Corsair 3200XL PRO

Corsair has introduced 3200 Xtreme Low Latency modules in both their regular Black or Platinum heatspreaders and as the PRO version with activity LEDs on top of the module. All 3200XL modules are double-sided 512MB DIMMs sold as a matched pair and rated at DDR3200 2-2-2-5. Corsair claims a very wide range of available overclocks to about DDR500 with typical DDR500 timings of 2.5-3-3-7.

Test DIMMs were a matched pair of 3200XL PRO with the activity LEDs.




Click to enlarge.


We first saw the LEDs in our review of Corsair XMS4000 PRO. Corsair uses the PRO designation to indicate LED activity lights on the memory, but otherwise the 3 memories appear to be the same capacity and using the same Samsung memory chips.



While the Samsung chips used in the new 3200XL are actually rated at DDR500, Corsair has chosen to highlight their outstanding 2-2-2 performance capabilities at DDR400. The SPD is also optimized for fast DDR400 performance.

Corsair 3200XL Specifications


 Corsair 3200XL Memory Specifications
Number of DIMMs & Banks 2 DS
DIMM Size
Total Memory
512 MB
1 GB
Rated Timings 2-2-2 at DDR400
Rated Voltage 2.75V

The only specification that might prevent using 2-2-2 in all systems is the specified 2.75V rated voltage at DDR400. Most high-end motherboards can provide this voltage, but some mainstream motherboards do not have adjustable voltage, and default memory voltage is 2.5V on many boards. You should check your specifications to make sure that you can support the voltage needs of the new 3200XL modules.

Index Samsung PC4000
Comments Locked

11 Comments

View All Comments

  • Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - link

    Good article again, Wesley. Pity its not DDR500 at 2-2-2. I'm still holding off upgrading. I wouldnt trust that VIA chipset with the Corsair RAM. Plenty of people run their memory outside SPD specs withot problems. And don't give up on the i875 yet. There's a lot of issues with DDR2 and 915/925. I notice that ABIT have brought out a Sckt775 865 mobo. Hmm I wonder why?

    Also the P4/i875 seems to equal or better the S939 a64 in unbuffered sandra which I wouldnt have expected because of the on die a64 mem. controller etc.. Then in the buffered test the a64 clearly gets the upper hand which again is a suprise as many of the buffers are associated with MMX/SSE/SSE2 where the a64s are supposed to be weaker. I only trust the unbufferd tests but this may explain the fact that the FX chips beat the P4s on memory bandwidth but were behind on the bandwidth intensive encoding tests.

    In the one test (Samsung mem.) where you test the a64 at different bus speeds (200&240MHz), the gaming results were equal or worse in the game tests despite an ~85 increase in mem. bandwidth ! Unfortunately you had different memory timings but it reinforces the importance of latency reduction rather than bandwidth for gaming performance.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now