Corsair 4400C25: Taking Samsung TCCD to New Heights
by Wesley Fink on January 4, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Test Results: Corsair XMS4404v1.1
To be considered stable for test purposes, Quake3 benchmark, UT2003 Demo, Super PI, Aquamark 3, and Comanche 4 had to complete without incident. Any of these, and in particular Super PI, will crash a less-than stable memory configuration.AMD Test Results
| Corsair XMS4404v1.1 (DDR550) - 2x512Mb Double-Bank | |||||||
| CPU Ratio at 2.4GHz | Memory Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage |
Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
Wolfenstein - Radar - Enemy Territory fps |
| 12x200 | 400 DDR | 2-3-3-10 2.5V 1T |
501.0 | INT 2641 FLT 2764 |
INT 6051 FLT 601 |
82 | 108.2 |
| 11x218 | 436 DDR | 2-3-3-10 2.6V 1T |
510.1 | INT 2680 FLT 2855 |
INT 6439 FLT 6372 |
81 | 109.7 |
| 10x240 | 480 DDR | 2-3-3-10 2.75V 1T |
522.7 | INT 2903 FLT 3095 |
INT 6684 FLT 6609 |
80 | 112.0 |
| 9x267 | 533 DDR | 2.5-3-3-10 2.75V 1T |
533.3 | INT 3045 FLT 3266 |
INT 6972 FLT 6885 |
78 | 113.3 |
| 8x305 (2.44GHz) |
Highest 1T Mem Speed 610 DDR |
2.5-3-4-10 2.8V 1T |
569.2 | INT 3248 FLT 3467 |
INT 7531 FLT 7441 |
77 | 116.6 |
| 8x318 (2.54GHz) |
Highest 2T Mem Speed 636 DDR |
3-4-4-10 2.85V 2T |
568.7 | INT 3088 FLT 3149 |
INT 7011 FLT 7549 |
76 | 122.6 |
| 9x295 (2.75GHz) |
Highest Performance 590 DDR |
2.5-4-3-10 2.8v 1T |
572.8 | INT 3346 FLT 3538 |
INT 7712 FLT 7549 |
72 | 122.9 |
Corsair handily turns in the highest memory performance that we have yet seen on the Athlon 64. The highest 2T value of DDR636, the Highest 1T value of 610, and the Top Performance of 9x295 at 1T are all records on the AMD platform. It is clear that Corsair aimed for best performance at the top with this DDR550 memory, since performance at DDR400 is not up to the same standards achieved at the top. Corsair says that modules will typically do 2-2-2 timings at DDR400, but the best that we could do at any voltage is 2-3-3 at DDR400. Corsair selected Samsung TCCD chips for absolute best performance at the top and they clearly succeeded in reaching this goal. The compromise was a bit less performance at DDR400 - at least with the modules we tested.
Intel Test Results
| Corsair XMS4404v1.1 (DDR550) - 2x512Mb Double-Bank | ||||||
| Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage |
Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
RCW-ET fps |
| 400DDR 800FSB |
2-3-3-5 2.5V |
331.0 | INT 2720 FLT 2728 |
INT 4457 FLT 4453 |
130 | 70.1 |
| 433DDR 866FSB |
2-3-3-5 2.55V |
358.1 | INT 2910 FLT 2827 |
INT 4784 FLT 4802 |
120 | 77.4 |
| 466DDR 933FSB |
2-3-3-5 2.65V |
384.5 | INT 3107 FLT 3187 |
INT 5162 FLT 5189 |
112 | 83.0 |
| 500DDR 1000FSB |
2-3-3-5 2.75V |
409.1 | INT 3348 FLT 3396 |
INT 5567 FLT 5561 |
104 | 89.6 |
| 533DDR 1066FSB |
2.5-3-3-5 2.75V |
430.3 | INT 3580 FLT 3623 |
INT 5947 FLT 5851 |
98 | 94.9 |
| 572DDR 1144FSB |
2.5-4-4-6 2.85V |
450.1 | INT 3763 FLT 3799 |
INT 6348 FLT 6273 |
93 | 97.8 |
The pattern is similar on the Intel memory platform, although the domination by Corsair at the top of the performance charts is not nearly so clear. Corsair lags the best TCCD memory in performance at DDR400, but by DDR466, the superior high-end performance of Corsair DDR550 has established itself. As speed further increases, the advantage of the Corsair DDR550 widens.
