Performance
Performance has been tested on the Intel platform, which contains the Core Ultra 265K CPU, ASRock Z890 Taichi Lite motherboard, Colorful RTX4080 Advanced OC graphics card, and Deepcool PX1000P 80+ Platinum PSU.
All tests were performed on the Crucial 32GB DDR5-6400 CUDIMM memory kit. The 32GB memory kit could overclock up to DDR5-7600 and CL40-50-50 1.35-1.40V, which isn’t spectacular, but it’s a clear improvement over the UDIMM Crucial memory kits. The DDR5-7600 CL40 setting was stable in our tests. If your motherboard and CPU’s memory controller can handle it, you can expect it from the memory kit. Most new processors and motherboards shouldn’t have a problem with that.
Let’s begin the tests.
The AIDA64 memory benchmark scales well with the memory frequency. With each step, we gain a couple more GB/s. The results are not bad but could be better.
Latency is a weakness of the latest Intel processors, so 85ns is typical for faster 6400MT/s kits, so JEDEC specifications with 97ns result seem normal.
The difference in synthetic bandwidth and latency tests does not always tell the whole story, so let’s examine other tests.
The PCMark 10 Applications benchmark shows the differences between popular Microsoft Office applications. We can see how significant the difference is between the 7600MT/s and any lower profile. The new Intel simply asks for fast RAM; the best is over 7200MT/s.
3DMark tests also scale well with memory performance on the Intel Arrow Lake S. Again, the Crucial memory seems slow at the default profile, while it’s overclocked results are pretty good.
The new Cinebench reacts slightly better to RAM performance in rendering. It’s insignificant, but we can tell which setting is the fastest, especially though this benchmark is long. The result at DDR5-6400 is one more time just fine but it isn’t anything exceptional compared to higher-rated memory settings.
Final Fantasy XV and Superposition results at high display resolutions are barely different but still suggest better results at a higher memory frequency. The difference between the slowest and fastest settings in the Final Fantasy XV benchmark is visible, but the Superposition at 8k display resolution gives us results close to the error margin.
Our results in modern 3D games show that the Crucial memory at 6400MT/s and 7000MT/s performs about the same, while the 7600MT/s gives us a couple of FPS higher results.
The performance of Crucial CUDIMM 6400MT/s memory is not bad in general but seems to be low for gaming computers with Arrow Lake S series processors. Soon, we will see memory kits above 9000MT/s, while anything between 8000MT/s and 9000MT/s at Gear 2 seems to be the best option regarding performance for this new platform. Considering performance and price, the better option than the Crucial CUDIMM appears to be the Crucial Pro Overclocking series, which gives us better performance at a programmed profile and costs significantly less.
On the next page, I will tell you more about the overclocking of the new Crucial memory.
