Intel configuration test:
Of course, this kit will only be tested on an Intel platform, as our comparisons have been based on this configuration from the outset. We’ve naturally opted for the ROG Maximus Z790 APEX motherboard, but we’re also testing the latest refresh model in parallel , the ROG Maximus Z790 APEX Encore version.
- Motherboard: ROG Maximus Z790 APEX (BIOS 0084) APEX ENCORE (BIOS 0070)
- Processor: Intel i9-13900KS
- Memory: Teamgroup T-Force Xtreem 8200 MT/s CL38
- Graphics card: MSI GT 710
- SSD: Western Digital SN850 NVMe SSD M.2
- Power supply: be quiet! Dark Power PRO 12 1500w
- Operating system: Windows 10 64-bit (22H2)
We also decided to stick with Windows 10 (22h2), as it performs better, especially when overclocking. We’ve noticed a significant drop in processor and memory performance since the latest Windows 11 updates, which sometimes distorts the results. Our benchmarks are run a minimum of three times, and the result is the average of these scores. Remember that we’ve also added the performance of our kit of the day with the XMP profile at 8400 MT/s CL38, since it’s shown to be perfectly stable H24. It would be a shame to do without it.
Aida 64:
This is a program that can provide you with a wealth of information about your configuration, but above all it has a memory benchmark. This calculates the read, write and copy speeds, as well as the latency, of your memory kit. It is often used to compare memory kits. It’s an excellent tool if you want to compare the performance of your memory kit with those we’ve already tested.
The version used for testing is 6.92.6603 beta, and we’ve used the performance of previously tested kits.
The performance of this first test is exactly what we expected. It starts off very strongly, with read speeds of 125,727 MB/s for the XMP 8200, rising to 128,230 MB/s for the XMP 8400. This is quite logical, since this Teamgroup Xtreem kit combines high frequency with fairly tight timings . So, on an Intel platform, you’ll need to prioritize frequency and tight timings.
The same applies to write speeds, which are very good, reaching 123,410 MB/s at 8200 MT/s CL38 and even 126,430 MT/s at 8400 MT/s CL38. The graphics logic remains identical to that of the previous model. The Corsair Dominator Platinum 4800 MT/s CL19 in DDR4 achieved 67,251 MB/s. Once again, we note a logical progression between the different kits according to their frequency and timing.
The findings are identical in copy, with once again the same duo at the top of our graph. The Corsair Dominator Platinum 4800 MT/s CL19 in DDR4 achieved a copy speed of 57330 MB/s. As you can see, it’s in reading and copying that DDR5 takes a clear lead over DDR4. Note also the difference between a DDR5 kit at 4800 MT/s (72,415 MB/s) and our kit at 8400 MT/s (123,193 MT/s). If we hadn’t activated our XMP profile in the BIOS, our kit, although sold as a 8200 MT/s model, would really have been clocked at 4800 MT/s. A reminder of the importance of enabling the XMP profile in the BIOS.
Finally, latency. This is the value on which all eyes are focused, as DDR5 lags a little behind. Our best DDR4 kit in this respect was the G.SKill Trident Z Royal Elite 4000 MT/S CL14, which achieved 41.4 ns. You’ll notice that the higher the DDR5 frequency, the narrower the gap. Note that a 3200 MT/S CL16 DDR4 kit has a latency of 50.3 ns. Here, it’s 56 ns for our Teamgroup T-Force Xtreem 8200 MT/s CL38.
Geekbench 3.4.4:
This benchmark is available in several revisions, version 5 having just been released a few weeks ago. It provides two scores: one single and one multi. Using this benchmark, we’re going to focus on the performance obtained on the ” Memory Multi-Core ” score, which differentiates memory performance.
The version used for testing is 3.4.4.
For the Geekbench 3 benchmark, despite the single-core frequency of our i9-13900KS being 6 GHz, we note a difference in score between the different memory kits. This is the first time that our kit of the day has fallen slightly behind, even if the difference is almost non-existent.
In multicore, you can’t change a winning duo, as our Teamgroup kit retakes the lead.
As soon as we isolate the memory score, real differences are visible between the kits. Our kit of the day scores 14,233 points! We’ll be keeping a close eye on this score when we start overclocking. It’s a good indicator of the benefits of overclocking.
In DDR4, our best kit scored just 7,748 points. Once again, DDR5 combined with the Raptor Lake processor offers a huge advantage.
Geekbench 5.5.1:
We’ve decided to add this extra benchmark, but why? The CPU benchmark uses new tests that more closely simulate the tasks facing processors in the face of recent applications. Geekbench 5 also increases the memory used in the benchmark to better reflect the impact of this parameter on CPU results. For the time being, we’ll be keeping both, as version 3 is still widely used. We have also migrated to the latest version, 5.5.1.
Whereas in Geekbench 3, we had a difference in single core, here in version 5, the gaps are smaller but, as in the previous version, we find a slight delay in our Teamgroup kit.
Finally, the score for our Teamgroup T-Force Xtreem kit at 8400 MT/s CL38 is 28,588 points. Still to give you a reference score in DDR4, our best score in Geekbench 5 was 11,179 points.
Geekbench 6:
We recently received a key for Geekbench version 6. We therefore took advantage of the change of configuration to add this new benchmark to our test suite. This is the latest benchmark and is intended to be more representative of current configurations. Primate Labs also assures us that the scores displayed by Geekbench 6 are more accurate in relation to the various existing devices and platforms. In fact, the test is much longer than the other two versions we use. Our tests will be carried out on the latest version, i.e. 6.2.2.
The scores in the single test are fairly close, which explains the slight but ultimately insignificant change in the leading order. Our sample of the day once again stands out from the crowd.
Let’s conclude this series of benchmarks with the multi part of Geekbench 6, where we end with the performance configuration encountered during all our tests. There’s no doubt about it, this is the best-performing kit we’ve had our hands on.
