Performance Comparisons
Performance of the six 2GB memory kits was compared to the three 2GB kits tested in Part 1 of the 2GB roundup. Results are also generally comparable to earlier results on the nForce3 and nForce4 testbed using the AGP and PCIe versions of the NVIDIA 6800 video card. While we retested the first three 2GB kits in the revised test bed using the NVIDIA 7800GTX and the latest platform and video drivers, the results are not radically different from those in the old test bed, as long as you don't make too much of small percentage difference in memory performance. However, we have only reported results on the newest revised test bed to prevent any confusion about the influence of video card and drivers on the final results.
More results are available in recent DDR memory reviews at:
1GB DIMMs: FAST 2GB DDR Kits from Corsair, Gigaram, and OCZ
Mushkin Redline XP4000: Winbond with Voltage Be Damned
Value RAM Roundup: Computing On a Budget
Patriot DDR400 2-2-2/DDR533 3-4-4: Performance AND Value
OCZ VX Revisited: DDR Updates on DFI nForce4
OCZ VX Memory + DFI nForce4 = DDR533 at 2-2-2
Corsair 4400C25: Taking Samsung TCCD to New Heights
PQI & G. Skill: New Choices in 2-2-2 Memory
Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules
OCZ 3700 Gold Rev. 3: DDR500 Value for Athlon 64 & Intel 478
Geil PC3200 Ultra X: High Speed & Record Bandwidth
= F-A-S-T= DDR Memory: 2-2-2 Roars on the Scene
Buffalo FireStix: Red Hot Name for a New High-End Memory
New DDR Highs: Shikatronics, OCZ, and the Fastest Memory Yet
The Return of 2-2-2: Corsair 3200XL & Samsung PC4000
OCZ 3700EB: Making Hay with Athlon 64
OCZ 3500EB: The Importance of Balanced Memory Timings
Mushkin PC3200 2-2-2 Special: Last of a Legend
PMI DDR533: A New Name in High-Performance Memory
Samsung PC3700: DDR466 Memory for the Masses
Kingmax Hardcore Memory: Tiny BGA Reaches For Top Speed
New Memory Highs: Corsair and OCZ Introduce DDR550
OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev. 2: The Universal Soldier
OCZ 4200EL: Tops in Memory Performance
Mushkin PC4000 High Performance: DDR500 PLUS
Corsair TwinX1024-4000 PRO: Improving DDR500 Performance
Mushkin & Adata: 2 for the Fast-Timings Lane
Searching for the Memory Holy Grail – Part 2
All nine of the 2GB DDR kits were compared at 200x12 (2.4Ghz, DDR400), 218x11 (2.4Ghz, DDR438), 240x10 (2.4Ghz, DDR480), 266x9 (2.4Ghz, DDR533) and the Highest Memory Performance Settings that we could reach. With a constant CPU speed, memory comparisons (except for top performance) show the true impact of faster speed and slower memory timings on memory performance.
Performance results for the fastest 2x512MB (1GB) kit that we have tested are included for reference at Highest Performance only. Including our standard OCZ 3200 Platinum R2, based on TCCD chips, allows you to compare performance at the top to the best 2x512MB kit that we have tested. For more comparisons to 1GB kits, please refer to earlier memory reviews linked above.
Keep in mind that Highest Performance is not comparing memory at the same multipliers. The factor of the overclocking abilities of the 400+ used for benchmarking comes in to play. For instance, a memory that reaches its highest overclock at a somewhat low clock frequency can actually have that clock frequency fall in the processor OC capabilities where it can run at a higher multiplier. The definition of Highest Performance is the highest clock frequency and multiplier that we could run with the tested memory and the standard 4000+ CPU. For a true "apples to apples" comparison, you need to look at comparisons at the same speed and multiplier.
Results of the retest of the first three 2GB kits are in green, the six new 2GB kits are in dark blue, and the Reference 1GB OCZ 3200 Platinum R2 results are in gold.
