Infineon CE-5 vs Samsung UCCC - 18 benchmarks compared!!!

Yo XS! :D

Have you ever wondered which 2GB kit would perform better in your setup? Or how much difference there is between them? This short write-up is an attempt to give one an idea how Infineon CE-5 based 2GB set stacks up against it counterpart built with Samsung UCCC.

I "locked" my Opteron @ 3200MHz and tested each set of memory (CE-5 and UCCC) at it's max possible frequency that particular divider allows - div183 for UCCC @ 291MHz 7-4-4-3.0-1T and div166 for CE-5 @ 267 5-2-3-3.0-1T.
I put as much effort as I could to run each type of memory "as tight" as I could. I decided to limit my test to CAS3.0 on CE-5 as well as TRCD=4 on UCCC only. Both kits have somewhat above average OC potential.

Tests were run one at a time, screenshots taken, then PC was rebooted and next test was performed.

Setup:
AMD Opteron 146 @3200MHz
DFI LP Ultra-D R.A02, BIOS 11/14 Official
NForce4 drivers 6.70, USB, Network and Audio enabled.
EVGA 7800GTX 256MB KO @ 500+40/1400 (low-power mode disabled thru BIOS-mod)
Forceware 84.21, default driver settings (Quality)
Windows XP SP2 fresh install, not tweaked
2GB Corsair TWINX2048-4400PRO (Infineon CE-5)
2GB G.Skill F1-4000USU2-2GBHZ (Samsung UCCC)

There you are, here are the results - 1st column for CE-5 and 2nd for UCCC...

http://www.clockmehigh.com/ddr/CE5vsUCCC/infineon.gifhttp://www.clockmehigh.com/ddr/CE5vsUCCC/samsung.gif

3D Benchmarks

3DMark2001 ------> 35371 ------- 35055

3DMark03 ---------> 19687 ------- 19679

3DMark05 ---------> 9173 --------- 9206

3DMark06 ---------> 4681 --------- 4711

Aquamark3 -------> 105792 ------ 105123

X³: Reunion ------> 77.92 --------- 78.05


Productivity/Pi/Synthetic Benchmarks

PCMark04 --------> 6428 ---------- 6396

PCMark05 --------> 5098 ---------- 5054

SuperPi 32M -----> 22:57 --------- 23:08*

PiFast 10M -------> 37.55 --------- 37.72

WinRAR ----------> 787 ------------ 773

Sandra Band. ---> 7902/7814 --- 8187/8133

Everest Lat. -----> 38.8 ----------- 38.4

SM2.0 L1 Band. -> 36848.43 ---- 36824.17

SM2.0 L2 Band. -> 11678.01 ---- 11609.84

SM2.0 Mem Band. -> 7482.55 -- 7918.02


Game Benchmarks at 1600x1200

DOOM 3 ----------> 107.0 --------- 106.8

FarCry ------------> 134.47 ------- 133.10

F.E.A.R -----------> 66 ------------- 65

Quake 4 ----------> 112.3 -------- 112.5


Game Benchmarks at 1024x768

DOOM 3 ----------> 125.3 --------- 124.4

FarCry ------------> 158.57 ------- 159.87

F.E.A.R -----------> 125 ----------- 125

Quake 4 ----------> 153.4 -------- 153.9

I just thought this could be of use for some. I'm gonna leave conclusions to you guys...
Questions, comments or requests welcomed :peace:

curious that the infineon takes a slight lead in so many of those tests despite having a slightly higher latency and lower bandwidth. guess i won't be putting much stock into those two tests anymore :lol2:

very nice work as always bachus, though just two questions.. well, one question and one request really:

1. why the * after the 32m time for the UCCC?
2. would you mind running the memory bench in sciencemark? :D
http://www.sciencemark.org/frame.php?frame=40

if it take more than ~15 min to set up stuff to run another test, i won't be offended if you choose not to, but i think it'll be quite interesting to see how the memory bench compares to everest/sandra, since it breaks up memory latency into various sizes and into L1, L2 and memory :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bachus_anonym

