G.Skill TridentX Review: 2x4GB at DDR3-2666 C11-13-13 1.65V
by Ian Cutress on October 28, 2012 12:00 PM ESTWhen it comes to memory overclocking, there are several ways to approach the issue. Typically memory overclocking is rarely required - only those attempting to run benchmarks need worry about pushing the memory to its uppermost limits. It also depends highly on the memory kits being used - memory is similar to processors in the fact that the ICs are binned to a rated speed. The higher the bin, the better the speed - however if there is a demand for lower speed memory, then the higher bin parts may be declocked to increase supply of the lower clocked component. Similarly, for the high end frequency kits, less than 1% of all ICs tested may actually hit the speed of the kit, hence the price for these kits increase exponentially.
With this in mind, there are several ways a user can approach overclocking memory. The art of overclocking memory can be as complex or as simple as the user would like - typically the dark side of memory overclocking requires deep in-depth knowledge of how memory works at a fundamental level. For the purposes of this review, we are taking overclocking in three different scenarios:
a) From XMP, adjust Command Rate from 2T to 1T
b) From XMP, increase Memory Speed strap (e.g. 1333 MHz -> 1400 -> 1600)
c) From XMP, decrease main sub-timings (e.g. 10-12-12 to 9-11-11 to 8-10-10)
There is plenty of scope to overclock beyond this, such as adjusting voltages or the voltage of the memory controller. As long as a user is confident with adjusting these settings, then there is a good chance that the results here will be surpassed. There is also the fact that individual sticks of memory may perform better than the rest of the kit, or that one of the modules could be a complete dud and hold the rest of the kit back. For the purpose of this review we are seeing if the memory out of the box, and the performance of the kit as a whole, will work faster at the rated voltage.
In order to ensure that the kit is stable at the new speed, we run the memory test within OCCT for five minutes. This is a small but thorough test, and we understand that users may wish to stability test for longer to reassure themselves of a longer element of stability. However for the purposes of throughput, a five minute test will catch immediate errors from the overclocking of the memory.
With this in mind, the kit performed as follows:
F3-2666C11D-8GTXD – 2x4 GB rated at DDR3-2666 11-13-13-35 2T 1.65 volts
Adjusting from 2T to 1T: Passes Linpack
Adjusting from 2666 to 2800: Passes Linpack
Adjusting from 2800 to 2933: No Boot
Adjusting from 11-13-13 to 10-12-12: Fails Linpack
It should be noted that overclockers are getting very good results from these high end G.Skill kits – the fact that I was able to push this kit from 2666 C11 to 2800 C11 with nothing more than changing the memory strap is great. G.Skill inform me that a lot of these kits will do 10-12-12 with a small voltage increase as well, taking performance a stage higher. In fact, as part of my hobby of competitive overclocking, I have got this memory to 2950 MHz C11-13-13 by pushing some more voltage into the kit.
I wonder if this means that there may be recourse for manufacturers to release kits with a 1.75 volt profile, especially if it pushes the performance a little. Then again, it is still debatable if the majority of users will see the performance increase.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
28 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link
ditto, they're ridiculous. older g.skill memory (2008-2011) had a clean, effective design, this is pretty childish.primonatron - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link
Why keep posting photos of RAM with heat spreaders not fitting on the mini-ITX board in reviews? The board is obviously not designed to accomodate them, and to keep posting the pictures just looks like the reviewer is stupid and hasn't learnt that yet. It even says under the photos the review is on an ASUS P8Z77-V Premium. A proper full size ATX, is what the companies would expect buyers to be using.just4U - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link
It gives the user an idea (perhaps?) of how it will fit in their own setup if their using a large cooler. It sort of does need to be mentioned (almost as a disclaimer) for any buyers looking at ram when their system is in need of something with heatsinks of a lower profile.JeauxBleaux - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link
and both have wasted vast amounts of page space and my time showing memory stick profiles that won't fit on a motherboard that was never intended to carry those sticks in the first place. Memory sticks may or may not have a tall profile due to their heatsink(s) but may also have fan kits mounted on them in the absence of huge heatsinks.What is the point of that? The author's choice of motherboard and massive cooling tower obviously preclude the use of most high performance memory w/heatsinks and/or fan kits and would certainly lead me to believe that the author has little experience in thoughtfully putting together a "system" in which all components play well together.
So, while I appreciate the benchmarks the author displays and the consideration that has gone in to the testing of these memory sticks, a more appropriate representation of the ill fit of these particular memory sticks would be a simple one-liner and maybe ONE picture of what NOT to try to mount them in. Because, seriously, it makes the author look like he/she is simply trying to make the maufacturer look and only succeeding in making himself/herself look ignorant.
just4U - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link
It doesn't matter if it was meant for a low end setup or now.. there are alot of higher end boards that won't allow for that clearance either when paired with certain coolers.bunnyfubbles - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link
part me wishes that faster memory could actually make a difference in real world performance, the other part is thankful I need no more than the low profile Samsung 30nm green stuff :)GhostClocking3 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link
If you're willing to spend the money for better RAM you should easily be able to afford to go water to make it fit. That ultimately led me to have to switch since air cooler had to get larger to to cool more effectively.I don't blame anandtech for showing the RAM fitting, that is probably the most frequently asked question ever. Does it fit, blah, blah, blah.
Tchamber - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link
So if so many of these kits have clearance issues, and don't generate a lot of heat, why are the spreaders so tall? So they can charge more? Or do the aesthetics really sell?Guspaz - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link
This review (and the one that preceded it) really just go to illustrate how pointless all this is. Clockspeed, latency, the differences in these don't translate to any significant difference in real-world performance. There's not much point, it would seem, in buying anything beyond something cheap and reliable (KVR if you don't want heatsinks, basic HyperX if you do). Any extra money spent on top of that would have been far better spent on a faster CPU.So, if you've got 16GB of RAM, you can pay $70 for KVR, or $80 for HyperX... Or you can pay $340 for the RAM reviewed here
And you know what? There's no real performance difference in real-world applications. Oh, sure, you see a percentage point or two here and there, but you know what will give you a much bigger boost for your extra $260? Getting a faster CPU or GPU. Those will make a FAR bigger difference than the RAM.
Guspaz - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link
I think the point of my comment above is "Please stop reviewing useless memory kits and review something that actually matters."Reviewing these things is a waste of everybody's time, both yours and ours.