The AIDA64 read performance is top of the chart for any of the 3600MHz kits there, not only beating the Xcalibur but also the NEO. Lowering to straight 13 timings did not do much for us at all, and we figured as much, but with a slight increase of speed, they swing way above their belt, beating one of the 4000MHz kits and just trailing the other.
It is a similar situation when it comes to write performance. The XTREEM ARGB is in front of the 3600MHz kits, but here, lowering the timings gave us a boost to the tune of 310 MB/s. Opting to run them at 3800C14 topped the chart this time, nearly 2000 MB/s faster than the DOCP profile option.
Even in copy performance, the XTREEM ARGB holds up to its name, as it beats all other slower kits on the chart. Lowering the timings is not the right move for these results, as we took a hit of losing around 600 MB/s. You just have to love that result for the 3800C14 run though, some 2400 MB/s advantage over DOCP, and beats all but one of the faster contenders.
If you are one who likes the lowest latency in AIDA64, without much effort to allow the XTREEM ARGB to do what it should, it delivered the best latency yet at 68ns. Lowering the timings made no change to the DOCP result, but we did take a penalty in latency here once we passed the If 1:1 ratio. However, that penalty in latency sure paid off in all other aspects of this benchmark, proving latency isn't everything!
Letting Super Pi loose on the XTREEM ARGB, we see the best results of any DOCP run to date. Proving the effectiveness of the programming of the OC profile, both of the overclocked runs did not do any better, but both runs were still better than anything else on the chart as well.
If benching 3DMark for the glory, this may not be the best kit to pick, as the DOCP run comes in just below average. What we did not expect was to see that the 3600C13 settings did the best, and adding the 200MHz did so little.
TEAM already has the top of the PCMark 10 chart with the Night Hawk, and the XTREEM ARGB took fourth place, just behind the Xcalibur. Added speed was not our friend here, but lowering the timings takes the kit into third place.
A third-place once again, as we go over the results from compression with 7-Zip. Just over seven minutes to complete the task, right out of the box, is a good result for any DDR4. Reducing the timings does have an advantage of almost three and a half seconds, but we took a near twenty-second penalty increasing the speed.
Second place in Cinebench is an excellent result, beat only by the TOUGHRAM! There is an ever so slight increase in points with the increased speed this time around, as we took the hit reducing timings, but again, just a slight difference in results.
For those who need to transcode 4K video and the like, Handbrake is a great test to level the field and expose any issues. The results speak for themselves with the second-place finish, just behind the slightly faster, but double the density, HyperX FURY. Otherwise, the next three spots are held by the three ways we opted to run this memory. Lowering the timings just beats the TOUGHRAM, and more speed did not deliver any benefits either.
Last updated: Apr 7, 2020 at 12:34 pm CDT