3DMark05 ---------> 9173 --------- 9206

3DMark05 ---------> 4681 --------- 4711

---

yo!!!
:stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bachus_anonym

3DMark06 ---------> 4681 --------- 4711

---

Working lnks..;)


Good idea, good job on the run. Could that ce-5 be run 3.3.2.5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozzimark

1. why the * after the 32m time for the UCCC?
2. would you mind running the memory bench in sciencemark? :D
http://www.sciencemark.org/frame.php?frame=40

---

1. 291-292Mhz is the edge of 32M stability for my UCCC. Unfortunately, I did not manage to complete full 32M run @ 291Mhz this time. That's why I was forced to post 32M @ 290Mhz instead. Otherwise, time would have been about 4s better...
2. 1st post updated with results ;) Thanks for good word and your suggestion :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guess2098

yo!!! :stick:

---

Sup Denny! Fixed it :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorueM

Good idea, good job on the run. Could that ce-5 be run 3.3.2.5?

---

Thanks :) You mean, with CAS2.0? If so then yes, last time I checked it was fully stable slightly above 220MHz 5-2-3-2.0-1T.

----------

I have also run Guru3D's timedemo in BF2 but I can't find the way to get reliable results with it. I'm gonna work on it a bit more, though.

Hmm, I think these tests would be more pertinent if they were ran on an dual core setup because Doom3 and Quake4 are multithreaded and the nVidia drivers are dual core optimized even if the game isn't. The question remains: Which is more beneficial to a Dual core setup, higher bandwidth or lower latency?

Also, the single Video card setup might start to pose as a slight bottleneck as well depending on what settings you used for the gaming benches. In the case of Quake4 and FarCry which ran at 1600x1200, Vid card is a definite bottleneck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bachus_anonym

You mean, with CAS2.0? If so then yes, last time I checked it was fully stable slightly above 220MHz 5-2-3-2.0-1T.

---

no, i'm pretty sure he meant Trp=2. EDIT: obviously a typo in the 1st post some of us fell for. :p:

also, what about Trp=3 for Samsung? :)

BTW you did some serious benching there. :clap:

wow very nice work!!

i thought my 265 infineon was weak next to uccc now i dont feel so bad

Very nice work Bachus. But as HKPolice mentioned dual-core tests would great to see :)
Another proof that A64 just loves low timings

I dont know if I undestand this correctly but you testeing them with diferent OCs right?

why dont you test both at 265 htt? That will be a more fair benchmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooper

Another proof that A64 just loves low timings

---

hmm... having in mind that the differences are actually about ~1%, i wouldn't say that 'A64 just loves low timings'.

when it comes to _real-world_ performance, the influece of memory on K8 is IMHO overrated. there aren't any differences you'll see with your bare eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonkSP

I dont know if I undestand this correctly but you testeing them with diferent OCs right?

why dont you test both at 265 htt? That will be a more fair benchmark.

---

CPU was always at 320×10 MHz.

this is comparison between Samsung UCCC at its best & Infineon CE at its best.

Quote:

---

why dont you test both at 265 htt? That will be a more fair benchmark.

---

We know for sure that with both at 265Mhz would win CE-5.
I find right this comparison :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bachus_anonym

Yo XS! :D

Have you ever wondered which 2GB kit would perform better in your setup? Or how much difference there is between them? This short write-up is an attempt to give one an idea how Infineon CE-5 based 2GB set stacks up against it counterpart built with Samsung UCCC.

I just thought this could be of use for some. I'm gonna leave conclusions to you guys...
Questions, comments or requests welcomed :peace:

---

:clap: :fact: Very nice.. Thanks for sharing your results!:fact: :clap:

thanks for this little comparation. I think as you know yourself it's much better to run the gametests at a 1024*768 resolution because the system becomes more of a bottleneck then, but as you posted you plan to do this :)

High speed RAM is overrated very much, latencies are more important as you see in this little comparation.

I'm actually fairly sure that if you can run 3-2-2-* or 2.5-2-2-* at about DDR460 on one of these sets it will be actually faster in many benchmarks (in these sets of timings the '3' and '2.5' are CAS).

