Performance @ 2-2-2-5 Continued
For our next round of benchmarks, we ran the Memory performance module built-into Futuremark's PCMark04. 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."
Like the SANDRA tests, all three sets of memory modules performed at similar levels in the PCMark04 memory performance module as well. The performance delta was a bit more pronounced on the Intel test system (51 vs. 44 point spread), but for all intents and purposes these scores here are identical, and fall well within the margin of error in this test.
We continued our testing with Novalogic's combat helicopter simulation, Comanche 4. 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 with sound disabled, which is how we ran the tests to get the frame rates listed below.
We didn't see any dramatic performance differences with Comanche 4 either. The Corsair modules were once again the fastest of the bunch, but not by much. On the Intel i875 test bed, the Corsair sticks were about 1.2% faster than the Kingston modules and on the AMD system they were about .4% faster.