F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Comparing gaming performance with 245KF + 4070 settings and RAM adjustments

Comparing gaming performance with 245KF + 4070 settings and RAM adjustments

Comparing gaming performance with 245KF + 4070 settings and RAM adjustments

M
Mario10Gamer
Member
Find
188
12-09-2018, 12:42 AM
#1
I recall the reason behind my limited testing. It demands a lot of time. The checks aimed to observe how these gaming loads performed within this setup when the RAM was configured at 4800C40 (SPD) or 6000C30 (XMP II in Asus terminology). For most trials, I repeated the process three times. I opted for 6000C30 mainly in MHW and BMW tests, running it twice each time. Here are two comparisons: one of best versus best, and another of average versus average. The first highlights the top individual score, while the second shows the typical mean across runs. To emphasize any variation more clearly and avoid GPU constraints, I conducted tests at 1080p. Variations appear in percentage points (%), with a positive sign indicating higher RAM speeds equals quicker performance. Key components tested: 245KF + Cooler Master Hyper 411 Nano (available on order) and Asus B860M-K Corsair Vengeance 2x 16GB 6000C30 4070FE. Observations: Shadow of the Tomb Raider achieved the highest score. A clear advantage for faster RAM here. Some noticeable heat buildup occurred, and additional trials showed a slight decline compared to earlier attempts. If I aimed for the most accurate comparison, I'd need to repeat this until results saturated, which isn't ideal. For the "slow" RAM setup, the performance gap was minimal. Black Myth Wukong delivered very high scores (includes DLSS 75%), with no motion blur and RT disabled. This was the only case where slower RAM barely lagged. Monster Hunter Wilds: Ultra (with DLSS Quality) and Frame Gen separately tested. Again, faster RAM consistently improved results. Civ VII scored high; its settings combined AA and upscaling. I couldn't determine the default FSR3 Auto setting, so I left it off during testing. 3DMark Steel Nomad showed average performance. This also reflected greater variation with slower RAM, which influenced my decision not to include it in future tests. One idea I've heard before is that running XMP may shift more CPU power to memory controllers, potentially boosting performance for tasks not capped by RAM speed. Not sure how to verify this or if it's worth trying. This exercise highlights that quicker RAM can indeed help game performance, though not always. These findings also serve as a preliminary check before comparing 6000C30 1R with the current 2R modules in another system. If no difference was found here, it might not be worth pursuing further. I'm uncertain about repeating this for compute tasks, but I'm still curious. Motivation has waned, possibly due to a few days—or maybe more!
Reply
Reply
M
Mario10Gamer
12-09-2018, 12:42 AM #1

I recall the reason behind my limited testing. It demands a lot of time. The checks aimed to observe how these gaming loads performed within this setup when the RAM was configured at 4800C40 (SPD) or 6000C30 (XMP II in Asus terminology). For most trials, I repeated the process three times. I opted for 6000C30 mainly in MHW and BMW tests, running it twice each time. Here are two comparisons: one of best versus best, and another of average versus average. The first highlights the top individual score, while the second shows the typical mean across runs. To emphasize any variation more clearly and avoid GPU constraints, I conducted tests at 1080p. Variations appear in percentage points (%), with a positive sign indicating higher RAM speeds equals quicker performance. Key components tested: 245KF + Cooler Master Hyper 411 Nano (available on order) and Asus B860M-K Corsair Vengeance 2x 16GB 6000C30 4070FE. Observations: Shadow of the Tomb Raider achieved the highest score. A clear advantage for faster RAM here. Some noticeable heat buildup occurred, and additional trials showed a slight decline compared to earlier attempts. If I aimed for the most accurate comparison, I'd need to repeat this until results saturated, which isn't ideal. For the "slow" RAM setup, the performance gap was minimal. Black Myth Wukong delivered very high scores (includes DLSS 75%), with no motion blur and RT disabled. This was the only case where slower RAM barely lagged. Monster Hunter Wilds: Ultra (with DLSS Quality) and Frame Gen separately tested. Again, faster RAM consistently improved results. Civ VII scored high; its settings combined AA and upscaling. I couldn't determine the default FSR3 Auto setting, so I left it off during testing. 3DMark Steel Nomad showed average performance. This also reflected greater variation with slower RAM, which influenced my decision not to include it in future tests. One idea I've heard before is that running XMP may shift more CPU power to memory controllers, potentially boosting performance for tasks not capped by RAM speed. Not sure how to verify this or if it's worth trying. This exercise highlights that quicker RAM can indeed help game performance, though not always. These findings also serve as a preliminary check before comparing 6000C30 1R with the current 2R modules in another system. If no difference was found here, it might not be worth pursuing further. I'm uncertain about repeating this for compute tasks, but I'm still curious. Motivation has waned, possibly due to a few days—or maybe more!

Reply
Reply