Performance of non-ECC vs. ECC memory

[classic35mm]

I am not a computer expert, at all. I am not an IT person. I am a scientist looking for a system that can capably run simulations on up to 8 threads. These simulations will run for several days at most (i.e., not for months at a time).

I hate crashes and blue screens as much as the next guy, but I can't really call my applications "mission critical." I do need a system that, as I said, can run simulations in parallel for several days at a time without crashing.

Should I consider ECC memory? Or is ECC memory really practically necessary for only servers that run 24/7 and for medical and aircraft control systems and the like? It's not like I'm going to render Toy Story 4 on my system, by any means, either. Since I'm not a computer expert, when I read technical articles and discussions, I have difficulty putting into context how useful ECC memory can be.

Another question is about performance. This website says that ECC memory is slower than non-ECC memory, by about 2%. For my applications, 2% slower does not seem bad.

But now suppose I compare two memory sticks that have different clock frequencies. Here are two systems that I am considering. The first system has a Core i7-4790 processor, which doesn't support ECC memory; Lenovo offers 1600 MHz memory with it. The second system has a Xeon E5-1620 v3 processor, which does support ECC; Lenovo offers 2133 MHz memory with it.

Lenovo ThinkStation P300 Tower Workstation
Intel Core i7-4790 Processor (8MB Cache, base frequency 3.6 GHz, max turbo frequency 4.0 GHz)
8GB PC3 1600MHz uDIMM

Lenovo ThinkStation P500 Tower Workstation
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Processor (10MB Cache, base frequency 3.5 GHz, max turbo frequency 3.6 GHz)
8GB DDR4 2133MHz ECC RDIMM

Assuming that the two processors give similar performance (which is a big assumption), how will the performance of the 2133 MHz ECC memory compare with that of the 1600 MHz non-ECC memory? Or, since the types of memory are different, am I comparing apples to oranges? (But, even if I am, could you please give me a very rough idea of what to expect?)

Thanks so much for your time!

 

[Viper GTS]

This might help you:

http://ark.intel.com/compare/82763,80806

What's relevant here is the overall bandwidth the CPU is capable of (assuming all memory channels fully populated with the fastest memory the CPU supports).

From what you've described ECC memory is entirely appropriate for your needs. Additionally, if you are routinely running projects that use 8 threads you should really be looking at a dual-socket workstation platform (which will necessitate Xeon). These are both quad core processors and you would likely benefit from having another CPUs worth of physical cores/cache.

Viper GTS

 

[zir_blazer]

You may want to read this, my very first Post in this forum.

I don't know if anyone did a proper, in-depth test of equivalent non-ECC and ECC DDR3. Since ECC is implemented as another DRAM chip on the module, you could technically have near identical versions of a module which could be properly benchmarked to test the ECC overhead. The closest that you could get would be identical IC, its binning, ranks, Frequency and Timmings, just that the non-ECC module would have 8 DRAM ICs per rank and the ECC one 9.
You can have DDR3 ECC support on LGA 1150 platforms, but you need to use a Xeon E3 V3 (Which are pretty much identical to regular Haswells just with a different set of features turned on. Only Devil's Canyon could be considered better, which the plain Core i7 4790 non K is not), and a Motherboard with C Series Chipset (Not sure if ONLY those). The second computer you posted uses a LGA 2011-3 platform with DDR4 ECC, and would be ridiculous more expensive than a Xeon E3 V3 with ECC DDR3 and a Workstation Motherboard. Also, DDR4 and DDR3 speeds aren't directly comparable since DDR4 have higher Timmings.