Support NeoGAF

[Leonidas]

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 6% faster in gaming than Core i9-13900K according to leaked AMD review guide - VideoCardz.com

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D official performance leaks out HDTecnologia have leaked new data from confidential AMD Ryzen 7000X3D review guide. What one should know about review guides is that they tend to focus on games that are optimized for specific hardware. This is a reference for reviewers to...

videocardz.com

AMD claims 6% on average faster than 13900K, and 16% faster than the 7950X (with a 4090 at 1080p).

So less than 5% faster (on average) than 13900KS if their numbers are accurate.

But the problem with these numbers is that they gimped the RAM in the Intel system, AMD is limiting the RAM to slow DDR5 6000, since that suites their architecture, yet Intel CPUs can run DDR5 7400 or higher.

Seems the real performance difference is going to be marginal at best, on average, if Intel is allowed to use higher speed RAM.

Despite gimping the Intel RAM setup, they still show that the 13900K is ~10% faster than the 7950X.

 

[DaGwaphics]

^ Crazy times when Intel is leading price to performance in just about every tier.

 

[Allandor]

Oh you forgot that the TDP is just 120W. That's great for that performance. How much is the Intel CPU....

The 7800x3d boost clock seems to be a bit low. It seems more like AMD has artificially limited it, so the bigger more expensive models are always faster.

 

[Celcius]

Some games do have a big difference though - FF14 Shadowbringers (a very popular game that I play myself) shows a 15% difference (though the game isn't hard to run in the first place). Also, that 13900K is a furnace.
I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews next week.

 

[Topher]

Oh you forgot that the TDP is just 120W. That's great for that performance. How much is the Intel CPU....

You can get it from Microcenter for $529 in the US:

Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake 3.0GHz Twenty Four-Core LGA 1700 Boxed Processor - Heatsink Not Included - Micro Center

Get it now! 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900K desktop processor. Featuring Intel Adaptive Boost Technology, Intel Thermal Velocity Boost, Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, and PCIe 5.0 & 4.

www.microcenter.com

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I'm buying the 7900x3d. I'm making a two generation jump because I want to.

And I get what you're trying to say in the original post but in what world is 6000mhz DDR5 slow?

Admittingly I do like to see their comparisons as I was going to get a kit of 6400 but the timings and sweet spot with the 7xxx series seems to around 6000mhz DDR5.

 

[winjer]

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 6% faster in gaming than Core i9-13900K according to leaked AMD review guide - VideoCardz.com

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D official performance leaks out HDTecnologia have leaked new data from confidential AMD Ryzen 7000X3D review guide. What one should know about review guides is that they tend to focus on games that are optimized for specific hardware. This is a reference for reviewers to...

videocardz.com

AMD claims 6% on average faster than 13900K, and 16% faster than the 7950X (with a 4090 at 1080p).

So less than 5% faster (on average) than 13900KS if their numbers are accurate.

But the problem with these numbers is that they gimped the RAM in the Intel system, AMD is limiting the RAM to slow DDR5 6000, since that suites their architecture, yet Intel CPUs can run DDR5 7400 or higher.

Seems the real performance difference is going to be marginal at best, on average, if Intel is allowed to use higher speed RAM.

Despite gimping the Intel RAM setup, they still show that the 13900K is ~10% faster than the 7950X.

They didn't gimp the 13900k memory.
All CPUs were running DDR5 6000. Meaning every CPU had it's memory controller overclocked.

 

[Leonidas]

They didn't gimp the 13900k memory.
All CPUs were running DDR5 6000. Meaning every CPU had it's memory controller overclocked.

It is gimped in the sense that DDR5 6000 is the best case scenario for AMD.

DDR5 6000 is slow for a high end Intel rig.

 

[winjer]

It is gimped in the sense that DDR5 6000 is the best case scenario for AMD.

DDR5 6000 is slow for a high end Intel rig.

The official Intel spec for the 13900k is 5600 MT/s. Everything above it is overclocked.

 

[Leonidas]

The official Intel spec for the 13900k is 5600 MT/s. Everything above it is overclocked.

Doesn't changed the fact that DDR5 6000 is slow for a high end Intel rig.

People who want the best performance in games don't buy speeds anywhere close to the official Intel spec.

