Back to Article

  • Reapsy00 - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link

    I just got this ram for my nforce2 system :D Reply
  • Auric - Monday, April 11, 2005 - link

    Article seems to imply these are new but they have been available since last Autumn. Also, they are tested at five performance ratings, not two, which eliminates much of the messin' when overclocking the FSB/CPU.
  • chennhui - Sunday, April 10, 2005 - link

    Dear Wesley Fink, May I know the memory timing used for PDP at highest performance 315, i.e. tRFC, tRRD, tWR,tWTR, tRTW, tREF, DQS, Drive strenght ect. If it is set to Auto, could you please read the value with Athlon64 Tweaker? :-) Does 315MHz 1:1 passed memtest test 8 and prime95 stress test? This is because I am running PDP stable at 289MHz, 3.0-4-4-10 Thanks. Reply
  • KayKay - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Any idea if this product is sold in Canada? I really like the balance of value and performance. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    #16 - It is XBLK as you found, and the article has been updated. My tests for dyslexia are next week :-) Reply
  • ozzimark - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    It brought a tear to my eye that you guys have already gotten the Everest benchmarks worked into the review. :)
    though, out of curiosity, do you plan to go back with the ram you tested previously on the dfi and add the everest scores to them? i'm sure it'll take up quite a bit of time though :/
  • sonicDivx - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    XBLK is what it is.

    I currently use it an hit the following stable.

    Memory: 280 2.5-3-4-7 2.8v 1:1 ratio

    Wish had the DFI board I think with 2.9 I could hit 290. I have hit 282 with 2.5-4-4 2.85v but that is really the limit. with my NEO2.

    Its nice memory, when I purchased had gotten it for 186 :)
  • wildguy2k - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Dunno if there are 2 different kinds, but throughout the article, you refer to it as XLBK, & the only results I can find price-wise are for XBLK. FYI. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    #9 - The unique appearance of the back of the Brainpower PCB is much clearer in the p.2 photo in our Corsair PC4400 review at

    OR you can direct link the Corsair Brainpower photo at
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    #11 - It should read "Memory Read performance increased about 29% with this 50% speed increase, while Memory Write performance improved by just 17%."

    The review has been corrected.

    #13 - It depends on which Kingston you are talking about. We include two Kingston Value Ram products in next week's Value RAM Roundup.
  • sphinx - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Great article. But, how well does it perform against Kingston. Reply
  • overclockingoodness - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    #10: While I understand how that may be useful in certain articles, I think it would only delay the time of the article. I bet it already takes AnandTech quite a bit of time to produce each article and when they start to add this "Dual-Core" section, I don't think it will really work out.

    Besides, it would start to get pretty annoying after a while. They might as well do a short piece on memory and how it effects dual-core. A seperate article may be cool, but I don't think I would want a dual-core section in memory reviews or anything else.
  • mariush - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Something is wrong here ( page 4 )

    While maintaining a constant CPU Speed of 2.4GHz, we measured the impact of increasing the Memory Speed from 200 to 300, a 50% increase. Memory Write performance increased about 29% with this 50% speed increase, while Memory Write performance improved by just 17%.
  • Determinant - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Hey guys (AnandTech staff),

    Just want to say that I've recently been really impressed with the quality and thought that goes into your articles.

    I have a suggestion; Now that dual cores are upon us, I think that it would be a really good idea to have a new section in each article. The new section would show how the current product being tested allows for more functionality.

    I'll explain: For example, a lot of people have been complaining about the dual core benchmarks saying that it isn't how they use their computer but that's because they have adapted to a single core environment. Alot of people (me included) turn off antivirus & spyware checkers etc when playing a game not because they want to but because it affects their gaming experience.

    So, for example, in memmory reviews, I don't know if memmory affects the functionality on a dual core system (eg. does this faster memmory also allow me to listen to mp3's while gaming)

    Me personally, I will purchase a dual core cpu not because it improves the performance of my current application but only because it allows me to have increased funcionality, less hassle, and a more enjoyable experience (I won't have to worry about stopping my antivirus when going into a game). Of course, more speed is always welcome.

    If interested, I can provide examples of functionality that I would be interested in (eg. things that I would like to be able to accomplish with my computer).

  • mongoosesRawesome - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Considering how depending memory performance is on the actual speed of the CPU for Athlon64 systems, it would seem to me that people should be buying relatively cheap PC3200 Cas 2 ram and running with a divider. You can easily reach 90 percent of the performance without having to use 1:1 divider, as long as your divider and multiplier allow you to reach the same CPU speeds.

    Currently at PC3200 CAS 2-3-2-5 T1

    Also - "As you can see in the photo, there are just 8 small components in a row just above the gold connectors. Other boards for TCCD memory have many more components in this row. " Maybe its just me, but I can't see what you are trying to point out in the small picture. Maybe if you linked to the full size pic?
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    #1 - Supposedly the memory controller runs at the same voltage as the CPU, since it is part of the CPU on the Athlon 64. The memory itself is what runs at 3.3V with VX, and it warranted to 3.5V by OCZ. The fate of the memory controller would therfore be dependent on the voltage used for the CPU. We rarely use more than 1.55V with a CPU with a default of 1.5V.

    #4 - The testing is complete for a Value RAM roundup which will appear next week.

    #6 - Corrected.

    #7 - We have not tested the TwinMOS with the same chips used in OCZ VX, but we have included OCZ Value VX in our upcoming Value RAM Rounup. It costs about $115 for a Gigabyte (2x512) and is made from Winbond UTT chips that have not been binned - like the TwinMOS. You will see how it performs in our Value RAM Roundup.
  • n yusef - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Great article. You guys need to do an article on the new TwinMOS value RAM with the (is Bh-5 or UTT, I forget) Winbond chips though. Reply
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Page 3:

    The website is not
  • Shinei - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Man, DDR630 at reasonable timings... Looks like another nail in DDR2's coffin. I wonder if the RAM could be coerced to tighten up its timings if one was to feed it 3.0 or 3.1 volts instead of 2.9v... Reply
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Still waiting for a comparison against value memory :P Reply
  • Googer - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    Does anyone know of the home page for the company that makes these brainpower pcb's? Reply
  • bupkus - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    It would seem that at least DFI had planned for it. Reply
  • JoKeRr - Friday, April 08, 2005 - link

    first READ!

    question: running VX continually at 3.3+V, will it damage the memory controller in the long term??

    Great review, had a friend with this ram, and it's at DDR600 as well on a A8NSLI DLX.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now