- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 8,188 (3.93/day)
System Name | Bragging Rights |
---|---|
Processor | Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz |
Motherboard | It has no markings but it's green |
Cooling | No, it's a 2.2W processor |
Memory | 2GB DDR3L-1333 |
Video Card(s) | Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz) |
Storage | 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3 |
Display(s) | 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz |
Case | Veddha T2 |
Audio Device(s) | Apparently, yes |
Power Supply | Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger |
Mouse | MX Anywhere 2 |
Keyboard | Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all) |
VR HMD | Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though.... |
Software | W10 21H1, barely |
Benchmark Scores | I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000. |
RAM speed matters little to nothing for gaming. Gaming is not bottlenecked by memory bandwidth, and "faster" memory really only improve bandwidth, not latency.
While Skylake have improved clocks a lot over Sandy Bridge, especially with "aggressive" boosting, the CPU front-end improvements have also helped a lot. It's important to remember that IPC is a measure of "arbitrary" workloads, and many things affect IPC. One of the reasons why Intel still have an edge in gaming is a stronger front-end, while AMD have higher peak ALU/FPU throughput in some cases, both of which affect IPC, but only the first really affect gaming.
Like Danbert and Midland, I strongly disagree with you on this. You're comparing Sandy (DDR3-1333MHz max spec) with modern platforms that manage a minimum of ~2.5x the bandwidth and significantly lower latency at the same time.
Typically, RAM bandwidth is one of the leading contributors to low minimum framerates and there is no shortage of articles and videos going back a decade or so that make this painfully obvious. I must have watched and read over a hundred mainstream videos on this topic alone.
Who cares about average framerates when their 1% low and 0.1% low framerates are absolutely tanking performance when it matters?