Corsair's TWINX 1024-3200XL v1.2 & TWINX 1024-4400C25PT Memory kits

We began our testing with SiSoftware's SANDRA, the System ANalyzer, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant, with the memory configured at 2-2-2-5.  SANDRA consists of a set of information and diagnostic utilities that can provide a host of useful information about your hardware and OS  We ran SANDRA's Memory Bandwidth test with Corsair's TWINX memory modules installed on our Asus P4P800 Deluxe.  We also threw in a few comparison benchmarks for PCMARK04 and Wolfenstein - Enemy Territory from a set of Corsair XMS Pro CMX512-3200LL modules which we paired together.  These particular modules were one of the first XMS Pro sets to come with the LL designation, short for "Low Latency". 

(Note:  The TWINX1024-3200XL memory modules were detected at 2-2-2-5 when set to detect memory timings by SPD, but the TWINX1024-4400C25PT sticks came up as 2.5-3-3-6 and the CMX512-3200LL as 2-3-2-6.  For these tests, we manually set the timings to 2-2-2-5 except on the CMS512-3200LL, where this setting would invariably crash the system.)

Performance Comparison with SiSoft SANDRA 2004 Raw Bandwidth

Corsair TWINX1024-3200XL

Corsair TWINX1024-4400C25PT

SANDRA's memory bandwidth benchmark had the two sets of Corsair modules running neck and neck with each other, putting up nearly identical numbers.  Which is to be expected with modules based on the same ICs.  In the integer test, the 3200XL set was merely 1MB/s higher than the 4400C25PT, with the exact opposite occurring in the Floating Point test.  The scores we achieved with both sets were slightly better than what was found for a comparable i865 board in Sandra's database.

Performance Comparison with PCMark04 Overall Memory Score

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."

The PCMark04 results gave the slight edge to the 3200XL set of memory, scoring a scant 12 points better in memory performance over the 4400C25PT modules.  When compared to the XMS Pro set at 2-3-2-6, we saw that the benefit of running the modules at 2-2-2-5 was good for a margin of 150 points, which comes out to about a 3 percent difference.

In-Game Performance Comparisons With Wolf: ET System Memory Affects Frame rates?  You Bet!

We also ran through a batch of time demos with the OpenGL game Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory.  Wolfenstein: ET is a free, standalone multiplayer game that is based on the original Return to Castle Wolfenstein that was released a few years back. It uses a heavily modified version of the Quake III engine, which makes it a very easy-to-use benchmarking tool.  We ran this test at the "Fastest" setting with a low resolution of 640 X 480, using 16-bit color and textures.  Running this test with a high-end graphics card at these minimal settings isolates processor and memory performance without being limited by the graphics subsystem. 

Performance with Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was a bit more even, as the 4400C25PT and the 512-3200LL sets produced exactly the same framerate.  Once again, however, the Corsair TWINX1024-3200XL kit posted the highest score.  But with only about 2-3 frames per second separating it from the other sets, we can call this test a virtual tie.