Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DDR4 vs. DDR5 Memory Performance For Intel Core i5-12600K Alder Lake On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • coder
    replied
    Michael, for some reason this article isn't loading past about the first page worth of content. I can view the graphs in other articles I checked, so I think it's probably not an IP-block, like last time.

    Leave a comment:


  • AlB80
    replied
    Originally posted by AlB80 View Post
    Ok. Obviously both have 16Gbit x8 chips, so it's best case for DDR5 (32GB module) and worst for DDR4 (16GB). Why?
    DDR4 memory controller have only 32 banks in total (2 ch x 1 rank x 16 banks per rank).
    DDR5 memory controller have 128 banks in total (2 ch x 2 subch x 2 rank x 32 banks per rank).
    DDR4 memory transactions are often stalled due to bank collisions, thus even DDR4 good timings are not enough.
    Erratum. DDR5 memory controller have 256 banks in total.
    F.e. the probability that a bank collision will occur for 10 simultaneous transactions = 1 - bank! / (bank - tx)! / bank^tx
    DDR4 = 79.2%
    DDR5 = 16.3%
    For DDR4, this means that a single ranked module sucks under multithreaded load, and a latency estimate can be doubled or tripled.
    Of course, all hi-freq modules are single ranked.
    Last edited by AlB80; 24 November 2021, 09:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • torsionbar28
    replied
    Originally posted by caligula View Post
    My first DDR4 setup was clocked at 3200 (some kind of overclock gamer sticks, not some IBM/Dell branded shit sticks). I didn't even buy the most performant system, actually. I think my current, 2nd gen machine with DDR4 has DDR4-4200 or 4400 modules.

    edit: yea, re-checked. The fastest ddr4 on the market in 5333.
    As I mentioned, my numbers are the JEDEC standards. Anything above that is not. Of course there are XMP profiles and manual overclocking for those who are into that sort of thing, but those are a niche within a niche, not really worth mentioning in a broader discussion about memory technology standards.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post





    The issue is that the public sources for 7-Zip still don't have proper build system support for Linux... They are putting out Linux binaries now, but their public sources still have a Makefile that is incomplete/broken even with the latest version, unless there is some other undocumented way for compiling on Linux.
    So it's incidentally giving us a good baseline then

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied


    Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
    You really should update your benchmark suite to use a new build of 7-zip. v16.02 is 4.5yrs old. Lots of optimisations have been made since then.
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    What's being benchmarked is the hardware and not the 7-zip application, and using the same version for 4.5 years means that we can get stable numbers for the differences between various cpu:s for that time period.
    The issue is that the public sources for 7-Zip still don't have proper build system support for Linux... They are putting out Linux binaries now, but their public sources still have a Makefile that is incomplete/broken even with the latest version, unless there is some other undocumented way for compiling on Linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
    You really should update your benchmark suite to use a new build of 7-zip. v16.02 is 4.5yrs old. Lots of optimisations have been made since then.
    What's being benchmarked is the hardware and not the 7-zip application, and using the same version for 4.5 years means that we can get stable numbers for the differences between various cpu:s for that time period.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post

    New truck with twice the amount of torque has an increased top speed of 0.05% ... that's pretty much what these tests are telling me.

    Now I agree not everyone is looking for increased torque but the review should be objective, for example show acceleration(latency), top seed(overall-perf), torque(bandwidth) and cost. Let someone decide what's important based on their particular needs. In my opinion Dav1d/PlaidML/Darktable are not "real-world workloads".

    Where's the in memory db tests?
    Where's the igpu tests?
    Just for interest sake: ram drive tests?

    Why is DDR5 inherently more expensive than DDR4? Hint: PMIC
    How does DDR5 make systems inherently more stable (more so with overclockers and dodgy XMP profiles)?

    You don't need to spend hours or days trying to figure out everything yourself, there's a lot of trusted information out about DDR5. Reading up on the questions should take 15 to 30min.

    I am sure many would still say DDR5 is not worth it after going through all of that, but at least it would have been an informed choice. I'm sure some would be waiting for DDR5 to get to DDR4 prices and that would never happen (even if global shortages are resloved).
    Phoronix has NEVER given any kind of reasoning behind the data it provided, nor picked representative tests (or options) for every scenario.
    You get the raw numbers and sometimes not even the ones you want/need.
    That's its biggest limitation and I can understand it being a one man job because it would require a much greater effort to bring the content to the next level.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jabberwocky
    replied
    Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
    Not worth it at all at the moment...
    New truck with twice the amount of torque has an increased top speed of 0.05% ... that's pretty much what these tests are telling me.

    Now I agree not everyone is looking for increased torque but the review should be objective, for example show acceleration(latency), top seed(overall-perf), torque(bandwidth) and cost. Let someone decide what's important based on their particular needs. In my opinion Dav1d/PlaidML/Darktable are not "real-world workloads".

    Where's the in memory db tests?
    Where's the igpu tests?
    Just for interest sake: ram drive tests?

    Why is DDR5 inherently more expensive than DDR4? Hint: PMIC
    How does DDR5 make systems inherently more stable (more so with overclockers and dodgy XMP profiles)?

    You don't need to spend hours or days trying to figure out everything yourself, there's a lot of trusted information out about DDR5. Reading up on the questions should take 15 to 30min.

    I am sure many would still say DDR5 is not worth it after going through all of that, but at least it would have been an informed choice. I'm sure some would be waiting for DDR5 to get to DDR4 prices and that would never happen (even if global shortages are resloved).

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
    Not worth it at all at the moment...
    Yeah, I recently upgraded from a slow HDD to a new NVMe SSD.
    QtCreator used to compile in 25 minutes, now it takes only 12.

    Leave a comment:


  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    DDR4 introduced at 1600, eventually climbing to 3200.
    DDR5 introduced at 4400, eventually climbing to ????.
    My first DDR4 setup was clocked at 3200 (some kind of overclock gamer sticks, not some IBM/Dell branded shit sticks). I didn't even buy the most performant system, actually. I think my current, 2nd gen machine with DDR4 has DDR4-4200 or 4400 modules.

    edit: yea, re-checked. The fastest ddr4 on the market in 5333.
    Last edited by caligula; 23 November 2021, 09:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X