Testing 3rd-Gen Ryzen DDR4 Memory Performance and Scaling

[Julio Franco]

When we reviewed Ryzen's latest iteration we briefly checked out different DDR4 memory speeds but now that things have settled we were put on a mission to benchmark memory performance on 3rd-gen Ryzen to see if spending more makes sense or not.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1891-ryzen-memory-performance-scaling/

 

[TheBarron]

Interesting findings.

These benchmarks close the gap between the 3900x and 9900k quite nicely.

I wonder if you tested the 9900k under similar conditions, how much better it got, as the Ring bus architecture is not as latency starved.

 

[Evernessince]

Interesting findings.

These benchmarks close the gap between the 3900x and 9900k quite nicely.

I wonder if you tested the 9900k under similar conditions, how much better it got, as the Ring bus architecture is not as latency starved.

I remember watching a video that tested just this when the 2000 series came out and your assumptions here is correct. The 8700K did gain in a few latency sensitive games but the gain overall was less then 1%. Most likely, Intel processors are bottlenecked elsewhere, otherwise you should continue to see performance improvements as RAM latency decreases. Given that the 9900K doesn't really gain much from overclocking either, it appears to be architecturally related.

 

[pcnthuziast]

I realize there's plenty of info to make a reasonable guess, but I still would have liked to see slower kits tested also. 2666 and 2400, if not on down to 2133.

 

[m3tavision]

Thank you Steve...

I have been waiting for a breakdown of this, trying to build a new x570 rig. And looking at the scaling, and checking newegg, it seems that 3200 C14 looks to be the best bang for buck.

 

[MikitaM]

Interesting findings.

These benchmarks close the gap between the 3900x and 9900k quite nicely.

I wonder if you tested the 9900k under similar conditions, how much better it got, as the Ring bus architecture is not as latency starved.

Zen 2 is a completely different story compared to Zen and Zen+. Using thick cache to feed inter-core inter-ccx relations instead relying on RAM. So there is, of course a difference, when using more speedy RAM with tighter timings, but not so dramatical as with Zen/Zen+, where it dictated inter-thread relations. So if you want to get maximum from Zen 2 - set 1:1 divider as high as possible (3733 or 3800, depending on mobo), and then focus on timing only. And in the aspect of CPU overclocking, situation looks similar to latest Intels such as 9900K - it's almost at it peak form from the box. So for 9900K you may, of course, push it to @5.0 for beatiful number, but the efficiency is almost similar to stock+boost, because it's at the peak of curvature performance/heating/frequency. Similarly, PBO + Auto gives comparable or even better (in some cases) results with Zen 2 compared to manual overclocking.

 

[Evernessince]

I realize there's plenty of info to make a reasonable guess, but I still would have liked to see slower kits tested also. 2666 and 2400, if not on down to 2133.

Here you go: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/4.html

Only down to 2400 though. Honestly really no point you should be getting anything lower then 3000 when it's the same price as 2133 and 2400.

 

[pcnthuziast]

Here you go: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/4.html

Only down to 2400 though. Honestly really no point you should be getting anything lower then 3000 when it's the same price as 2133 and 2400.

I didn't find my 32gb set of 2666 to be pointless or a poor value at the time of purchase and iirc it was nearly 50 less than the 3k kit. In reality I don't need any upgrades atm, but have been feeling the urge and my cpu is the oldest part in my system. If I was going to upgrade I would spend 400 and not a penny more. Going AMD would necessitate new ram imho and intel would not. A 9700k and a board can indeed be had for 400 and what AMD currently offers for that amount isn't as good for gaming. I'm sure you'll try to prove me wrong and if you can show me a better deal for 400, that would certainly be useful.

 

[Randall Markus]

Here you go: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/4.html

Only down to 2400 though. Honestly really no point you should be getting anything lower then 3000 when it's the same price as 2133 and 2400.

I didn't find my 32gb set of 2666 to be pointless or a poor value at the time of purchase and iirc it was nearly 50 less than the 3k kit. In reality I don't need any upgrades atm, but have been feeling the urge and my cpu is the oldest part in my system. If I was going to upgrade I would spend 400 and not a penny more. Going AMD would necessitate new ram imho and intel would not. A 9700k and a board can indeed be had for 400 and what AMD currently offers for that amount isn't as good for gaming. I'm sure you'll try to prove me wrong and if you can show me a better deal for 400, that would certainly be useful.