 

[Black_Stride]

Inb4 Techspot/Hardware Unboxed reviews these things with a bunch of AMD favoring titles.

^ Crazy times when Intel is leading price to performance in just about every tier.

Truly the weirdest timeline.
Remember when Ryzen 3000s launched?
With a capable Cooler no less.

Now.....Ryzen 7000s come out on a new socket that was too expensive for the average PC builder.

 

[winjer]

Doesn't changed the fact that DDR5 6000 is slow for a high end Intel rig.

People who want the best performance in games don't buy speeds anywhere close to the official Intel spec.

Only hardcore overclockers are going to push memory much higher than that.
The common gamer doesn't know how to tweak impedances and voltages.

 

[Gaiff]

Doesn't changed the fact that DDR5 6000 is slow for a high end Intel rig.

People who want the best performance in games don't buy speeds anywhere close to the official Intel spec.

Lol no 6000MTs isn't slow. 4800 is. No one pays 50% more for 7200MTs for 3% better performance. Most games aren't that memory sensitive and furthermore, this kind of RAM really only helps in more CPU-bound scenarios. At 4K which is where most will use their 4090, 6000 vs 7200 will perform the same.

 

[Leonidas]

Only hardcore overclockers are going to push memory much higher than that.
The common gamer doesn't know how to tweak impedances and voltages.

Buying a 13900K and pairing it with DDR5 6000 makes no sense, unless you're AMD and doing an "apples to apples" comparison because that is the suite spot for Ryzen 7000.

On Intel platforms most gamers do go above spec, and it's always been that way.

No one in their right mind bought an 10900K and paired it with 2933... even 3200 (which was faster than the 10900K spec) was slow back then... in the same way no one should buy a 13900K/KS and pair it with slow DDR5 6000.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Buying a 13900K and pairing it with DDR5 6000 makes no sense, unless you're AMD and doing an "apples to apples" comparison because that is the suite spot for Ryzen 7000.

On Intel platforms most gamers do go above spec, and it's always been that way.

No one in their right mind bought an 10900K and paired it with 2933... even 3200 (which was faster than the 10900K spec) was slow back then... in the same way no one should buy a 13900K/KS and pair it with slow DDR5 6000.

Im not saying you are wrong but you gotta provide some facts to back up this claim

 

[Gaiff]

Buying a 13900K and pairing it with DDR5 6000 makes no sense, unless you're AMD and doing an "apples to apples" comparison because that is the suite spot for Ryzen 7000.

On Intel platforms most gamers do go above spec, and it's always been that way.

No one in their right mind bought an 10900K and paired it with 2933... even 3200 (which was faster than the 10900K spec) was slow back then... in the same way no one should buy a 13900K/KS and pair it with slow DDR5 6000.

Dude, WTF are you talking about? Buying a 13900K with 6000MTs memory makes perfect sense.

 

[winjer]

Buying a 13900K and pairing it with DDR5 6000 makes no sense, unless you're AMD and doing an "apples to apples" comparison because that is the suite spot for Ryzen 7000.

On Intel platforms most gamers do go above spec, and it's always been that way.

No one in their right mind bought an 10900K and paired it with 2933... even 3200 (which was faster than the 10900K spec) was slow back then... in the same way no one should buy a 13900K/KS and pair it with slow DDR5 6000.

6000MT/S is already above Intel spec. And above this, it's likely to be necessary to tweak voltages and impedances.
People who buy a 13900K are not all overlockers. Most of them will not be. And they don't know or care about pushing super high memory overclocks.

 

[Xyphie]

My philosophy is that processors should be tested with reasonable RAM kits with XMP timings enabled but not overly tuned manually, so if we're talking about DDR4 say 3600CL16 or something like that. Testing with JEDEC speeds and timings like say AnandTech does is just fucking pointless because no one that buys these processors actually run them like that and if you test them with supertuned timings you're just testing how binned your sample is.

 

[Gaiff]

6000MT/S is already above Intel spec. And above this, it's likely to be necessary to tweak voltages and impedances.
People who buy a 13900K are not all overlockers. Most of them will not be. And they don't know or care about pushing super high memory overclocks.

