc. They only need to be "stable" for what you are doing. So whether those settings are 24/7 stable or not, this is still a valid comparison as long as the Everest bench finishes and there are no crashes or errors.

 

[EarthDog]

to OCForums!

"Stable" is a vague term that can mean different things based your desired use, 24/7 stable, Everest stable, SuperPi 32M stable, etc. They only need to be "stable" for what you are doing. So whether those settings are 24/7 stable or not, this is still a valid comparison as long as the Everest bench finishes and there are no crashes or errors.

+1.

the other part is that 1000Mhz memory is fairly easy to get 24/7 stable so Im not sure what that post was about either.