I'd like to see what 9700k + board + cooler comes to $400.

Ignoring that, a 3700X + B450 board comes in at $374.15 on MicroCenter's website (picking a Gigabyte B450M DS3H, which functionally matches the cheap Z390 boards in capabilities). Stepping up to an X470, that'll set you back ~$445 for a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Ultra Gaming; approximately equivalent to that 9700k + X390 board + Wraith Prism level cooler ... which would result in not-insignificant amounts of throttling on that 9700k.

 

[Evernessince]

I didn't find my 32gb set of 2666 to be pointless or a poor value at the time of purchase and iirc it was nearly 50 less than the 3k kit. In reality I don't need any upgrades atm, but have been feeling the urge and my cpu is the oldest part in my system. If I was going to upgrade I would spend 400 and not a penny more. Going AMD would necessitate new ram imho and intel would not.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ydMzGG

vs

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8nnPtg

- Stock to stock these systems will have margin of error gaming performance of each other even with a 2080 Ti.
-The AMD system is still cheaper even with the RAM and that's considering I gave the 9700K the benefit of the doubt with one of the cheapest CPU cooler and Z390 motherboard
- The 9700K will require more investment to OC then the build linked. A 212 Evo can not handle a 9700K overclocked.
- The comparison becomes worse when you consider that you can resell your current DDR4 and the Ryzen system becomes even better value. In fact it'll get darn close to that magic $400 figure you spoke of.

A 9700k and a board can indeed be had for 400 and what AMD currently offers for that amount isn't as good for gaming. I'm sure you'll try to prove me wrong and if you can show me a better deal for 400, that would certainly be useful.

No, a 9700K and board can not be had for $400 or less retail. The cheapest motherboard is a MSI-B360M Micro ATX and even that comes out to $426.89 with the 9700K. Not that you can seriously recommend any of the B360 motherboards as they all will limit the processor to 95W, which will cripple gaming performance of the 9700K and they disable overclocking. At that point the 3700X is better. In fact you can go cheaper on the 3700X's motherboard as it sips power in comparison to the 9700K. It does not require as beefy a VRM and AMD does not charge extra for overclocking. In fact you can't even put your RAM past 2666 on a B360 motherboard. Not that the AMD board I included is cheap by any measure, it's one of the top B450 motherboards and can handle a 3900X and perhaps even a 3950X.

That's all without mentioning that the 3700X massively outperforms the 9700K in multi-threaded workloads and has higher IPC in productivity applications. It will also surely last longer due to having double the threads and the platform upgradability. Not to mention the lower power consumption and lack of security holes.

How about a source for that $400 claim you made earlier eh? From everything I'm seeing, there are a lot more points on AMD's side.

 

[krizby]

Just a quick RAM overclocking guide: keep the XMP and just lower your tRFC to something like 270 if you have 3200mhz Ram, if that is unstable just go up to 280, 290 or 300. This alone improve latency more than anything else (46ns to 42ns in my case), quick bench in Sniper Elite 4 improve %1 Low FPS by 10FPS (8700K at 5.1Ghz 3466mhz 15-15-15-30 4x8GB samsung B-Die kit).

 

[pcnthuziast]

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ydMzGG

vs

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8nnPtg

- Stock to stock these systems will have margin of error gaming performance of each other even with a 2080 Ti.
-The AMD system is still cheaper even with the RAM and that's considering I gave the 9700K the benefit of the doubt with one of the cheapest CPU cooler and Z390 motherboard
- The 9700K will require more investment to OC then the build linked. A 212 Evo can not handle a 9700K overclocked.
- The comparison becomes worse when you consider that you can resell your current DDR4 and the Ryzen system becomes even better value. In fact it'll get darn close to that magic $400 figure you spoke of.



