This is the thing that bothers me about the cpu vS memory benching and testing.
A linked-to website, which has been a companion listing of all cpus in conditions, listing many hardcore intensive processing examples of how cpus compare to others ------- this qualifier out of the way.
On this listing, the comparisons of said cpus show no-difference in running memory kits in single/dual/tri arrangements when running the benches used - but appears to show 1 cpu triumphing over others and is accepted as "well that shows that these cpus are better than others".
Surely this is complete crap. Just as a starter, every1 will know that dual channel memory works more efficiently than single - that's a straight forward 64 bit vS 128 bit logical answer. Same as 2 disks in raid0 vS a single disk, as a loose example.
Now, if the cpu benches in the list are proving "it doesn't matter" - which is bollox imo, I'm sure the majority will agree, then surely the intensive hardcore professional benches they're using, the likes of video conversion, archive packing, are failing the test and the results are worthless.
These memory strips are obviously extremely good. The said site would have u believe that using 2 of these strips instead of 3 will have no-difference to professional apps being used on ur pc (which we have established is a load of crap).
Argument may be that the tests used are done in seconds where the differences in running various memory arrangements aren't appreciated - well that's crap too cos let's realize for a second that it's the 21st century, and although computers and software are moving at a snails-pace compared to the huge strides we would get in the past, these processes are actually done in seconds!
No account either of 12m cache vS 6m over periods - which makes a difference.
Awesome review, great set of memory, and two fingers to stoopid bench listing sites that people rely on to make points about "new tech".
)
.