Seriously, 7200MTs makes sense for enthusiast overclocking. It matters if you wanna get those 3-4-5% in competitive benchmarking. It won't make a damn difference in gaming.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I expected more from these 3d chips. And they are going to be quite expensive too.

Really happy with my 13900ks and 7200mhz memory.

 

[64bitmodels]

You can get it from Microcenter for $529 in the US:

Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake 3.0GHz Twenty Four-Core LGA 1700 Boxed Processor - Heatsink Not Included - Micro Center

Get it now! 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900K desktop processor. Featuring Intel Adaptive Boost Technology, Intel Thermal Velocity Boost, Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, and PCIe 5.0 & 4.

www.microcenter.com

He meant in tdp lol

 

[Topher]

He meant in tdp lol

I was reading DaGwaphics post about price/performance and then his.....

 

[Leonidas]

Lol no 6000MTs isn't slow. 4800 is. No one pays 50% more for 7200MTs for 3% better performance. Most games aren't that memory sensitive and furthermore, this kind of RAM really only helps in more CPU-bound scenarios. At 4K which is where most will use their 4090, 6000 vs 7200 will perform the same.

4800 is the slowest DDR5 I've seen on sale. DDR5 6000 is midrange speeds, but it's slow for a high end Intel rig. No reputable review showed 13900K with only DDR5 6000.

You don't have to get the highest speed stuff. 32 GB DDR5 6800 can be had for under $200.

Buying DDR5 6000 for 13900K is like buying DDR4 3000 for a 10900K. It's a slow speed for high end Intel.

Dude, WTF are you talking about? Buying a 13900K with 6000MTs memory makes perfect sense.

I prefer well-known sources like this



Yes, it's not a huge difference, but when AMD is talking about only 5.6-6% faster, every % matters.

6000MT/S is already above Intel spec.

Intel DDR spec is low. That's like saying "DDR4 3000 is above Intel spec, everyone who bought a 10900K should pair it with DDR4 3000 since that is above Intel spec."

No one says that. Why would you pair a high end Intel rig with such limited memory?

 

[phant0m]

is high end cpu worth anything for gaming other than insane fps nowadays? seems most things aren't CPU-bound anymore

my 3600X plays pretty much everything modern at least 60fps if not 90fps. i just replaced it with a 5800X3D for RPCS3 emulation and to future-proof this X470 mobo for another 2-3 years, but I still use RTSS to framecap at 100 on my 1440p monitor

 

[winjer]

4800 is the slowest DDR5 I've seen on sale. DDR5 6000 is midrange speeds, but it's slow for a high end Intel rig. No reputable review showed 13900K with only DDR5 6000.

You don't have to get the highest speed stuff. 32 GB DDR5 6800 can be had for under $200.

Buying DDR5 6000 for 13900K is like buying DDR4 3000 for a 10900K. It's a slow speed for high end Intel.


I prefer well-known sources like this



Yes, it's not a huge difference, but when AMD is talking about only 5.6-6% faster, every % matters.


Intel DDR spec is low. That's like saying "DDR4 3000 is above Intel spec, everyone who bought a 10900K should pair it with DDR4 3000 since that is above Intel spec."

No one says that. Why would you pair a high end Intel rig with such limited memory?

You can't expect reviews to be made with extreme overclocking, as the vast majority of people will never do that.
The setups have to be made with speeds that are normal for the common person. Otherwise, people will see higher results on the reviews, than what they get in their machines.
Of the total people that will buy all these CPUs, how many do you think will be able to do overclocking to such high speeds. Chances are, it's less than 1%.

BTW, do you know what is the most sold DDR5 kit at amazon? It's a 5600MT's kit.

 

[Gaiff]

4800 is the slowest DDR5 I've seen on sale. DDR5 6000 is midrange speeds, but it's slow for a high end Intel rig. No reputable review showed 13900K with only DDR5 6000.

You don't have to get the highest speed stuff. 32 GB DDR5 6800 can be had for under $200.

Buying DDR5 6000 for 13900K is like buying DDR4 3000 for a 10900K. It's a slow speed for high end Intel.


I prefer well-known sources like this



Yes, it's not a huge difference, but when AMD is talking about only 5.6-6% faster, every % matters.

