=<em>F-A-S-T</em>= DDR Memory: 2-2-2 Roars on the Scene
by Wesley Fink on August 5, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Mushkin PC3200 Level II V2
Mushkin has used the Level II label to identify the lowest latency memory in their product line. This was the same label used for earlier BH5 modules marketed by Mushkin. It is fitting, then, that Mushkin calls their latest low-latency memory level II V2. Both single-sided 256MB modules and double-sided 512MB DIMMs are offered, but the Mushkin website does not currently show matched pairs available of PC3200 LII V2.Test DIMMs were a pair of PC3200 LII V2 512MB modules.
Mushkin also provided a pair of 256MB DIMMs, which they indicated were even better performers at overclocking, but they were not included in this roundup. Two single-sided DIMMs do not perform as well as two double-sided DIMMs at the same speed and settings on the Intel platform, so the comparison to 512MB DIMM performance would have revealed little in the way of comparative performance.
Mushkin was one of the first memory manufacturers to announce the release of DDR400 2-2-2 memory. Both Mushkin and OCZ announced DDR400 2-2-2 memory at the time of Corsair's announcement.
Samsung TCCD memory chips are used in Mushkin's LII V2 memory. These are the same Samsung DDR500 memory chips used in all the memory in this roundup with the exception of Crucial Ballistix.
Mushkin PC3200 LII V2 Specifications
| Mushkin PC3200 LII V2 Memory Specifications | |
| Number of DIMMs & Banks | 2 DS |
| DIMM Size Total Memory |
512 MB 1 GB |
| Rated Timings | 2-2-2 at DDR400 |
| SPD (Auto) Timings | 2.5-2-2-6 |
| Rated Voltage | 2.5V-2.8V |
All of the modules in this roundup are rated at 2-2-2 at DDR400, but Mushkin is the only manufacturer showing a variable voltage range for the PC3200 DIMMs. The Mushkin specification matched our findings very well, since we had no problem at DDR400 at 2.5V, but did need more voltage for higher memory speeds.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
Anemone - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link
Would love to see OCZ do further expansion on the EL or EB area of DDR2. I'm sure it's at lower limits (the timings of DDR2 stink really), but if anyone could push them as low as possible I'd expect OCZ to do it.Anemone - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link
Yeah OCZ seems to have their stuff where it counts.I'll note this highlights an issue that's caught my eye, and that is in the furor over the AMD64 chips, its less visible just sometimes how much "special stuff", ie choice memory modules, it takes to keep the AMD platforms running at top speed. On the Intel side of the fence you can plug just about anything in and get some speed, but in many cases that's still a guessing game for the AMD stuff. Given how that plays out a year or two down the line when you want to buy just an upgrade part or two, I'm kind of a fan of the "just buy the latest Superbytes mem module XXX and plug and go" kind of usefulness, which I see 'more' on the Intel side of things, and I do mean 'more' not 'only'.
Also want to mention that lately tending to see more enthusiasts aiming for as much as 2gb of memory, and when you get there, the AMD controllers seem to not fly as much as with lower amounts, losing as much as 10% of their performance.
Blah, no easy choices here imo.
ceefka - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link
Great review. For those of us who want to build a 939, we'd love to see the next article. We apparently have a lot of RAM to choose from.Now on the theoretical side: How would the best DDR2 perform? What would the differences be? Can these results justify AMD's choice to ignore DDR2?
Bozo Galora - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link
Another very timely review.You are now answering questions for me in advance - lol.
Color changes for reviewed items better, but as a nitpick, it might be cool to continue colors to the names of mem also, not just the bar??? Dark green needs to be a lighter color - like pink. 2 greens not friendly.
Anyway thanx fella.
cnq - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link
Wesley,Can you comment on the 2.5-2-2 timings past DDR500 of the Crucial? It seems slightly fishy, considering that you used their PC3200, which is lower-binned than their PC4000...and even the 4000 is only rated at 2.5-3-3 at DDR500.
Is it possible that Crucial sent you a cherry-picked sample for review?
Anyone else out there own a set of the Ballistix care to comment?
JustAnAverageGuy - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link
catchy title=F-A-S-T=
A bit unprofessional maybe, but catchy :)
shady06 - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link
OCZ = smokin