When building a new PC, should you play it safe with official memory specs, or aim for maximum performance with XMP and EXPO DDR5 kits? Let's find out the answer with a few gaming benchmarks.
Cheap vs. Premium DDR5: Stock vs. EXPO/XMP Memory
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Just read the article. It's a tough choice between sticking to official specs and going for XMP/EXPO kits.
Personally, I'd say it depends on what you need. If you're a casual gamer, playing it safe might be the way to go. But if you're a hardcore gamer or a pro, you might want to consider the extra performance from XMP/EXPO kits.
Personally, I'd say it depends on what you need. If you're a casual gamer, playing it safe might be the way to go. But if you're a hardcore gamer or a pro, you might want to consider the extra performance from XMP/EXPO kits.
maestro0428
Posts: 57 +48
I absolutely love these articles! No one does comparisons like you guys!
Starfals
Posts: 90 +55
That's interesting cus I was wondering about the same thing too! Idk why, but going from the base speed to EXPO gave me a huge fps boost during benchmarks for Assassins Creeds ,Cyberpunk and Tomb Raider. I use the 7800X3D too. Then again, my 6000 timings are probably very tight, cus I took a long time to find the max before crashing. I have yet to find a game that does not give me a big advantage with the faster speed.
It does make me wonder about the results. Many sites and YouTubers show different results with the same hardware. Some have big fps boost like mine, while others usually have a tiny one (like 1-5% at most) What could be the reason? Its hard to know what to buy if the results for every site and person are all over the place lol. One thing is for sure, if I buy a new platform, I sure won't go to the lowest speeds lol, even if it costs a bit more over the other kits.
Thanks for the tests as usual btw, I love these, especially the 1 from before with the CPUs! Keep up the good work! I was just wondering about this specific topic, cus of my personal experience ;p
It does make me wonder about the results. Many sites and YouTubers show different results with the same hardware. Some have big fps boost like mine, while others usually have a tiny one (like 1-5% at most) What could be the reason? Its hard to know what to buy if the results for every site and person are all over the place lol. One thing is for sure, if I buy a new platform, I sure won't go to the lowest speeds lol, even if it costs a bit more over the other kits.
Thanks for the tests as usual btw, I love these, especially the 1 from before with the CPUs! Keep up the good work! I was just wondering about this specific topic, cus of my personal experience ;p
Is this correct?
"performance of 7700X was improved by ??3x?? more using the same DDR5-6000 memory with a 12% improvement to the average frame rate."
"performance of 7700X was improved by ??3x?? more using the same DDR5-6000 memory with a 12% improvement to the average frame rate."
" For those who consider themselves PC enthusiasts but don't understand why reviewers test at this resolution, please check our our explainers here. These articles explain the basics of CPU benchmarking and why it is done in a certain way. Testing at 1440p or 4K would focus on the RTX 4090's performance, making the data less relevant for the subject at hand."
That's a rather unsubtle shade. It's a bit disappointing to see this kind of patronizing attitude in the article proper, not in the comments as it usually is. But ok, I will respond in kind, so...
...for those who consider themselves tech journalists, but don't understand why many people complain about the methodology used, here's a little explainer.
As it happens, I'm pretty sure most of us understand very well the reasoning behind your choice of testing methods. It's not exactly rocket science, so there's no need to wheel out this "they just don't get it" trope every time these tests happen.
What we can't fathom though is why do you think this methodology helps anybody but a handful of people interested in hardware theory? Because that's precisely what testing only with 4090@1080p is good for: theory. It is at best a waste of time for the most of us, at worst it can be misleading for people whose buying choices are influenced by these articles. Your byline asks "Should Gamers Buy OC RAM?" and its a great question, unfortunately your article completely fails to show whether they should or shouldn't, since it's using only one, quite improbable to boot, hardware use case.
Your results might or might not apply to the wider spectrum of setups but quite probably it might also be a complete wash (given the well known distortion the extreme combination such as 4090/1080 produces) - we just don't know that. And unless these kinda tests will start including more realistic setups (even if the results they produce are considered "boring" by the "real enthusiasts" ) then we will continue to be disappointed by these articles.