No, a 9700K and board can not be had for $400 or less retail. The cheapest motherboard is a MSI-B360M Micro ATX and even that comes out to $426.89 with the 9700K. Not that you can seriously recommend any of the B360 motherboards as they all will limit the processor to 95W, which will cripple gaming performance of the 9700K and they disable overclocking. At that point the 3700X is better. In fact you can go cheaper on the 3700X's motherboard as it sips power in comparison to the 9700K. It does not require as beefy a VRM and AMD does not charge extra for overclocking. In fact you can't even put your RAM past 2666 on a B360 motherboard. Not that the AMD board I included is cheap by any measure, it's one of the top B450 motherboards and can handle a 3900X and perhaps even a 3950X.

That's all without mentioning that the 3700X massively outperforms the 9700K in multi-threaded workloads and has higher IPC in productivity applications. It will also surely last longer due to having double the threads and the platform upgradability. Not to mention the lower power consumption and lack of security holes.

How about a source for that $400 claim you made earlier eh? From everything I'm seeing, there are a lot more points on AMD's side.

Don't need a cooler, already have a bequiet drp4. Your amd route is 100 more. I know you're dying to invalidate an intel purchase, but for 400 and my use case, intel simply makes more sense.

I was right btw, under 400. I win again.
https://www.microcenter.com/product...k,-gigabyte-z390-ud,-cpu---motherboard-bundle

 

[Puiu]

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ydMzGG

vs

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8nnPtg

- Stock to stock these systems will have margin of error gaming performance of each other even with a 2080 Ti.
-The AMD system is still cheaper even with the RAM and that's considering I gave the 9700K the benefit of the doubt with one of the cheapest CPU cooler and Z390 motherboard
- The 9700K will require more investment to OC then the build linked. A 212 Evo can not handle a 9700K overclocked.
- The comparison becomes worse when you consider that you can resell your current DDR4 and the Ryzen system becomes even better value. In fact it'll get darn close to that magic $400 figure you spoke of.



No, a 9700K and board can not be had for $400 or less retail. The cheapest motherboard is a MSI-B360M Micro ATX and even that comes out to $426.89 with the 9700K. Not that you can seriously recommend any of the B360 motherboards as they all will limit the processor to 95W, which will cripple gaming performance of the 9700K and they disable overclocking. At that point the 3700X is better. In fact you can go cheaper on the 3700X's motherboard as it sips power in comparison to the 9700K. It does not require as beefy a VRM and AMD does not charge extra for overclocking. In fact you can't even put your RAM past 2666 on a B360 motherboard. Not that the AMD board I included is cheap by any measure, it's one of the top B450 motherboards and can handle a 3900X and perhaps even a 3950X.

That's all without mentioning that the 3700X massively outperforms the 9700K in multi-threaded workloads and has higher IPC in productivity applications. It will also surely last longer due to having double the threads and the platform upgradability. Not to mention the lower power consumption and lack of security holes.

How about a source for that $400 claim you made earlier eh? From everything I'm seeing, there are a lot more points on AMD's side.

Don't need a cooler, already have a bequiet drp4. Your amd route is 100 more. I know you're dying to invalidate an intel purchase, but for 400 and my use case, intel simply makes more sense.

I was right btw, under 400. I win again.
https://www.microcenter.com/product...k,-gigabyte-z390-ud,-cpu---motherboard-bundle

Why are we arguing about upgrade situations where ppl just need to swap the CPU (and maybe the mobo too)? If gaming is your thing and you want to keep the old ram sticks then yes, going Intel is the best option you have.

I suspect that next time you'll upgrade it will be by changing the entire system (you'll have to upgrade your RAM eventually ) so you don't need to look at future proofing your system. There is no need to argue about the benefits of buying AMD in this case because you'll need other use cases for it.

Going with either Intel or AMD is not wrong. Just go with which one is easier on your wallet, it's what I always do (even though I personally do fall in the AMD camp).

 

[godrilla]

I have seen benchmarks were overclocking the infinity fabric to 1900 mhz also on the lower end memory brings significant performance boost better than higher priced lower timed ram at default xmp profiles.

 

[redgarl]

I love your conclusion and unless for size, buying the best performance/price ratio kit is the best option.

