Stock Performance (Continued)
For our next round of benchmarks, we ran the Memory performance module built-into Futuremark's PCMark05. For those interested in more than just the graphs, we've got a quote from Futuremark that explains exactly what this test does and how it works...
"The Memory test suite is a collection of tests that isolate the performance of the memory subsystem. The memory subsystem consists of various devices on the PC. This includes the main memory, the CPU internal cache (known as the L1 cache) and the external cache (known as the L2 cache). As it is difficult to find applications that only stress the memory, we explicitly developed a set of tests geared for this purpose. The tests are written in C++ and assembly. They include: Reading data blocks from memory, Writing data blocks to memory performing copy operations on data blocks, random access to data items and latency testing."
The TWIN3X2048-1800C7DFIN G kit performed right on par with the non-XMP capable version of the kit in PCMark05's memory performance module. It wasn't quite the fastest overall in this benchmark, but the deltas separating the modules are quite small all around.
We continued our testing with some low-resolution F.E.A.R. tests. Despite the fact that this is a game benchmark that can be used to test the relative performance of video cards, frame rates are strongly influenced by processor speed and available memory bandwidth, especially at low resolutions, which is how we ran the tests to get the frame rates listed below.
The two Corsair kits represented here technically trailed the others in our low-resolution FEAR benchmarks, but these results need clarification. Because we couldn't keep our CPU locked at a single clock speed, while also pushing each kit to their rated frequecy, some of the configurations ended up with a higher CPU clock speed. In fact, when testing the Corsair kits, our CPU was clocked at 2.6GHz as opposed to 2.66 or 2.7GHz for the others, hence the performance variations here.