ADATA XPG V2 Review: 2x8 GB at DDR3-2400 C11-13-13 1.65 V
by Ian Cutress on November 11, 2013 1:00 PM ESTOverclocking
When 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, test a range of sub-timings (e.g. 10-12-12 to 13-15-15 to 8-10-10) and find the best MHz theses are rated.
There is plenty of scope to overclock beyond this, such as adjusting voltages or the voltage of the memory controller – for the purposes of this test we raise the memory voltage to the ‘next stage’ above its rated voltage (1.35V to 1.5V, 1.5V to 1.65V, 1.65V to 1.72V). 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 Linpack test within OCCT for five minutes as well as the PovRay benchmark. 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:
| Test | PovRay | OCCT |
| XMP | 1608.97 | 78C |
|---|---|---|
| XMP, 2T to 1T | 1619.52 | 76C |
| 2600 11-13-13 | 1622.18 | 77C |
| 2666 11-13-13 | 1609.28 | 76C |
| 2800 11-13-13 | No Boot | No Boot |
Being able to adjust two memory strap options above XMP is actually very good showing. Other kits tested in house have trouble doing one step, let alone two.
| Subtimings | Peak MHz | PovRay | OCCT | Final PI |
| 7-9-9 | 1600 | 1618.42 | 76C | 229 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8-10-10 | 1866 | 1601.58 | 77C | 233 |
| 9-11-11 | 2133 | 1610.20 | 76C | 237 |
| 10-12-12 | 2400 | 1589.52 | 77C | 240 |
| 11-13-13 | 2666 | 1616.01 | 77C | 242 |
| 12-14-14 | 2666 | 1620.62 | 77C | 222 |
| 13-15-15 | 2800 | 1608.01 | 77C | 215 |
A peak PI of 242 is a good result, showing that there is some headroom from the basic settings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
The Von Matrices - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
The silly part is that this is marketed as "gaming" memory while its advantages in gaming on a discrete GPU are minimal. It should be marketed as accelerating applications, which would be a much more reasonable statement. I bought 2400MHz memory not because I play games but because I perform encoding and file compression on my PC, and that is a situation where fast memory makes a difference.As far as making a recommendation on value, Ian stated (and I agree) that memory prices are very volatile. It's basically impossible to make a lasting value comparison on memory because of this. What is a great deal today could be eclipsed next week by a dramatic price decrease of a faster, better product. I agree with Ian omitting a value comparison because it would be pointless a month after the article is posted. However, the performance comparisons of different memory speeds and timings are still of value.
I think the general conclusion he stated is still of value - buy something faster than DDR3-1600 but don't spend too much money because the performance increase is minimal beyond that.
DanNeely - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
Are any of your planned reviews going to look at the impact of timing relaxation needed to run 4 dimms instead of 2? Having bumped off 12GB a few times I'm now running 18 in my aging i7-920 box; and with both my browsers (Opera, FF) having multi-process upgrades forthcoming that will let them expand beyond the 4GB barrier I've decided on 4x8gb for my new system.The Von Matrices - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
I don't understand why you're creating a new term "performance index" instead of just using the more standard time to first word (in ns). It would behave exactly in reverse to your "performance index" with lower times being better but otherwise the comparison would be the same.ShieTar - Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - link
I agree. Its not only more standard, it is also physically more meaningful, and can be adapted to describe the performance of software with known algorithms E.g. if your ramdisk is reading 512-Byte-sectors from memory, its performance will scale with the "time to get a full sector".But of course, frequency is also a much more useful parameter to distinguish electromagnetic signal than wavelength, and you still can't get anybody who learned their field on wavelength to give it up. Once people start to think within certain terms, they are very stubborn about changing definitions.
whyso - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
If you run IGP benchmarks can you please run at something relevant? 11 fps is not relevant.cmdrdredd - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
Still with these big heatsinks on the memory? I almost have to use the low profile Samsung stuff because of my Noctua cooler not allowing much clearance.meacupla - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
I think these unnecessarily tall RAM heatsinks are still being made, because the manufacturers think people will use CLC CPU coolers instead of a dual tower heatsink.or maybe they think the only people who will buy this type of RAM are people with real water cooling loops.
or maybe they are for LNG overclocking contests or something.
Either way, if the customer is sensible enough to buy a tower heatsink in the first place, I'm sure they would also be sensible and buy some lower profile, 1600Mhz or 1866Mhz CAS8 or CAS9 RAM, instead of overkill 2400Mhz.
DanNeely - Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - link
giant ramsinks long predate CLCs. For that matter I'm fairly sure they predate tower style heatsinks as well.Hood6558 - Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - link
Overkill is best, sensible decisions are for Grandma's email machine...Kamus - Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - link
Some battlefield 4 tests would've been nice... According to corsair, 2400 memory was giving up to 20% better performance than 1333.mbut I've yet to see another test like that one to corroborate.