Back to Article

  • DoctorBooze - Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - link

    I'm a bit mystified why there's any better performance at any speed over dual-channel DDR2-533 - is it just because the CPU ended up overclocked?

    Am I right in thinking that CAS 2 for DDR2-533 is the same amount of time as CAS 4 for DDR2-1066?

    Also, what's performance like with a single-channel setup using DDR2-1066 since that would also theoretically be a 1:1 configuration, wouldn't it?
  • Calin - Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - link

    The improved performance is based on the fact that RAM is no longer random access memory - it is faster to bring several kilobytes of data forming a single block than to bring several kilobytes of data from separated areas of the memory. And, while the speed to bring 1024 bytes, each 4 bytes from a different area of the memory means that each access is made with delay of (CAS2 + RAS2 + ... + tRAS) multiplied by memory clock is the same as CAS4 + RAS4 + ... + tRAS for a memory that has twice the speed, if you bring a single block, you only need CAS and RAS once, and the rest comes at memory clock, one block at a clock. So, if you make long transfers, you can almost forget about CAS and RAS, and only use the memory speed.
    So, faster memory with higher CAS (Column Address Select) and RAS (Row Adress Select) timings will still move loads of data faster, even if single bytes will go as fast as with slower memory with lower CAS and RAS

    What is CAS and RAS?
    A memory is a huge space of addresses. However, you can not access all those addresses at the same time - memory is accessed in blocks formed by rows and columns. In order to access data from memory, you must be in the correct block (row and column). Once in a block, the data from memory can be read by simple commands (selection of address). If the row, column or both changes, the memory must change the block it shows - so, here are the CAS and RAS timings needed for the memory to select a different block.
  • Visual - Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - link

    ... or amasingly complex
    im just standing here and boggling at the complexity of overclocking intel systems. well, it turns out just as simple as amd when i think about it, but the mem ratios that allow the ram to run faster than the cpu fsb (as opposed to only slower like on the athlons) kinda make it too weird to assimilate :p
    and with ratios,fsb/cpu/mem frequencies,timings and whatnot to consider at once it does get messy for someone unexperienced like me.

    its interesting to see the significant performance differences that the proper settings can bring. in particular, it looks like with a fast memory like this and a proper oc one can get a good 20-30% above stock in gaming performance, and so can match amd systems even with the netburst cpus. who made me think netburst was dead?

    also it makes me think if the conroe benches weren't ran with something like this - very fast memory, low latencies, overclocked fsb. cant be bothered to look for your old article on it though, i'll just wait for the next benches to come up.
  • Calin - Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - link

    My ECS K7S5A (built somewhere in 2002 probably) could run my Duron 600 processor at 100 or 133 FSB, and the memory at 100 or 133 FSB for SDR or 200 and 266 for DDR, independent on each other.
    This is not something new. I remember older systems having the same possibilities.
    The Athlons (Socket A Athlons) were able to run memory faster than the FSB, however, there was an important performance loss because of the increased latency. In some cases, an Athlon on 100MHz FSB was slower with 133MHz memory than with 100MHz memory, as the increased bandwidth advantage was negated by increase in latency
  • Jjoshua2 - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    On page three HL2 is reported as over 850 fps on 1:2. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    We reran and updated the Half life 2 - Lost Coast results after the article was published. The enthusiastic typing error is now corrected. Reply
  • Barbarossa - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    Wow, looks fast. I have to wonder if it's available anywhere though. I followed all your links at the top of the article, but those take me to different parts than the one you reviewed, and a quick search at Newegg, ZipZoomFly, and TigerDirect shows that nobody has it in stock.

    Does this part actually exist or is this just a cherry-picked press release part?
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    This memory is currently available at and possibly other sites. More info is at">

    It is incredibly expensive at $560 for the 2GB kit.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    It's a brand new part, and it's not yet in our pricing engine. The links at the top are generated by key words from our pricing engine and do not always bring up the appropriate parts. The part numbers you'll want are:

    1x512: OCZ2P1000512EE
    2x512: OCZ2P10001GEEK
    1x1024: OCZ2P10001GEE
    2x1024: OCZ2P10002GEEK

    Availability should commence shortly.
  • Missing Ghost - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link



  • plewis00 - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    If Half-Life 2 was producing anomalous results why didn't you replace it when you suspected a problem with some other game instead. Because haven't you now voided your HL2 benchmarks effectively? Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    The HL2 Lost Coast results were consistnet for this round of tests, but they did not compare well to earlier test results. We have now discovered the benchmarking issue and the HL2 results will be updated as soon as testing is complete.

    Earlier tests were run with HDR (High Dynamic Range) enabled, while current tests were run with HDR disabled. We are now testing with HDR enabled.
  • Avalon - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    You guys need to do something about those memory setting charts. The ones where you display the different timings you could achieve at different FSB settings for a particular memory...mainly, the part where you have "highest performance" I find misleading, because you have increased the CPU speed, so it almost makes it look like the performance results you have next to the settings are getting a huge boost in performance by going from one setting to the next, when it's really the CPU speed causing that.

    Maybe make a note on the chart stating that at highest performance mode, the CPU speed has been increased.

    Other than that, not a bad review. Good memory, it seems.
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    The information on which values were overclocked was already in the table, but we revised the chart to try to make the Overclocked values stand out more and to clearly identify the stock performance speeds and values. Reply
  • SnoMunke - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    Interesting about the grammar...

    "OCZ EL PC2-8000 is the best performing DDR2 memory we have ever tested, clearly outperforming any DDR2 that has been tested at AnandTech."
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, April 03, 2006 - link

    An edited sentence and the original sentence got accidentally combined. Thanks for pointing this out. It is now corrected. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now