Thanks again for this nice comparation, and if your have any time can you please include tighter latency results? ;)

Nice work! :clap:

Again you can see, bandwith is not the bottleneck at the A64...;)

I like the comparisons man. Shows just how much timings do matter on A64s. The higher bandwidth shown in sandra and 3dmark05/06 show that timings are not that big of a deal with those apps (which is very true). But for the rest, its latencies and not bandwidth that matters.

A couple of things: you said CE-5s ran at 5-3-3-3 and I wondered why your Trp was at 3 then I checked the benchmarks and it is in fact 2. A typo :)

Why run at Tras of 5 and Trrd of 2 when you can do 1/0 with the CE-5? You get slightly better SPI times with Tras @ 1.

Its good I got myself the infineon.. those are nasty timings on that UCCC expecially Trcd.

Great comparison !

You must have put in some solid hard work there ;)

Nice analysis bachus_anonym, thanks for taking the time...

anohter great compaison, well thought out and executed.

Amazing work there bachus, but you're very much aware of that :up:

Next point, can you get hold of an FX to try 1:1 action? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bachus_anonym

2. 1st post updated with results ;) Thanks for good word and your

---

hmm, sciencemark says the same thing about latency! :confused: :p:
thanks for indulging my curiosity :toast:

nice work

I don't even have this type of memory, but enjoyed seeing the comparisons. If I was to get any this would be very helpful. Thanks for taking the time and sharing the results.

Awesome job bachus_anonym :up: That took so much time and energy :cord: :D

I wonder can you make a topic , which Rams use CE-5 ? :)

now someone should provide bachus with some Micron rev. F stuff... that way we would have a complete overview of all the options for high-performance 2GB kits. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by high5

now someone should provide bachus with some Micron rev. F stuff... that way we would have a complete overview of all the options for high-performance 2GB kits. :D

---

execatly what I though. I was just also wondering what score would reach my BE-5 that are stable @ 285 htt. should be more fair since uccc also reaches those speeds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonkSP

I dont know if I undestand this correctly but you testeing them with diferent OCs right? why dont you test both at 265 htt? That will be a more fair benchmark.

---

That's why it's a little bit of a different approach here. Think about it like an upgrade from 1GB to 2GB. You know your CPU's max and now you're looking at different memory types and try to decide what is better in the real worrld. UCCC will most likely go further on pure clock (but looser timmings) that CE-5 (low latency). That's why I was testing both at, like high5 said, "it's best" given the CPU speed stays the same. If I tested both at same frequency then Infineon would look much better in most benchmarks (maybe besides games). It would be same as locking CPU at 3GHz and trying to see what is better - 273MHz 7-4-4-3.0 or 250Mhz 5-2-3-3.0. But then I could have tried 7-3-4-3.0 (UCCC) and 5-2-3-2.5 (CE-5) as well. And most likely results would be similar, again - except for 3D01 and AM3 which favor low latencies a lot.
------
I don't think that testing with dual-core will show much different trends (it's a memory comparison not sc vs dc one and multi-threading will not make memory matter a lot more. But I could have done "gaming part" a little bit better. At first I wanted to show that at everyday settings (1600x1200) video card bottlenecks the system so memory does not seem to play a huge role... But at 1024x768 we might see bigger differences - although I'm not expecting anything larger than 2-3 fps. I'm gonna do it today, probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by high5

now someone should provide bachus with some Micron rev. F stuff... that way we would have a complete overview of all the options for high-performance 2GB kits. :D

---

Yep, it would be nice to get a hold on some Micron capable of 291MHz 5-3-3-3.0. I'm pretty sure it would take a lead in benchmarks where memory matters a lot. Unfortunately, I don't expect to be lucky enough to get Rev.F that will do 291MHz. I'm sort of working on getting a set of Micron -5B:F based sticks for my next OCing Report and I we will see what happens. It's not gonna be anything that will do 291Mhz, though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahmad

A couple of things: you said CE-5s ran at 5-3-3-3 and I wondered why your Trp was at 3 then I checked the benchmarks and it is in fact 2. A typo :)

---

Sorry about that typo, I just fixed it ;)

Quote:

---

Why run at Tras of 5 and Trrd of 2 when you can do 1/0 with the CE-5? You get slightly better SPI times with Tras @ 1.

