Patriot Viper III Review: 2x4 GB at DDR3-2400 C10-12-12 1.65 V
by Ian Cutress on November 18, 2013 1:00 PM ESTIGP Compute
One of the touted benefits of Haswell is the compute capability afforded by the IGP. For anyone using DirectCompute or C++ AMP, the compute units of the HD 4600 can be exploited as easily as any discrete GPU, although efficiency might come into question. Shown in some of the benchmarks below, it is faster for some of our computational software to run on the IGP than the CPU (particularly the highly multithreaded scenarios).
Grid Solvers - Explicit Finite Difference on IGP
As before, we test both 2D and 3D explicit finite difference simulations with 2n nodes in each dimension, using OpenMP as the threading operator in single precision. The grid is isotropic and the boundary conditions are sinks. We iterate through a series of grid sizes, and results are shown in terms of ‘million nodes per second’ where the peak value is given in the results – higher is better.
N-Body Simulation on IGP
As with the CPU compute, we run a simulation of 10240 particles of equal mass - the output for this code is in terms of GFLOPs, and the result recorded was the peak GFLOPs value.
Matrix Multiplication on IGP
Matrix Multiplication occurs in a number of mathematical models, and is typically designed to avoid memory accesses where possible and optimize for a number of reads and writes depending on the registers available to each thread or batch of dispatched threads. He we have a crude MatMul implementation, and iterate through a variety of matrix sizes to find the peak speed. Results are given in terms of ‘million nodes per second’ and a higher number is better.
3D Particle Movement on IGP
Similar to our 3DPM Multithreaded test, except we run the fastest of our six movement algorithms with several million threads, each moving a particle in a random direction for a fixed number of steps. Final results are given in million movements per second, and a higher number is better.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
julandorid - Monday, November 18, 2013 - link
Thanks for the review, but what exactly "featured review" means?IanCutress - Monday, November 18, 2013 - link
That's a little tagline we can attach to the front page articles when they're on the top.Wall Street - Monday, November 18, 2013 - link
I think that it is the opposite of capsule review. A featured review is a.k.a. a full review.TemjinGold - Monday, November 18, 2013 - link
Whoa... why is the 2X4 by GSkill $520?IanCutress - Monday, November 18, 2013 - link
DDR-3000 C12: you have to bin a lot of ICs to get ones with the right voltage/performance characteristics for that kit. Same reason why the more expensive CPUs are also the faster (in MHz numbers or cores) than the cheaper ones.ShieTar - Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - link
True. But you can get DDR 2666 with CL10 for about 100€, so a set with an 7% shorter access time (higher "PI" as Ian insists on calling it), and only a 11% lower transfer rate for about a fifth of the price.The 500$ kit seems to be exclusively for those who don't have to work for their money, or maybe those who are hunting records as a hobby.
DanNeely - Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - link
The very top of the line always is extremely expensive, and - when it's the result of extreme binning - has to be in order to limit demand to the miniscule supply available.Gen-An - Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - link
Exactly, they have to test the ICs individually with those tester kits and bin them for speed. I just find it amazing that a chip that is designed for say, 1600 C11 at 1.5v has the potential to run 3100 C12 with 1.65v, that's nearly double its rated clock speed with a mere 0.15v bump in voltage.sf101 - Monday, December 9, 2013 - link
If you want 2400 guaranteed out of the box you pay the premiums.most of the 2133 mhz black momba sticks could also do 2666mhz @ 10-13-10-30-2t but your voltages may vary.
And more than likely some of that is because of individual IMC tolerances per cpu.
Franzen4Real - Monday, November 18, 2013 - link
When it comes to memory, over the years I have tried to read up on different reviews and look at benchmarks in an attempt to understand when it is better to run tighter timings/lower MHz as opposed to looser timings/higher bandwidth. I'm sure it is a case by case basis, but was wondering if the always knowledgeable and helpful Anandtech commenters could give me a quick, dummy terms, explanation of when tight timings or clockspeed is better? Looking at your graph, it shows the C7 1866 through C10 2666 all having the same performance index score, but what situations do those different timings/MHz become better/worse? I hope this isn't too in depth of a question.I don't know if this analogy is correct, but I'm seeing it as if RAM was a race car on a track, high bandwidth/loose timings would mean your car travels faster, but has to do more laps around the track to complete. Tight timings/lower bandwidth means the car travels slower but doesn't have to do as many laps to complete. If I am correct on this, at what point does less laps trump traveling faster?
As a side note, I am looking to build a Haswell desktop in Jan/Feb. It will have one GPU (probably one of the R9's) and more than likely a 2x8gb RAM kit. My usage would very roughly be 70% gaming, 25% rendering in 3DS Max and using some Adobe programs, 5% or less video encoding. I'm looking for help in deciding what to look for in this scenario, but also to finally have a better understanding of how these settings affect different workloads.
Sorry for the wall of text!!