Metro2033

Metro2033 is a DX11 benchmark that challenges every system that tries to run it at any high-end settings.  Developed by 4A Games and released in March 2010, we use the inbuilt DirectX 11 Frontline benchmark to test the hardware at 1920x1080 with full graphical settings.  Results are given as the average frame rate from 4 runs.

Metro2033 IGP, 1920x1080, All except PhysX

Our Metro2033 IGP results seem to mirror the expectations shown from the MemTweakIt results, albeit by a factor of a 1/2 (MemTweakIt predicts 20% gain over 1333 C9, we only see a 10% gain).

Civilization V

Civilization V is a strategy video game that utilizes a significant number of the latest GPU features and software advances.  Using the in-game benchmark, we run Civilization V at 1920x1080 with full graphical settings, similar to Ryan in his GPU testing functionality.  Results reported by the benchmark are the total number of frames in sixty seconds, which we normalize to frames per second.

Civilization V IGP, 1920x1080 High Settings

Despite the expected difference the 2666 C11 kit should give according to MemTweakIt and Metro2033, we actually fall behind the 2400C10 kit by a very small margin.  Overall however we are only getting a ~6.7% gain in frame rates over 1333 C9 for that 127% increase in price.

Dirt 3

Dirt 3 is a rallying video game and the third in the Dirt series of the Colin McRae Rally series, developed and published by Codemasters.  Using the in game benchmark, Dirt 3 is run at 1920x1080 with Ultra Low graphical settings.  Results are reported as the average frame rate across four runs.

Dirt 3 IGP, 1920x1080, Ultra Low Settings

Dirt 3 results seem a little at odds with what we have expected – moving from 2133 C9 to 2400 C10 caused a decrease in frame rates, whereas 2133 C9 to 2666 C11 caused an increase.  Nonetheless the biggest gains over 1333 C9 seem to be with 1600 C9 and 1866 C9.  Any memory kit above that is a miniscule raise at best.

Market Positioning, Test Bed, Kit Order Gaming Tests: Portal 2, Batman AA, Overall IGP
POST A COMMENT

28 Comments

View All Comments

  • Samus - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    ditto, they're ridiculous. older g.skill memory (2008-2011) had a clean, effective design, this is pretty childish. Reply
  • primonatron - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    Why keep posting photos of RAM with heat spreaders not fitting on the mini-ITX board in reviews? The board is obviously not designed to accomodate them, and to keep posting the pictures just looks like the reviewer is stupid and hasn't learnt that yet. It even says under the photos the review is on an ASUS P8Z77-V Premium. A proper full size ATX, is what the companies would expect buyers to be using. Reply
  • just4U - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    It gives the user an idea (perhaps?) of how it will fit in their own setup if their using a large cooler. It sort of does need to be mentioned (almost as a disclaimer) for any buyers looking at ram when their system is in need of something with heatsinks of a lower profile. Reply
  • JeauxBleaux - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    and both have wasted vast amounts of page space and my time showing memory stick profiles that won't fit on a motherboard that was never intended to carry those sticks in the first place. Memory sticks may or may not have a tall profile due to their heatsink(s) but may also have fan kits mounted on them in the absence of huge heatsinks.

    What is the point of that? The author's choice of motherboard and massive cooling tower obviously preclude the use of most high performance memory w/heatsinks and/or fan kits and would certainly lead me to believe that the author has little experience in thoughtfully putting together a "system" in which all components play well together.

    So, while I appreciate the benchmarks the author displays and the consideration that has gone in to the testing of these memory sticks, a more appropriate representation of the ill fit of these particular memory sticks would be a simple one-liner and maybe ONE picture of what NOT to try to mount them in. Because, seriously, it makes the author look like he/she is simply trying to make the maufacturer look and only succeeding in making himself/herself look ignorant.
    Reply
  • just4U - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    It doesn't matter if it was meant for a low end setup or now.. there are alot of higher end boards that won't allow for that clearance either when paired with certain coolers. Reply
  • bunnyfubbles - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    part me wishes that faster memory could actually make a difference in real world performance, the other part is thankful I need no more than the low profile Samsung 30nm green stuff :) Reply
  • GhostClocking3 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    If you're willing to spend the money for better RAM you should easily be able to afford to go water to make it fit. That ultimately led me to have to switch since air cooler had to get larger to to cool more effectively.

    I don't blame anandtech for showing the RAM fitting, that is probably the most frequently asked question ever. Does it fit, blah, blah, blah.
    Reply
  • Tchamber - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    So if so many of these kits have clearance issues, and don't generate a lot of heat, why are the spreaders so tall? So they can charge more? Or do the aesthetics really sell? Reply
  • Guspaz - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    This review (and the one that preceded it) really just go to illustrate how pointless all this is. Clockspeed, latency, the differences in these don't translate to any significant difference in real-world performance. There's not much point, it would seem, in buying anything beyond something cheap and reliable (KVR if you don't want heatsinks, basic HyperX if you do). Any extra money spent on top of that would have been far better spent on a faster CPU.

    So, if you've got 16GB of RAM, you can pay $70 for KVR, or $80 for HyperX... Or you can pay $340 for the RAM reviewed here

    And you know what? There's no real performance difference in real-world applications. Oh, sure, you see a percentage point or two here and there, but you know what will give you a much bigger boost for your extra $260? Getting a faster CPU or GPU. Those will make a FAR bigger difference than the RAM.
    Reply
  • Guspaz - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    I think the point of my comment above is "Please stop reviewing useless memory kits and review something that actually matters."

    Reviewing these things is a waste of everybody's time, both yours and ours.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now