---

Then I could do it for both CE-5 and UCCC as well and have same effect, I would think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perry_78

Next point, can you get hold of an FX to try 1:1 action? :)

---

I don't quite see the point of that (and a chance - no $ for FX) as dividers DO NOT affect performance whatsoever. It's not AXP anymore ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bachus_anonym

Yep, it would be nice to get a hold on some Micron capable of 291MHz 5-3-3-3.0. I'm pretty sure it would take a lead in benchmarks where memory matters a lot. Unfortunately, I don't expect to be lucky enough to get Rev.F that will do 291MHz. I'm sort of working on getting a set of Micron -5B:F based sticks for my next OCing Report and I we will see what happens. It's not gonna be anything that will do 291Mhz, though...

---

i'd be glad to run a few of the non-gpu related benches for you if you'd like. my cpu tops out at just over 3ghz, so i can't match your cpu speed, though i can change the timings to match the UCCC that you tested, just to see the difference between UCCC settings and 5b F settings :D

As promised, I have just added set of Game Benchmarks at 1024x768. Check them out if interested :)

Also, I have almost figured out Battlefield2 timdedemo benchmark and might have results later. I've been thinking about running XVID video encoding test using VirtualDub and LameMP3 audio encoding with dBpowerAMP. Anything else useful to run?

Some 2D/3D rendering. Sciencemark, Sysmark also would be great to see :)

Great work bachus!

Ah, good old AXP days when an htt over 250 was a wonder even on some (i.e. my) NF7 boards :)

With this amount of ram testing you do, an fx should be leant out to you!

very nice comparison, but keep in mine in general most UCCC can only do 260~280 while the Infineon can only do 252~260 :D UCCC is dirt cheap now (GSKILL HZ $158 @newegg) so I'd say it's a much better deal :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perry_78

With this amount of ram testing you do, an fx should be leant out to you!

---

Hehe, that would be nice but I can live without it. For RAM testing, my Opteron is just enough as I honestly dismiss a claim that FX has a superior memory controller and all memory will clock better with it. For hardcore benching it's a different story, though ;) Anyway, back on topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

very nice comparison, but keep in mine in general most UCCC can only do 260~280 while the Infineon can only do 252~260 :D UCCC is dirt cheap now (GSKILL HZ $158 @newegg) so I'd say it's a much better deal :D

---

You're about right about averages, Ben. I would just raise low value for CE-5. If it's not a very weak set, PC4000 rated CE-5 should do on average 260Mhz in 3D. Very good set is 270Mhz and whatever higher is rare but exceptional. That's why I mentioned in my 1st post that sets are "somewhat above average"... Corsair claims to have secured some good Rev.C ICs from Infineon (direct shipments) so we might hopefully see more good clocking CE-5 from them (PC4400PRO).
I was thinking about doing this comparison at 3000MHz instead, but then decided that it's XtremeSystems and cranked up to 3200Mhz to make it more interesting :D
I will add more benches soon, I had a bit busy weekend here :) Thanks for checking this out guys :toast:

I like this comparision, shows just how meaningless latency and bandwidth are for A64's. Buying all that expensive RAM just aint' worth it at all folks as a ~1% performance gain is so low as to be within the margin of error for most tests, your money is better spent on cooling or a better video card or CPU if you want to improve performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

I like this comparision, shows just how meaningless latency and bandwidth are for A64's. Buying all that expensive RAM just aint' worth it at all folks as a ~1% performance gain is so low as to be within the margin of error for most tests, your money is better spent on cooling or a better video card or CPU if you want to improve performance.

---

Last time I checked the url it still said xtremesystems

It seems like once the game or whatever became GPU dependent, the extra speed from the Samsung could feed it slightly better. Very nice comparison, thanks for publishing it!

Thanks for ur work and effort

Very good comparison:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahmad

Last time I checked the url it still said xtremesystems

---

Indeed it does, but if your performance gains are so low you can't prove they're actually there than that isn't xtreme, that just plain stupid.

Good job.
Here we can see that tight timings rox :)