Conclusions
Although three channels of DDR3 memory might seem excessive, the Core i7 really does seem to make good use of faster memory, at least in synthetic tests. But that was to be expected. The real question is whether those gains translate to real-world applications, and it's here that the results are more mixed. Certainly, in scientific computing tests like Euler3d and MyriMatch, which we already know to be sensitive to memory subsystem performance, faster memory can provide tangible performance perks. However, common desktop applications like those highlighted by WorldBench don't benefit much from higher memory clocks or tighter timings. Neither do most games, which at best show minor frame rate improvements that aren't significant enough for most folks to even notice, let alone appreciate.
Based on these results, the question of whether it's worth shelling out for fancy memory for a Core i7 build depends largely on which processor you're going to use and what applications you'll be running. If you have your heart set on a Core i7-965 Extreme and will be running applications capable of taking advantage of additional memory bandwidth, by all means splurge on some DDR3-1600 DIMMs. Sure, you'll pay twice the price of pedestrian DDR3-1066 modules, but anyone considering a 965 Extreme clearly doesn't have budget constraints.
Most enthusiasts do have budgets, though, and we're generally disinclined to swallow the exorbitant premiums associated with flagship gear, even if it is faster. I suspect most folks rolling their own Core i7 systems will stick with the Core i7-920. Unless you're going to push the base clock, which requires some cooperation from your motherboard, the 920 is essentially limited to DDR3-1066. At that speed, DIMMs with 7-7-7-20 timings are actually quite affordable and widely available, so there's really no need to settle for budget modules with looser timings. Our testing shows that you can even get away with a dual-channel config if you happen to already have a couple of DDR3 DIMMs lying around. I wouldn't skimp on that third memory module if I were building a Core i7 system from scratch, though.
Of course, many enthusiasts who spring for a Core i7-920 will be looking to overclock by increasing processor's base clock speed. Turning up the base clock allows for faster memory speeds, and given that the 920's memory bus multipliers are limited to 6X or 8X, you'll actually need DIMMs capable of running at faster than 1066MHz if you intend to push the base clock above 178MHz. Whether it's worth springing for DDR3-1600 modules over more affordable DDR3-1333 DIMMs will depend entirely on the applications you use and just how high you intend to push the base clock. You'll need to reach at least 200MHz to run 1600MHz DIMMs at full speed, and not every Core i7 motherboard is up to that task.
In the end, Core i7 processors will certainly achieve higher levels of performance when paired with faster memory, but you don't lose all that muchparticularly with games and common desktop applicationsby running slower, more affordable DIMMs. That's good to know for folks looking at the relatively high prices of fancy triple-channel DDR3-1600 kits. However, if you're going to overclock, it's worth having the extra headroom that faster modules can provide.

-
46 comments —
Last by moshpit at 4:12 PM on 03/06/09 - Email the author(s): Geoff Gasior
- Sign up to receive notices when we publish new articles
- Or go back to TR's front page
-
Phenom II X4 965 slips into more modest thermal envelope
Some folks scoffed when AMD introduce the Phenom II X4 965 processor back in August with a 140W thermal design power. Now, some months later, AMD has introduced a revised version with a 125W TDP. Read more...
70 comments —
Last by Kaleid at 1:36 PM on 11/15/09 -
Intel's Core i7 comes to notebooks
Nehalem has finally arrived for notebooks in the form of Clarksdale Core i7 mobile processors that are virtually identical to their Lynnfield desktop counterparts. Keep reading to see how the new Core i7-920XM performs inside a cutting-edge portable gaming rig. Read more...
57 comments —
Last by MadManOriginal at 1:59 PM on 10/11/09 -
Intel's Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 processors
These new Core i5 and i7 processors promise to enable systems that are faster, cheaper, quieter, smaller, and more energy efficient than prior desktop PCs. Has Intel pulled it off? Keep reading to find out. Read more...
341 comments —
Last by Trymor at 12:04 PM on 09/25/09 -
AMD's Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor
The Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor could compute Pi to an insane number of digits during the time it takes to pronounce its full name, in part because it runs at a rather high-strung clock rate of 3.4GHz. But mostly because of the name. Read more...
105 comments —
Last by ish718 at 12:58 AM on 08/20/09 -
A bevy of new desktop processors arrives
AMD and Intel have deluged us with new CPUs. The result? An enormous roundup of 26 different types of processors, including five brand-new ones. We've poked, prodded, tested for performance, measured power efficiency, overclocked, and considered the value propositions for CPUs from $87 to $999. Read more...
136 comments —
Last by blubje at 3:01 PM on 08/01/09 -
AMD's 'Istanbul' six-core Opteron processors
The new "Istanbul" Opteron packs six cores into a single chip, which makes it the fastest, most power-efficient Opteron yet. But can it match Intel's formidable Nehalem Xeons? The answer might surprise you in more ways than one. Read more...
117 comments —
Last by pluscard at 9:35 PM on 06/13/09 -
GlobalFoundries gears up
Last week, we traveled to the offices of GlobalFoundries to meet with the firm's executives and to understand their plans for the newly minted chip foundry created by the spin-off of AMD's manufacturing division. Read more...
15 comments —
Last by moritzgedig at 4:06 AM on 05/12/09 -
AMD's Phenom II X4 955 processor
With the introduction of the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition, AMD matches its world record for longest CPU name. Even better, this is the fastest desktop CPU the company has ever produced, and it goes toe to toe with one of Intel's best Core 2 Quad processors. Read more...
121 comments —
Last by ish718 at 8:26 AM on 04/30/09
