Re: upgrading old PCs (RAM... overclock or not)?

On 5/31/2024 5:25 AM, philo wrote:
> For Windows, I would never bother to use anything less than DDR-4.
> 
> Just wondering if you have anything with DDR-5 and if it's a noticeable
> improvement over DDR-4

I don't have any DDR5 systems here. I "build to the trailing edge",
so I'm not paying an unnecessary premium.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-ddr4-vs-ddr5/2.html

   SuperPI

   DDR4-4000 Gear2  378 sec
   DDR4-4400 Gear2  373 sec
   DDR4-3600        368 sec

   DDR5-6000 Gear2  363 sec <=== ahead by 5 to 15 seconds

I would have preferred a 7ZIP benchmark, as 7ZIP is
quite dependent on cache and RAM performance. I would not take
these numbers to the bank, as the DDR5 today can stretch that
lead by a bit more. This is an early result, with slow DDR5.

https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17047/127000.png

But other than 7ZIP, the improvement isn't much really.

*******

When you look at the Cinebench R23 Multi, I would have expected
the DDR5 to "win", but the results are almost independent of
RAM speed. The reason I was predicting that, is DDR5 has two channels
on a single stick, and that means two fetches could be happening
at the same time. But because it does not speed up, that hints
that perhaps even with two channels, Intel uses only one channel
on the DIMM at a time ? Just like on my 4930K with four channels,
it benches like a two channel design. The extra channels buy
you... nothing. Yet, the 7ZIP result looks promising, as there
is some boost present there. To me, the results seem in-consistent.

   Paul