The "well-known" source ends up with the same conclusion. A whopping 3% performance gain at 1080p on an RTX 4090 and you have the nerve to say that no one pairs a 13900K with DDR 6000MTs when the difference would be less than 2% at 4K while they would shell out a lot more money for the 7200 kit? Also bad advice to suggest buying cheap-ass 7200MTs over quality slower memory.

The cheapest 32GB DDR5 7200MTs is $246 on pcpartpicker. The cheapest 6000MTs kit is $124, almost a 100% price difference. 6000MTs is much cheaper than 7200MTs and will perform virtually identical so no, you're wrong that "no one buys a 13900K with 6000MHz". It's actually much smarter than pissing your money in the wind by buying 7200MTs.

 

[Leonidas]

You can't expect reviews to be made with extreme overclocking, as the vast majority of people will never do that.

Enabling XMP isn't extreme overclocking.

BTW, do you know what is the most sold DDR5 kit at amazon? It's a 5600MT's kit.

That's because it's the cheapest. People who buy 13900K aren't buying bargain basement RAM.

Or at least they shouldn't. It'd be like buying a 10900K and pairing it with 2933...

 

[thuGG_pl]

Oh you forgot that the TDP is just 120W. That's great for that performance. How much is the Intel CPU....

The 7800x3d boost clock seems to be a bit low. It seems more like AMD has artificially limited it, so the bigger more expensive models are always faster.

No, the difference is that 7800x3d has only one CCD with 3d cache which doesn't reach high clocks. The 7900x3d and 7950x3d has two CCDs, one is without the 3d cache, and this one actually clocks faster.

 

[Leonidas]

The "well-known" source ends up with the same conclusion. A whopping 3% performance gain at 1080p on an RTX 4090

Which would cut AMD's claimed improvement over the 13900K by half.

If AMD was 10-15% faster, sure, 3% is nothing. But AMD is claiming only 6% over a gimped Intel rig.

 

[The Skull]

So both top end CPUs are relatively the same? Good, let them slaughter each other competing for our money.

 

[winjer]

Enabling XMP isn't extreme overclocking.

That's because it's the cheapest. People who buy 13900K aren't buying bargain basement RAM.

Or at least they shouldn't. It'd be like buying a 10900K and pairing it with 2933...

Enabling XMP is not just about the speed the memory can achieve.
It's a mixture of the memory, the memory controller on the CPU and the motherboard.

Most people who buy a CPU, even if it's a 13900K, don't care about overclocking. We are a very small minority.
For the vast majority of people, 6000MT/s is pretty good already. And it's already an overclock over the Intel spec.

 

[Gaiff]

Which would cut AMD's claimed improvement over the 13900K by half.

If AMD was 10-15% faster, sure, 3% is nothing. But AMD is claiming only 6% over a gimped Intel rig.

Don't really care about AMD trying to portray themselves in a good light. Everyone does that. I simply took issue with your stance that pairing a 13900K with 6000MTs is somehow a crime.

 

[Leonidas]

Don't really care about AMD trying to portray themselves in a good light. Everyone does that. I simply took issue with your stance that pairing a 13900K with 6000MTs is somehow a crime.

It's no different than someone pairing 10900K with DDR4 3000. You could do it, but why would you. You already spent a lot on the CPU, why pair it with what is basically now standard speed RAM. 6400 is only a few dollars more than 6000. 6800 isn't crazy expensive.

If you're paying $600+ for an Intel CPU, why would you pair it with standard RAM?

 

[Gaiff]

It's no different than someone pairing 10900K with DDR4 3000. You could do it, but why would you. You already spent a lot on the CPU, why pair it with what is basically now standard speed RAM. 6400 is only a few dollars more than 6000. 6800 isn't crazy expensive.

If you're paying $600+ for an Intel CPU, why would you pair it with standard RAM?

No, it's not. Stop saying nonsense. You showed a 3% difference at 1080p on a 4090. That difference will be less than 2% at 4K. Probably less than even 1%. Why would I pay more for your 7200MTs for the same performance? Your stance is basically "if you buy a 13900K, it's fine to piss your money away" which is ridiculous.

Just because someone buys high-end stuff doesn't mean they have to be an idiot with their money which is what you're proposing.

 

[Leonidas]

Most people who buy a CPU, even if it's a 13900K, don't care about overclocking. We are a very small minority.
For the vast majority of people, 6000MT/s is pretty good already. And it's already an overclock over the Intel spec.