Performance of the six 2GB memory kits was compared to the three 2GB kits tested in Part 1 of the 2GB roundup. Results are also generally comparable to earlier results on the nForce3 and nForce4 testbed using the AGP and PCIe versions of the NVIDIA 6800 video card. While we retested the first three 2GB kits in the revised test bed using the NVIDIA 7800GTX and the latest platform and video drivers, the results are not radically different from those in the old test bed, as long as you don't make too much of small percentage difference in memory performance. However, we have only reported results on the newest revised test bed to prevent any confusion about the influence of video card and drivers on the final results.
More results are available in recent DDR memory reviews at:
1GB DIMMs: FAST 2GB DDR Kits from Corsair, Gigaram, and OCZ
Mushkin Redline XP4000: Winbond with Voltage Be Damned
Value RAM Roundup: Computing On a Budget
Patriot DDR400 2-2-2/DDR533 3-4-4: Performance AND Value
OCZ VX Revisited: DDR Updates on DFI nForce4
OCZ VX Memory + DFI nForce4 = DDR533 at 2-2-2
Corsair 4400C25: Taking Samsung TCCD to New Heights
PQI & G. Skill: New Choices in 2-2-2 Memory
Athlon 64 Memory: Rewriting the Rules
OCZ 3700 Gold Rev. 3: DDR500 Value for Athlon 64 & Intel 478
Geil PC3200 Ultra X: High Speed & Record Bandwidth
= F-A-S-T= DDR Memory: 2-2-2 Roars on the Scene
Buffalo FireStix: Red Hot Name for a New High-End Memory
New DDR Highs: Shikatronics, OCZ, and the Fastest Memory Yet
The Return of 2-2-2: Corsair 3200XL & Samsung PC4000
OCZ 3700EB: Making Hay with Athlon 64
OCZ 3500EB: The Importance of Balanced Memory Timings
Mushkin PC3200 2-2-2 Special: Last of a Legend
PMI DDR533: A New Name in High-Performance Memory
Samsung PC3700: DDR466 Memory for the Masses
Kingmax Hardcore Memory: Tiny BGA Reaches For Top Speed
New Memory Highs: Corsair and OCZ Introduce DDR550
OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev. 2: The Universal Soldier
OCZ 4200EL: Tops in Memory Performance
Mushkin PC4000 High Performance: DDR500 PLUS
Corsair TwinX1024-4000 PRO: Improving DDR500 Performance
Mushkin & Adata: 2 for the Fast-Timings Lane
Searching for the Memory Holy Grail – Part 2
All nine of the 2GB DDR kits were compared at 200x12 (2.4Ghz, DDR400), 218x11 (2.4Ghz, DDR438), 240x10 (2.4Ghz, DDR480), 266x9 (2.4Ghz, DDR533) and the Highest Memory Performance Settings that we could reach. With a constant CPU speed, memory comparisons (except for top performance) show the true impact of faster speed and slower memory timings on memory performance.
Performance results for the fastest 2x512MB (1GB) kit that we have tested are included for reference at Highest Performance only. Including our standard OCZ 3200 Platinum R2, based on TCCD chips, allows you to compare performance at the top to the best 2x512MB kit that we have tested. For more comparisons to 1GB kits, please refer to earlier memory reviews linked above.
Keep in mind that Highest Performance is not comparing memory at the same multipliers. The factor of the overclocking abilities of the 400+ used for benchmarking comes in to play. For instance, a memory that reaches its highest overclock at a somewhat low clock frequency can actually have that clock frequency fall in the processor OC capabilities where it can run at a higher multiplier. The definition of Highest Performance is the highest clock frequency and multiplier that we could run with the tested memory and the standard 4000+ CPU. For a true "apples to apples" comparison, you need to look at comparisons at the same speed and multiplier.
Results of the retest of the first three 2GB kits are in green, the six new 2GB kits are in dark blue, and the Reference 1GB OCZ 3200 Platinum R2 results are in gold.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
bigtoe36 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
TomThe parts are 2x1204, we don't supply single sided CE5 512 kits, infact no one does.
For the record, 4000eb is 2048mb so 2x1024mb modules.
