Many thanks to everyone who liked the review. I'm the writer, also a member of the OCN HWBot team.
Originally Posted by Weedvender
Why did Anand go with Intel instead of AMD which has a better IGP?
Anand doesn't write everything on Anandtech
That's why it says 'by ...'
Also the testing was done before the latest Piledriver was released. There are plans to do it again with Trinity.
Originally Posted by tsm106
They could have just used the Samsung memory and tested it from 1333 all the way up to 2400.
It was mainly a review of the memory kits rather than the speed differences. Don't worry, you weren't the only one to think this
Originally Posted by Ben the OCer
AnandTech writes some great reviews and I count them as one of the best tech reviewers out there, but I am kind of surprised by this one. It has some interesting information but the actual test bed and some of the settings are not very relevant. Someone who cares or even knows about memory speed is not likely to be using the onboard HD4000 graphics. Even if they are they wouldn't be using unplayable settings as in the case of Metro 2033 (5.22-5.72 fps) and Civ V (5.98-6.38 fps), among others. He mentions not wanting to use synthetic benchmarks but it's just as bad to use settings and resulting fps that no sane person would tolerate.
Common policy in benchmarking XYZ is to make it the limiting factor in testing. Hence the use of an OC'ed CPU in an ASUS P8Z77-Premium. Despite your comment regarding 'anyone who knows about memory speed is not likely to be using HD4000', you would be actually quite surprised - Intel have released a dual core 65W CPU with HD4000, the i3-3225, due to market demand.
With respect to the gaming settings, you cherry picked those two games. I tested a variety using none of the eye candy and all of the eye candy, to provide comparisons between CPU/iGPU intensive options such as lighting, high resolution textures and the like. The more important graph you should have been concerned about is the % rise against DDR3-1333:
To quote one of the comments on the article:
"The point of the test was simply: "Lets take a system that is generally fast and put it in a situation where the IGP is being stressed. This will be the best-case scenario for faster RAM helping it. Lets see if it does".
To me the idea was not showing everyone everyday situations where faster RAM will help them, instead it was to see where those situations might lay, by setting up a stressful situation and seeing the results. Most of the results were extremely small differences."
Then in the conclusion he mentions his first rig,
In the comments I mention it is not my first rig. Up until that point I had hand-me-downs or pre-builds. As a result, the first kit I purchased just as a kit rather than as a PC was that kit. I estimated around 2005 as it was around that time I built that machine (2nd year of university then, which I started in 2004. That would put my second year at 2005-2006).
I know reviews are time consuming and take a lot of work, so I don't complain often about reviews unless they deserve it. This review is not up to AnandTech standards and I am honestly surprised they would publish it.
What would you like to see in a memory review? Contrary to what you may think, reviewers are often open to suggestions. We are only individuals, not lords and masters of every different usage scenario. We attempt to cover the vast majority of use cases, and in this review, memory speed gets very important on IGP hence the focus. If you would like to see more of X, less of Y, or include Z, then please let us know. Clicking on the author's name at the top is a direct line to the email.Edited by borandi - 11/12/12 at 9:00am