Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Memory arrow Mushkin Ridgeback Redline Enhanced DDR3

Mushkin Ridgeback Redline Enhanced DDR3 E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Memory
Written by Austin Downing   
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Table of Contents: Page Index
Mushkin Ridgeback Redline Enhanced DDR3
Closer Look: Mushkin Enhanced Redline 1600Mhz
RAM Testing and Results
Synthetic Benchmarks
Application Benchmarks
Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Application Benchmarks

Application benchmarks are a look at real world performance of the memory being tested. During this review we will be employing a combination of rendering, compression, and simulation to see how timing and speed of memory affects their performance.


Much like games that use DirectX or OpenGL to render their scenes CINIBENCH sees very little in gain by using higher performance RAM. Between the Mushkin Enhanced 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 and the Mushkin Enhanced 2133Mhz 9-11-10-28 is around .8% performance difference within our 1% margin of error.


Using the benchmarking tool that was built into WinRAR 4.00 we were able to effectively gauge how many kilobytes per second our test bed was able to compress. WinRAR is responsive to speed and timings and as such our Mushkin 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 was able to surpass both of our looser 1866Mhz kits. This is made more obvious when you compare Mushkin 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 kit to the G.Skill Sniper 1866Mhz 9-10-9-28 where Mushkin's kit gains a respectable 2.1% boost in performance.


The speed of Euler 3D simulation is obviously sensitive to both speed and timings. Interestingly enough this 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 kit keeps up with our 1866Mhz 9-10-9-27 kits sitting within our 1% margin of error for both kits. Still compared to our other 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24 kit we see a near 10% boost in performance. Although this may not seem like a useful increase in performance, since the calculation being done by this program can be run for days or weeks a 10% increase can be a huge difference in time for long term simulations.



# Low CAS ImpactsJackNaylorPE 2011-07-14 09:06
There's an ole Anandtech article which shows some significant performance increases with low CAS RAM, even in games.....but it's minimum frame rates that shows the biggest impact, not average frame rates. My interest in RAM is for AutoDesk and other demanding apps but do manage to get some game time in.....minimum frame rates however is rarely a part of RAM tests ....

22.3 % (SLI) increase in minimum frame rates w/ C6 instead of C8 in Far Cry 2
18% (single card) / 5% (SLI) increase in minimum frame rates w/ C6 instead of C8 in Dawn of War
15% (single card) / 5% (SLI) increase in minimum frame rates w/ C6 instead of C8 in World in Conflict

Also see

I would love to see how / if this carries over to today's systems .... Minimum frame rate impacts also also seems to be ignored in testing x8 x8 versus x16 x16
Report Comment
# @ JackNaylorPEGanjaSMK 2011-07-15 23:20
Real world performance differs greatly from generic and game benchmarking.
Report Comment
# RE: @ JackNaylorPEAustin Downing 2011-07-16 12:52
That is very true, and something I try to show off in each of my reviews.
Report Comment
# Love mynGlamdring 2011-07-25 14:19
I love my Mushkin Redline series, except I got the set with the frostbyte cooler to save room for CPU cooler. I would recommend their products over and over again based on past experience.
Report Comment

Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

Search Benchmark Reviews

Like Benchmark Reviews on FacebookFollow Benchmark Reviews on Twitter