Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2
by Wesley Fink on August 26, 2003 11:11 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Kingston HyperX 4000
Click the image to view a larger picture.
Kingston is one of the largest memory manufacturers, and they use the HyperX name for their highest performing memory modules. The trademark bright blue aluminum heatsinks immediately identify the memory as Kingston HyperX. HyperX 4000 is supplied in a Dual-Channel kit. The modules that were sent are the only single-sided DDR500 modules that we received, and as requested, Kingston supplied two pairs of modules for testing. Kingston uses Samsung TCCC chips, which are binned for performance — the highest performers going into HyperX 4000 modules.
The Kingston modules performed well when 4 SS DIMMs were used for testing. This was expected. As you can see below, 2 SS DIMMs did not perform quite as well, which is consistent with the information in Intel White Papers. The Intel 875P Chipset Memory Configuration Guide White Paper is available at ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25273001.pdf, and the Intel 865P Chipset Memory Configuration Guide White Paper at ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25303601.pdf.
We were very surprised when we compared overclocking of 2 SS DIMMs versus 4 SS Kingston modules. We tried both pairs of SS memory, but could not overclock any higher than DD514. However, with all four of the same DIMMs, we reached a DDR535 overclock.
Early revisions of HyperX 4000 from Kingston met their specifications of DDR500 and did run at rated speed. However, they were very poor overclockers, regardless of configuration. Later revisions supplied by Kingston overclocked much better, and were used for Kingston testing in this roundup.
| Kingston HyperX 4000 — 4 x 256 MB Single-Bank | |||||
| Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered | Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 400DDR 800FSB |
2.5-3-3-6 2.55V |
324.30 | INT 2589 FLT 2671 |
INT 4808 FLT 4745 |
131 |
| 500DDR 1000FSB |
3-4-4-7 2.65V |
394.57 | INT 3218 FLT 3195 |
INT 5841 FLT 5905 |
107 |
| 535DDR 1070FSB |
3-4-4-8 2.85V |
421.33 | INT 3459 FLT 3344 |
INT 6093 FLT 6111 |
100 |
| Kingston HyperX 4000 — 2 x 256 MB Single-Bank | |||||
| Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered | Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
| 400DDR 800FSB |
2.5-3-3-6 2.55V |
320.13 | INT 2514 FLT 2500 |
INT 4735 FLT 4757 |
132 |
| 500DDR 1000FSB |
3-4-4-7 2.65V |
386.30 | INT 2821 FLT 2786 |
INT 5830 FLT 5748 |
109 |
| 514DDR 1028FSB |
3-4-4-8 2.85V |
396.77 | INT 2835 FLT 2864 |
INT 5923 FLT 6010 |
106 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#37Point well taken, But remember depending which bencmarks you use ,The diference you see could be less than you expect for example look at buffered vs unbuffered sandra scores.
Half the motherboards I have played with wont run 5/4 above 280 anyway.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Let the ignorance run wiiiilllldddd!!!!For sponsored links, I also see it at the bottom of tomshardware and the bottom of extremetech.com. I figure a company is selling those spots on multiple review sites so whoever wants a spot can grab it and have a text link on those sites.
I see big banners for corsair and googlegear on the front page of anand, which I assume would cost at least 10x more than a text link, so why didn't corsair win? They obviously pay more for advertising! Gee Kingston has full color banners too. Why didn't they win? Maybe because their modules didn't test as high, oooh, what a thought, the ram that performs the best wins, i can't believe it!!!! /sarcasm
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
What this (and most other) article fails to mention is that you get better performance a high FSB with a 5:4 ram divider at low latency...In other words,
275FSB at 5:4 2-2-2-5 is WAY faster than
275FSB at 1:1 2.5-4-4-7
If you have ram taht can run at 2-2-2, test it for yourself.
In short, last years low latency PC3200 and 3500 2-2-2-6 ram is faster and cheaper than todays PC4000 with rediculously horrid timings like 3-4-4-8
Radelon - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
The simple fact in the matter is anybody can take the same sets of ram from all different brands and will see approximately the same results. In all my tests, OCZ is the leader, sometimes less than others but fact is, it's still on top. I've done these tests on 4 different canterwood/springdale motherboards and OCZ has always come out the best for me. "Don't knock it until you try it" That seems to be the statement of the year. The people that do knock it before they try it, are only hurting themselves and the others they influence.Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I've been in the hardware website business before. People don't know that they will get more hardware from a company if the give them their props. The posters who bitch about OCZ have a valid claim.You have to look at the whole picture and not just what they are doing today. I'm sorry to say that OCZ, even if they have "good" products still wouldn't be a choice by me or even recommending it.
I've heard some bad rumors with OCZ and other websites it's not even funny. 3DGameMan I heard used to give raging reviews because of getting more hardware. Overclockers something used to be in the same ballpark.
It's hard to judge reviews these days. To recommend a brand over another brand just because of the results you received is flat out ignorant at best. So many variables play into account. Corsair and Mushkin will always get my money. Even if it's more money. Their products have been around for awhile and have proven to be noteworthy.
GeIL is another company that raises an eyebrow. The owner of GeIL is the owner of an online store. All he does is buy and overclock memory and then sells it at a premium. It helps to do research on these companies.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
What about Mushkin? They didn't even get entered into the test, and it used to be that Anand was always touting them, right?Hmmmmmmmmm. Anand should explain what happened to wipe Mushkin from his list totally...
AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I found the link, here it is:http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=...
Look down the page for Anand's post, kind of long, but it explains it! :)
I hope someone appreciates that link, hehe, it actually took about 15 minutes to find, not that long, but its not the most fun thing to do, but I had to since its for AT...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Sadly, it is clear that people still don't trust OCZ, and will go as far as to say that a positive review automatically means the web site in question (Anandtech in this case) has sold out. What's illogical about this argument is that Mushkin, Corsair, and Crucial ALL advertise on Anandtech as well, and have been advertising on Anandtech for MUCH longer than OCZ. Hopefully anyone who has read all these comments now realizes that their argument is completely invalidated by this fact. Not only that, but the writer of this particular Anandtech article even says that he has no affiliation with any of the ads that get displayed in a review, and another Anandtech editor says that OCZ isn’t even a direct advertiser. If people would learn the facts we would haven’t so many ignorant comments such as #11, #15, #16/#17, and #23.Secondly, you'd have to be blind not to see that OCZ memory is clearly one of the best solutions out there today. Anandtech is NOT the only web site that has found OCZ memory to be of the highest quality. Please search Google if you are not aware of this fact. Any review in the last 9 months will prove my point.
AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Hey guys, go through and look through some old posts in the archive section that Anand Lal Shimpi has talked in. One of them discussed advertising. It may be outdated, but atleast its something to look at, and if this is mentioned already, sorry, I haven't read through all the responses yet.Anyway, Anand clearly stated that the advertising portion is done by another group of people and that they do not talk directly with him or any of the article writers... hope that helps, I'll try searching around for the link...
pastorjay - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
I am appalled that anyone would think that Wesley would do anything to compromise the integrity of his reviews. I have read many, many reviews at many other sites, and they have come to a similiar conclusion. OCZ has got several good products on their hands at the moment. THey are doing a spectacular job of producing quality products NOW. THey also happen to have the best Customer support in the industry, whether it would be Ryan or Sean or Bo... whoever I have dealt with, they have all been a terrific help in solving problems, and making sure I am happy. Now, I am no OCZ fanboy. I will use what i feel is the best on the market at the time... and to me... OCZ is it right now.