That's a rather unsubtle shade. It's a bit disappointing to see this kind of patronizing attitude in the article proper, not in the comments as it usually is. But ok, I will respond in kind, so...
...for those who consider themselves tech journalists, but don't understand why many people complain about the methodology used, here's a little explainer.
As it happens, I'm pretty sure most of us understand very well the reasoning behind your choice of testing methods. It's not exactly rocket science, so there's no need to wheel out this "they just don't get it" trope every time these tests happen.
What we can't fathom though is why do you think this methodology helps anybody but a handful of people interested in hardware theory? Because that's precisely what testing only with 4090@1080p is good for: theory. It is at best a waste of time for the most of us, at worst it can be misleading for people whose buying choices are influenced by these articles. Your byline asks "Should Gamers Buy OC RAM?" and its a great question, unfortunately your article completely fails to show whether they should or shouldn't, since it's using only one, quite improbable to boot, hardware use case.
Your results might or might not apply to the wider spectrum of setups but quite probably it might also be a complete wash (given the well known distortion the extreme combination such as 4090/1080 produces) - we just don't know that. And unless these kinda tests will start including more realistic setups (even if the results they produce are considered "boring" by the "real enthusiasts" ) then we will continue to be disappointed by these articles.
passingposeidon
Posts: 108 +113
Yes, because the improvement was 4% for the 7800X3D. 12% is 3x 4%
Thanks, missed that.
i like foxes
Posts: 274 +198
10% improvement is negligible .
I saw that too and just shook my head because the tester didn't even go into any kind of depth on the IC manufacturer or timings. These memory kits are most likely using the same exact memory chips. Timings can have a greater effect than transfer rates. You need to shop the IC manufacturer not just the memory manufacturers and speeds alone.
Other places test at all 3 resolutions to show you there is zero difference at 4k between DDR5-4800 and DDR5-8000. Articles that don't test realistic scenarios and don't even go into any depth, are just ad clicks.
What is someone who works in 4k supposed to take out of these tests? Skip them I guess.
i like foxes
Posts: 274 +198
cristianm
Posts: 98 +124
this is a scientific way of testing the impact of cpu/memory on gaming. I don't think you were elected to represent any group of readers, so I don't get why you keep referring to yourself as a collective. If you find the methodology does not suit your interest, you are free to not go through the article, so no waste of time. It is clear that running a game in a more balanced configuration you will see a smaller difference between memory configurations running current games, so what would pe the point of testing it?
- this is not a scientific paper, but an article which has "Should gamers buy..?" byline and opens up comments with "when building a new PC". Besides, you can still be "scientific" while including another card/CPU/resolution in the test.
-no, I haven't been elected to anything but it's rather clear that my voice isn't the only one with these kind of opinions. If it was then the article author wouldn't include his rather condescending "for those who consider themselves..." preamble.
-yes, I can skip reading all these articles, but why should I? I'd much rather appeal for a change, that's what comments are for, and I do appreciate that TechSpot occasionally seems to listen to people and features some very good, properly balanced tests too.
-The point of testing other setups than the extreme one is to show people whether it's worth upgrading or not in these - much more common - situations. If the differential is small, then maybe not (and this is so often the case).
I really can't fathom why this is so hard to understand for some people.
cristianm
Posts: 98 +124
I agree that real life configurations would be a nice addition to the test, like 4k with the 4090 or 1080 with a 4070 or adding an AMD 7600x with a middle end card. But the combinations are endless and each of them has their supporters. Some users prefer more FPS to 4k, others have budget constraints and try to put more money in the GPU and so on. But adding these configurations would add a lot to the test duration. So, in the end, we get what information we can from these tests.
What the test shows is that in a CPU constrained test, memory latency (and as we saw in the ddr4 vs ddr5 test, also bandwidth) is important. Maybe these games that were created a few years ago with engines that are older still are not CPU constrained in current games and configurations. But future games, at least after the next console generation, will put more pressure on the CPU and what is now needed to push 200FPS will be required to push 100.
Similar threads
