DDR5-6000 Memory Performance On Linux, Scaling From DDR5 3000 to 6000 MT/s

[linuxgeex]

Phoronix: DDR5-6000 Memory Performance On Linux, Scaling From DDR5 3000 to 6000 MT/s... here is a look at how the Intel Core i9 12900K performs under Linux with memory speeds up to DDR5-6000 and running a memory scaling comparison from 3000 to 6000 MT/s.

Thanks phoronix , this reminds me of the good old days when a larger share of articles were focused on revealing bottlenecks and sharing optimisations, instead of parroting other sites' news articles. These were the articles that drew most of us here to begin with. Keep up the good work!

[linuxgeex]

Could you please add the timing information for each speed, if possible? Latency is one of the biggest downsides of DDR5, currently, and it would be nice to see what kind of timings you used in each speed.

If possible, the command rate too.

I've pointed this out in the past and Michael has been unwilling to use dmidecode within PTS as it requires root... I pointed out sudo, lol... oh wells.

[andreano]

I expected to see a point of diminishing returns, but that 6000 MT/s consistently lost out to 5600 MT/s in the compilation benchmarks … was interesting! Are there some sweet and bitter spots on the performance curve? The highest speed is clearly worse for those workloads.

What could this be? Latency?

[creative]

Just as I predicted, just wait until DDR 5 6400 comes out, it will be the new sweet spot and industry standard. I could be wrong but I'm willing to bet it will be. 6000 is looking mighty fine. Going to be a long time before I get into a new kit of next generation ram though. Pretty cool stuff.

I was wrong about two generations of processors before it hit though, it was much much sooner.

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...-lake-on-linux

[david-nk]

It would have been interesting to include DDR4 results in the chart, since there have been reports that Alder Lake doesn't play that well with DDR5, which leaves the question whether it's worth paying quadruple prices for DDR5.

[DataSmasher]

Really big differences especially in scientific workloads. Really cool to see!

[Jabberwocky]

My GF is still using DDR3-1333 for 1080p@60hz competitive gaming. It still performs well for meny titles.

[creative]

My GF is still using DDR3-1333 for 1080p@60hz competitive gaming. It still performs well for meny titles.

Depending on what ones favorite games are especially if you mostly like older stuff, it really does not take much of a system, most classics can be ran very well with that type of setup, all the half-life's, Dark Souls series, lots of stuff will run well. Then there is the realm of Doom and Doom II custom .wad's and total conversions which are an entire universe of their own and can be incredibly unique and innovative with stuff like zdoom/gzdoom. Then of coarse you have all your isometric rpg's much of them an absolute piece of cake.

I have a beefier modern system thats a bit overkill but I really like the 1440p experience but I am by far not an elitist when it comes to gaming, I will go all the back to my playstation 2 from time to time and even play some playstation 1 titles.

The reason I have kept a modern system as well is for rare possible new releases like Scorn which is a seriously bizarre looking Hans Ruedi Giger/Zdzislaw Beksinski in motion surrealist and macabre first person crazy madman game.

[brucethemoose]

My GF is still using DDR3-1333 for 1080p@60hz competitive gaming. It still performs well for meny titles.

Yeah, many titles are just not that demanding, and I don't mind turning down the settings in ones that are. The only things really making me want a DDR5 platform are early-access or heavily modded sandbox games, like Dyson Sphere Program or Rimworld.


In fact, I wish phoronix benched those... but most don't have a good deterministic, automatable benchmark. I guess you spin up a Minecraft server and bench worldgen?

[mppix]

I expected to see a point of diminishing returns, but that 6000 MT/s consistently lost out to 5600 MT/s in the compilation benchmarks … was interesting! Are there some sweet and bitter spots on the performance curve? The highest speed is clearly worse for those workloads.

What could this be? Latency?

Bigger is better especially with today's high-core count designs.
The sweet spot just results from the memory controller (or wallet) not keeping up