Performance
Performance has been tested on the Intel Alder Lake-S platform, which contains the i9-12900K processor, ASRock Z690 Extreme motherboard for DDR4 memory kits, and Gigabyte Z690 Master for the DDR5 kit, ASUS Strix RTX3070 8GB graphics card, and Team Group Delta MAX 1TB SSD. The used OS is Windows 11 x64 with the latest updates.
Our comparison includes overclocking results and settings where the Viper Steel LL 16GB DDR4-4000 was stable. The maximum settings on our motherboard were DDR4-4400 CL18-18-18 at still reasonable 1.5V. Even though this specific memory kit offers more, we couldn’t make it boot at a higher frequency. The memory could also run at DDR4-4000 CL14-14-14 1.55V, which the is recommended setting providing the best results.
Overclocking results with the Viper Steel Low Latency DDR4-3600 and DDR4-4000 are the same, so the DDR4-4000 CL14 and DDR4-4400 CL18 results are exactly the same on both listed memory kits.
Considering that users recently have questions about DDR4 vs. DDR5 in games, I added results on a popular Kingston Fury Beast DDR5-5200, which we reviewed some weeks ago. Of course, there are faster DDR5 memory kits, but they cost significantly more.
As usual, we will start with AIDA64 Cache and Memory benchmark, which is probably the best software for synthetic memory speed tests.
Results at the XMP profile are about as high as at settings with tuned some more timings, but we can clearly see how well the bandwidth is scaling with higher memory frequency. The strength of the LL memory kits makes the balance between memory bandwidth and very low latency. The latency is what many games like the most. Below you can see our results at XMP profiles and manual settings with still not fully tuned sub-timings (so it can be even better).
PCMark 10 shows that all memory kits are not much different. While the Essentials test favorites lower latency but not necessarily high bandwidth, the Productivity or the Digital Content Creation look better at a higher frequency.
It’s time on some 3D benchmarks from UL(previously Futuremark).
3DMark and VRMark series benchmarks are also showing similar results at all settings. These benchmarks show higher CPU and physics tests differences, but it’s a low percentage of the total score.
Easier tests with more FPS better react to lower latency so DDR4 settings, while more demanding tests usually look slightly better at a higher frequency so DDR5.
More demanding 3D tests at the display resolution up to 8K are not much different. In Final Fantasy XV and Superposition benchmarks, results are slightly better at higher memory frequency but nothing that would profoundly affect our gaming experience. DDR4-4000 results at XMP settings in these tests are slightly better than results at DDR5-5200. I can only add that results at DDR5-6000+, which are not in the comparison, are also not much better.
Results in relatively new games like Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, Shadow of The Tomb Raider, and FarCry 6 at 1440p show up to 3FPS difference between settings where Steel LL DDR4-3600 memory at XMP settings is about 1FPS better than DDR5-5200. The best results are at DDR4-4000 and tight timings, so the Steel LL DDR4-4000 kit or overclocked Steel LL DDR4-3600 kit settings. In these games, DDR5 is not faster than the top DDR4 settings. Even DDR5-6400 is close to the results presented below.
After the second Viper Steel Low Latency memory kit tests, there is a quick conclusion that DDR4 is still fast and delivers optimal performance at a still reasonable price. The market will push DDR5 as the new standard, but it will take some months until it will be worth the price or the price itself will drop to the affordable by gamers level. Right now, we can enjoy memory like the Patriot Viper Low Latency series, which besides outstanding results, leaves some money in your pocket so you can spend it on new games.
On the next page, I will tell you a couple of words about the overclocking of the Steel Low Latency memory series.
