Corsair 4400C25: Taking Samsung TCCD to New Heights
by Wesley Fink on January 4, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Intel Performance Test Configuration
The Corsair TwinX1024-4400C25 was also tested in our standard Intel Pentium 4 Memory testbed. The hardware is the same used in our earlier reviews of DDR400 and faster Memory. All test conditions were as close as possible in these tests over time on the Intel test bed. We also eliminated from our charts any known memory that has been discontinued.| INTEL 875P Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz (800MHz FSB) |
| RAM: | 2X512MB Corsair TwinX1024-4400C25 (DS) 2X512MB G. Skill TCCD (DS) 2X512MB PQI 3200 Turbo (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev 3 (DS) 2X512MB Geil PC3200 Ultra X (DS) 2X512MB Crucial Ballistix PC3200 (DS) 2X512MB Kingston HyperX PC3200 L-L (DS) 2X512MB Mushkin PC3200 Level II V2 (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2 (DS) 2X512MB Corsair 3200XL PRO (DS) 2X256MB Samsung PC4000 (SS) 2X512MB Buffalo FireStix PC4000 (DS) 2X512MB Shika XRAM PC4400 (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC4400 EL Gold (DS) 2X512MB OCZ 3700EB (DS) 2X512MB OCZ 3500EB (DS) 2X512MB Mushkin 2-2-2 Special (DS) 2X512MB PMI4200 Gold (DDR533 DS) 4X256MB Samsung PC3700 (DDR466 SS) 2X512MB Kingmax DDR500 Hardcore Series (DS) 2X512MB Kingmax DDR466 Hardcore Series (DS) 2X512MB Corsair XMS4400v1.1 TwinX (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC4400 DC Kit (DS) 2X512MB OCZ 4200EL(DS) 2x512MB Mushkin PC4000 High Performance (DS) 2X512MB Corsair TwinX4000 PRO (DS) 2X256Mb Adata DDR450 (SS) 2X512MB Adata PC4000 (DS) 2X512MB Corsair PC4000 (DS) 2X512MB Geil PC4000 (DS) 2X512MB OCZ PC4000 (DS) |
| Hard Drives | 2 Western Digital Raptor Serial ATA 36.7GB 10,000RPM drives in an Intel ICH5R RAID configuration |
| PCI/AGP Speed | Fixed at 33/66 |
| Bus Master Drivers: | 875P Intel INF Update v5.00.1012, SATA RAID drivers installed, but IAA not installed |
| Video Card(s): | ATI 9800 PRO 128MB, 128MB aperture, 1024x768x32 |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 4.10 |
| Power Supply: | Vantec Stealth 470 Watt Aluminum |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | Asus P4C800-E (875) with 1016 Release BIOS |
We have found the fastest performance on Intel 865/875 to be achieved at Cycle Time or tRAS of 5, or the fastest tRAS setting that is stable with the tested memory. Intel platform benchmarks were therefore run with the fastest stable tRAS timings that we could achieve with the Corsair 4400C25.
Test Settings
We ran our standard suite of memory performance benchmarks. The following settings were tested with the Corsair DDR550 memory:- 800FSB/DDR400 - the highest stock speed supported on 875/865 and K8T800/nF3/SiS755 motherboards. The rated speed of both G. Skill TCCD and PQI 3200 Turbo.
- 866FSB/DDR433 - a speed rating that we have used in testing other low-latency DDR400 memory.
- 933FSB/DDR466 - a standard memory speed also specified as PC3700.
- 1000FSB/DDR500 - a standard memory speed used in testing other high-speed memory and the rated speed of OCZ PC4000 Gold Rev. 2
- 1066FSB/DDR533 - a standard memory speed included for comparison
- Highest Stable Overclock - the highest settings that we could achieve with this memory and other memory that we have tested.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
kmmatney - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
The review did have some mid-range memory in the tests. Their value was noted in the last sentence of the review, but it should be highlighted more.According to the review, the PQI turbo 3200 performed almost as well, but is almost half the price! The money saved can be spent on a cpu or video upgrade.
A quick glance at NewEgg shows PQI turbo 4000 memory priced at $95.50, which I think is a good deal.