I never said DDR5 6000 wasn't good, it is good for most people (with midrange CPUs). I would recommend it for many midrange DDR5 builds. But not for the i9.

It makes no sense for the i9. You're going to spend that much money for an i9 yet you are going to gimp it with cheap RAM? The i9 is the fastest gaming CPU, the cheaper the RAM you pair it with the slower it performs. Anyone buying an i9 should get the fastest RAM that they can, IMO.

If not why not just stick with a midrange CPU and save hundreds of dollars?

 

[Celcius]

For everyone saying 6ghz memory is slow for intel, what is considered normal?
Just curious

 

[Leonidas]

No, it's not. Stop saying nonsense.

AMD claims 6% at 1080p, 4090.

With the 3% extra the faster RAM brings AMD is now only 3% faster. That's half. That's all I'm saying.

Add in the 13900KS and by AMD's own numbers we're looking at marginal improvement.

It's not looking too good for the 7950X3D when it's only marginally faster than the fastest gaming CPU of today.

For everyone saying 6ghz memory is slow for intel, what is considered normal?
Just curious

It's slow for the i9. You spend $600+ on the best CPU yet you can't pair it with fast RAM?

DDR5 6800 is the minimum I'd put on an i9.

 

[Gaiff]

AMD claims 6% at 1080p, 4090.

Don't care.

With the 3% extra the faster RAM brings AMD is now only 3% faster. That's half. That's all I'm saying.

No, that's not all you're saying. This is what you're saying as well:

It makes no sense for the i9. You're going to spend that much money for an i9 yet you are going to gimp it with cheap RAM? The i9 is the fastest gaming CPU, the cheaper the RAM you pair it with the slower it performs. Anyone buying an i9 should get the fastest RAM that they can, IMO

And why would I do that when the 7200MTs is 3% faster at 1080p? It's gonna perform the exact same at 4K so why would I follow your advice? Simply because I have the best CPU means I should just be stupid and waste my money for no gains? You're saying here it makes no sense to pair a 13900K with 6000MTs yet HU suggests the exact opposite; it makes no sense to buy the 7200MTs kit because it performs the same.

 

[winjer]

I never said DDR5 6000 wasn't good, it is good for most people (with midrange CPUs). I would recommend it for many midrange DDR5 builds. But not for the i9.

It makes no sense for the i9. You're going to spend that much money for an i9 yet you are going to gimp it with cheap RAM? The i9 is the fastest gaming CPU, the cheaper the RAM you pair it with the slower it performs. Anyone buying an i9 should get the fastest RAM that they can, IMO.

If not why not just stick with a midrange CPU and save hundreds of dollars?

What you are saying makes sense, but only in the perspective of an overclocker.
Normal people won't go to the trouble of overclocking memory.

 

[nightmare-slain]

I'd like to get a 13900K but their mounting mechanism is causing temperature issues and you need to buy a 3rd party mount and also I'd need to buy a completely new CPU cooler.

I don't give a fuck about the benchmarks. I'll be buying the 7950X3D.

Also, RAM speeds don't tell the full picture. 5600 CL28 ram can perform similar to 6400 CL32 ram and better than 6000 CL40. AMD can run at lower frequency as it prefers tighter timings. you can't really compare two different architectures when it comes to RAM (and amount of cores). 7950X3D has 16/32 cores and 13900K has 24/32 (8p/16e).

 

[Leonidas]

And why would I do that when the 7200MTs is 3% faster at 1080p? It's gonna perform the exact same at 4K so why would I follow your advice? Simply because I have the best CPU means I should just be stupid and waste my money for no gains? You're saying here it makes no sense to pair a 13900K with 6000MTs yet HU suggests the exact opposite; it makes no sense to buy the 7200MTs kit because it performs the same.

If you're a gamer that doesn't care about the highest gaming performance why would you buy the i9 in the first place?

If you're gaming at 4K where you're more GPU limited why are you even buying more than an i5?

What you are saying makes sense, but only in the perspective of an overclocker.
Normal people won't go to the trouble of overclocking memory.

I know most people don't overclock, that's why I say enable XMP.