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
The OCZ we tested is definitely a 2GB kit. I changed the Corsair name in the review since they refer to 2GB kits as TwinX 2048. However I just double-checked their web site and OCZ uses the 1024 to describe the dimm size. In fairness they are officially a 2x1024 kit, so I will update the reference to hopefully clarify what we tested.The memory manufacturers all have pretty awful naming schemes for their memory, but OCZ is still one of the most confusing.
CCUABIDExORxDIE - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
how does crucial not get gold? honestly, go out and try to buy the EB 4000 or the Redline PC4000, you cant cause of Infenions horrible yeilds. so in your mindset, the gold winner should be the UCCC corsair stuff. also where is the Gskill pc4000 and the Mushkin pc4000?? There should have been more UCCC tested and less CE-6.just my opinion though.
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
You can not presently buy Crucial any where, and Crucial told us they would not likely have the product available again. Infineon has had problems with consistency since October, but all of the memory manufacturers here assured us the Infineon-based dimms were current products and supply would continue. Some even sent links on where you could buy the Infineon dimms.We asked manufacturers to submit their "best" 2GB kit. There was nothing to stop them from submitting both Infineon CE and Samsung UCCC for the roundup. As we found in the review Samsung UCCC is not as fast as Infineon at most speeds, but it does overclock just as well, and it's generally 30% to 40% cheaper. At present Samsung UCCC chips are easier to find, but manufacturers tell us recent Infineon is finally producing better yields - and chips are becoming available again.
CCUABIDExORxDIE - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
alright...what about this? http://www.chiefvalue.com/app/productdetails.asp?s...">http://www.chiefvalue.com/app/productde....asp?sub... aww a bit of misinformation? thats rightozzimark - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
while we're mentioning misinformation.. it was stated that teamgroup can be had at newegg? atm, i'll have to disagree.second.. micron chips don't go to just crucial. i have a set of 2x1gb teamgroup in my hands that i need do a review on that use micron chips, and they easily hit 280mhz on a DFI that appears to be having serious VTT stability issues :P
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
We checked with Newegg and Team is not available there. We have removed that comment from the review and asked Team where buyers can buy their memory in the US. We'll post the info when we get an answer.cool - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
@Wesley:On the "Test Configuration" page, I noticed that you're using the following nForce drivers: "NVIDIA nForce Platform Driver 6.86"
When will they be released and do they solve the PATA/SATA and nvFirewall issues that are still plaguing nForce4 users?
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
I apologize for the typo. We used the latest release 6.70 on our DFI nF4 SLI. The latest release for AMD X16 is 6.82, and we listed a beta x16 driver rev we had on an x16 machine used for editing.The platform driver version has been corrected in the article.
PrinceGaz - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
Hopefully one day, the nVidia softtware team will pay some attention to its chipset drivers and get these issues with the PATA/SATA drivers, which in v6.70 still have issues on my nForce4 mobo, albeit not so badly as some earlier drivers, but are still unreliable enough for me to revert to the default Windows ones.As for the hardware firewall; I'm not even going to consider installing the drivers and software for that given the continued reports it has of causing serious problems. I'd rather let my dual-core processor do the work on one of its cores, which as I use Kerio Personal Firewall would hardly be noticed even in a multi-threaded app as it takes very little CPU time.
Given the mess nVidia have made of the nForce chipset drivers, and how Microsoft recommend ATI graphics-cards for the Vista betas as their drivers are better; I really do wonder if nVidia who built a good reputation for themselves with rock-solid graphics-card drivers a few years ago have lost the plot. I bought an nForce4 mobo and 6800GT last year, but am increasingly thinking an ATI graphics-card would have been a better choice, and if similarly feature-rich mobos with other chipsets were available then, that any of ATI, VIA, SiS would have been a better choice than nVidia.
It's sites like this that have over-hyped nVidia mobos since the nForce2 on performance alone that I'm sure contributed to their dominance, and the sorry state of afares we are in with their chipset drivers as there is little competition and can afford to give it low priority.