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
#6- I've been wondering about the value/mid-range round-up too. Looking at the AMD 533/2.4GHz results page, the largest difference between the best and worst memory types in the real-world applications is just over 3%, and these are applications that were chosen because they are more affected by memory-bandwidth than usual. At the end of every review of premium memory it should say "it doesn't really matter which premium module you get for an AMD system so buy the cheapest as it'll make no real difference in performance, and the money would be better spent on a higher-rated CPU or better cooling". Maybe the worry is that if they test some budget/mid-range memory, they'll find you'd be better off getting that instead of the premium modules because it makes so little difference, and that would annoy the companies that send them premium samples :pIntel platforms are more affected by memory bandwidth, but they are moving to DDR2 which makes DDR tests increasingly irrelevant for them.
HardwareD00d - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
Wes - Thank you for the clarification.I'll trade you my 2 sticks of ShikaXRam for your Corsair sample. ;)
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
#9 - No conspiracy intended. Our AMD memory test bed was not even set up when we tested the Shikatronics memory in June. We have stated many times that Hynix B, the chipsets used in the Shikatronics, does not generally perform as well on the Athlon 64 platform as it does on Intel. TCCD usually does better on AMD than Intel. Also the timings are 3-4-4 on the Shika which are slower than TCCD at the same memory speed.Just to make sure we weren't blowing smoke, I popped the Shikatronics 550 into the AMD test bed. It did it's specified DDR550 on the A64 at 3-4-4-10 2.85V, which is excellent for Hynix B on AMD. However, I could not make it to even DDR560 as the memory topped out at 554 on the AMD platform.
We are testing new memory on both AMD and Intel, but we have not gone back to past Hynix B dimms for an AMD update, nor do we plan to.
HardwareD00d - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
I've got the Shikatronics PC4400 DC kit for my Athlon64, and I'd like to see that compared against the Corsair modules. It IS on the Intel side, and is the clear winner. Seems strange that you wouldn't compare the "priorly fastest" memory (per a previous review) against the new Corsair modules. This omission seems a little fishy to me.erinlegault - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
Maybe other PC4400 rated memory from other companies should be compared, especially the OCZ PC4200 Pt Series ram. All the ram used was PC3200, except for the PC3700 OCZ, and overclocked from the rated 400MHz to near 600MHz. The Corsair PC4400 memory was only overclocked from the rated 550MHz to 636MHz. I would personally like to see if any other PC4000 or higher rated memory could do any better.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
#2 - We used 5X HT at stock speeds, 4X HT for 218 and 240, and 3X HT for 267 up. All other settings are in the reviews.#4 - With the huge number of memories reviewed at AnandTech, we feel comfortable in talking about relative positioning of tested memory. With 28 memories compared in performance on the Intel charts and seven different DDR400 2-2-2 memories in the AMD charts, there is certainly comparative info to draw conclusions. The Corsair 4400C25 proved to reach the highest FSB, but it was not the best choice in the DDR400 to DDR450 range. We state that clearly in our conclusion.
eetnoyer - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
Wow, another elitist memory review. As if TCCD weren't reviewed to death already. By the way, still waiting for that value memory round-up. Any idea when you will be able to get around to reviewing memory products that are useful for the majority of your users?Marlowe - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
Really interesting IMO.. But I would love if you could review the A-Data Vitesta PC4800 ram also. They are based on TCCD and have maby Brainpower PCB. On my P4C800 my 2x512 kit can do 2-2-2-5 at 220MHz and tops out around 275-280 MHz on 2,5-3-3-5, both on 2,85V. Well that's what I could do with my 3,0E and watercooling anyways :P Also they're quite affordable in comparison.arswihart - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - link
anandtech reviews are more and more praising a product as ultimate, best, etc... all based on in some cases, insufficient testing to say such things. granted all review sites do that to some respect, its just the conclusions pages are getting kind of narrow viewed as if they have a whole picture and are 100% sure of there recommendations, while often they haven't tested enough competing products or taken all of their recommended product's potential drawbacks or limitations into consideration. still, its a really good review site