After looking at both Intel and AMD performance results, it is obvious that Corsair has binned Samsung TCCD for this memory with the clear goal of performance at the top. Corsair rating the memory at DDR550 instead of the DDR400 used in most other TCCD memory is clearly justified with this emphasis on the top-end of memory performance. Corsair had to compromise DDR400 performance a bit - at least on the modules that we tested - to achieve the incredible top-end results that we see in these benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
DonCornelius - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
Can anyone tell me why we can't get 2-2-2 timings on 1GB size DIMMs? The only DIMMs I see with this timings are 512MB and 256MB. Is this marketing or a limit on the technology?Live - Thursday, January 6, 2005 - link
If what PrinceGaz is sayimng about memory on the AMD platform is true I think it would warrant some clarification from Anandtech. If money is an object what gives best bang for the buck. Cheap memory and faster CPU or the other way around?PrinceGaz - Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - link
from #20- "#19 - The $82 PQI Turbo stuff at newegg is 2.5-3-3 timing RAM. The cheapest you can get a 2-2-2 512MB stick of RAM at newegg is the Patriot for $107."Given that we've already got a 2.5-3-3 timings with the PQI, and it was the module that at most was 3% slower on memory-bandwidth bound applications with the Athlon 64, I think that answers my question about why budget memory has not been covered.
You may as well save still more money and get brand-name value-products for an AMD box, unless you are going for a high-end overclocking system with an FX-55 where every component is the best in it's class. Even if overclocking you aren't going to suffer because there is no such thing as an asynchronous memory frequency with an Athlon 64 (there is no Northbridge between the CPU and memory) so just set the budget memory to "DDR333" and you'll be fine for overclocking up to about DDR500.
Actually when you combine the S939 Athlon 64's lack of dependence on memory bandwidth with it's onboard memory controller that ensures any memory speed is equally efficient; when building a mid-range Athlon 64 box you may as well just get cheap brand-name DDR400 and run it at what ever speed it is happiest with after overclocking your CPU. Which makes all these high-end memory review articles pointless for all except extreme overclockers.
eetnoyer - Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - link
#19 - The $82 PQI Turbo stuff at newegg is 2.5-3-3 timing RAM. The cheapest you can get a 2-2-2 512MB stick of RAM at newegg is the Patriot for $107.kmmatney - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
With NewEgg having PQI turbo 3200 at $82, I thinks that's the best deal, probably worth the extra $10 or so over value RAM. In this review it performed almost as well as the top of the line stuff.Googer - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
Correction:the standard JDEC complient ram does not need to be included in the overclocking tests.
Googer - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
All memory should be tested agains JDEC Standard Ramusing JDEC standard Timings For DDR400. Standard ISSUE Crucial (not ballistix) should also be included as a base compairson for all DDR400 Tests.
When it comes to overclocking the JDEC complient ram
does not need to be tested becuase that was never the intent of its design.
Fricardo - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
#'s 6,12,14,15Here here. I couldn't care less about timings...it's not worth the cash to get ever so slightly more performance. I'd just like some decent RAM that'll let me overclock an A64, nothing fancy.
miketheidiot - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
Cheap memory review! Enough of this expensive junk.JustAnAverageGuy - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
#13I think he was thinking more along the lines of say Kingston\Corsair ValueRAM which runs for around $65-70 for a 512MB stick.
Zebo did something similar (see CPU & OC forums), but I've been waiting for the AnandTech review.