"Bottom line, you can grab a cheap 16GB Samsung S-die kit for $70 and still get close enough to maximum gaming performance out of even a 3900X + RTX 2080 Ti configuration. Ryzen doesn’t require premium memory to perform at its best and for those buying a Ryzen 5 model we’d actually strongly suggest avoiding spending money on expensive memory, just get the cheap stuff and tune it up if you’re getting a little too CPU bound."

 

[Mythnick]

Higher is better ? loool even for Corona Render Time and Latency ? I stopped reading the article...

 

[HugsNotDrugs]

I realize there's plenty of info to make a reasonable guess, but I still would have liked to see slower kits tested also. 2666 and 2400, if not on down to 2133.

Here you go: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/4.html

Only down to 2400 though. Honestly really no point you should be getting anything lower then 3000 when it's the same price as 2133 and 2400.

I have 64GB of 2400mhz DDR4 memory I acquired quite some time ago. I'm not interested in ditching it so comparisons down to those speeds is helpful to many of us with existing memory.

 

[grumblguts]

Best bang for buck I have found.
https://www.pcworldbusiness.co.uk/catalogue/item/P258628P

 

[grumblguts]

I realize there's plenty of info to make a reasonable guess, but I still would have liked to see slower kits tested also. 2666 and 2400, if not on down to 2133.

Here you go: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/4.html

Only down to 2400 though. Honestly really no point you should be getting anything lower then 3000 when it's the same price as 2133 and 2400.

I have 64GB of 2400mhz DDR4 memory I acquired quite some time ago. I'm not interested in ditching it so comparisons down to those speeds is helpful to many of us with existing memory.

I just purchased 64 gig for 400 pounds.
3333 mhz cas 16 I think hynix memory not samsung b die. I hope I dont end up regretting that choice.

 

[Evernessince]

I just purchased 64 gig for 400 pounds.
3333 mhz cas 16 I think hynix memory not samsung b die. I hope I dont end up regretting that choice.

Hynix is hit or miss but 3200 or 3333 is not hard for Ryzen 3000 to hit no matter the kit being used.

 

[Evernessince]

Don't need a cooler, already have a bequiet drp4. Your amd route is 100 more. I know you're dying to invalidate an intel purchase, but for 400 and my use case, intel simply makes more sense.

I was right btw, under 400. I win again.
https://www.microcenter.com/product...k,-gigabyte-z390-ud,-cpu---motherboard-bundle

1. Microcenter is available to 97% of the US, let alone the world. For comparison's sake it is a sale price as it is not available to the vast majority of people. It's also a bundle price as well.
2. Microcenter also offers $50 off AMD CPUs with any motherboard, unlike the combo you picked which limits you to a single choice. With the sale of your original RAM, even the price savings of your bundle combo are not enough.
3. So you have a bequiet dark rock pro 4 that you forget to mention before the value analysis and are now parading it out after the fact in order to try to reach your $400 price point. I guess you need that $80 off to make the Intel system even remotely worthwhile price wise.

 

[Nightfire]

I was right btw, under 400. I win again.

You win again because you found a 9700k + mb to be cheaper than a 3700x + mb + ram? I would like to see how performance degraded that slower ram would be on the 3700x with some tweaks to the timing and clocks as the 3000 mhz kit saw some nice gains.

But of course your mind is setup and like your mother told you winning those participation trophies, we all win!

 

[Nightfire]

I just purchased 64 gig for 400 pounds.
3333 mhz cas 16 I think hynix memory not samsung b die. I hope I dont end up regretting that choice.

Just try to get your tRFC down as low as possible (260-320) and you will see some very nice results without having to mess with alot of the other settings.

Steve - another awesome and unique article. I would really love to see a batch of games with the 3700x and the 9700k going head to head with both normal XMP settings and tweaked settings for both.

 

[Nightfire]

1. Microcenter is available to 97% of the US, let alone the world.

I always found it to be remarkable how many users on the tech sites are within driving distance of Microcenter ie. the cost savings do not outweigh the gas costs.

 

[Evernessince]

I always found it to be remarkable how many users on the tech sites are within driving distance of Microcenter ie. the cost savings do not outweigh the gas costs.

Yep, especially if you are in a state that doesn't have a single store. Microcenter has a grand total of 25 locations in 16 different states. Walmart has more then double that in New York State alone. Micro-center doesn't ship either.