 

[winjer]

I know most people don't overclock, that's why I say enable XMP.

XMP is not a magic bullet that solves everything. At higher speeds the user will have to start fiddling with voltages and impedances.
Normal people do not do that.

 

[Gaiff]

If you're a gamer that doesn't care about the highest gaming performance why would you buy the i9 in the first place?

If you're gaming at 4K where you're more GPU limited why are you even buying more than an i5?

Because the 13900K is appreciably faster than other CPUs in multitasking and the fastest in gaming to boot. It has its place and just because you buy it shouldn't mean that you should buy things that literally won't affect performance. The 13700K is generally a more sensible choice if all you care about is gaming but not everyone only games.

 

[Leonidas]

XMP is not a magic bullet that solves everything. At higher speeds the user will have to start fiddling with voltages and impedances.
Normal people do not do that.

Even if we stuck to the DDR5 spec, Intel is faster than AMD.

5600 vs. 5200.

Or do people have time to click a few buttons in BIOS in AMD, but not Intel?

Because the 13900K is appreciably faster than other CPUs in multitasking and the fastest in gaming to boot. It has its place and just because you buy it shouldn't mean that you should buy things that literally won't affect performance. The 13700K is generally a more sensible choice if all you care about is gaming but not everyone only games.

I'm talking about gaming performance which is what this thread is about.

You buy 13900K because it's the fastest today, you don't then gimp it with DDR5 6000.

 

[winjer]

Even if we stuck to the DDR5 spec, Intel is faster than AMD.

5600 vs. 5200.

Or do people have time to click a few buttons in BIOS in AMD, but not Intel?

Like I said, all those CPUs are overclocked with 6000 MT/s memory.

 

[Dural]

AMD claims 6% at 1080p, 4090.

With the 3% extra the faster RAM brings AMD is now only 3% faster. That's half. That's all I'm saying.

Add in the 13900KS and by AMD's own numbers we're looking at marginal improvement.

It's not looking too good for the 7950X3D when it's only marginally faster than the fastest gaming CPU of today.


It's slow for the i9. You spend $600+ on the best CPU yet you can't pair it with fast RAM?

DDR5 6800 is the minimum I'd put on an i9.

The higher speed DDR5 isn't getting you what you think, the higher speed ram also comes with higher latency and in gaming that affects the framerate.

In some productivity situations that high bandwidth will win, but in gaming, which we're talking about here, the lower latency ram is better.

 

[Gaiff]

Even if we stuck to the DDR5 spec, Intel is faster than AMD.

5600 vs. 5200.

Or do people have time to click a few buttons in BIOS in AMD, but not Intel?


I'm talking about gaming performance which is what this thread is about.

You buy 13900K because it's the fastest today, you don't then gimp it with DDR5 6000, unless you don't care about the fastest performance, at which point you're better off with a lower end CPU.

It's not gimped. Stop wasting everyone's time with your bullshit claims. Stop telling people to go buy 7200MTs memory when it performs the same in games. Furthermore, tighter timing matters more with high-end memory.

 

[Leonidas]

The higher speed DDR5 isn't getting you what you think

You showed one graph. It helps a bit in some games. 3% on average isn't much but some games see bigger gains than others.

If you pair the 13900K with DDR5 6000 you are limiting its performance.

It's not gimped.

It is. If it wasn't everyone would review AMD and Intel with the same RAM.

 

[Dural]

You showed one graph. It helps a bit in some games. 3% on average isn't much but some games see bigger gains than others.

If you pair the 13900K with DDR5 6000 you are limiting its performance.


It is. If it wasn't everyone would review AMD and Intel with the same RAM.

6000 CL30 and 6800 CL34 perform very similar, in some games 6000 wins and in others 6800 wins.

There's no 3% gap like you're suggesting.

 

[Gaiff]

6000 CL30 and 6800 CL34 perform very similar, in some games 6000 wins and in others 6800 wins.



There's no 3% gap like you're suggesting.

You're wasting your time. He's butthurt because they didn't use 7200MTs memory for the 13900K and makes stupid claims that no one pairs a 13900K with 6000MTs memory because it "gimps it" when the difference at 1080p according to HU is 3%. At 4K, it would probably be less than 1 or 2%, making purchasing 7200MTs memory a waste of money.