The New 2GB DDR Kits

The six new kits fall into 2 groups: three kits are rated at DDR400 and three are rated at DDR500.

 Manufacturer  Description
(Memory Chips)
 Memory Speed  Rated Timings  Voltage
Corsair TWINX2048-4000PT
(Samsung UCCC)
500DDR 3-4-4-8 2.6V
Crucial CLIII5N.32 PN56278
(Micron)
500DDR 3-3-3-8 2.6V
G. Skill F1-3200PHU2-2GBZX
(Infineon B Die)
400DDR 2-3-2-5 2.6V
Kingston KHX3200AK2/2G
(Probably Infineon B Die)
400DDR 2.5-3-3-7 2.6V
Mushkin 2GB Redline XP4000
(Infineon C die)
500DDR 3-3-2-8 2.6V
Team XTreem TXDR 1024M400HC2
(Infineon B die)
400DDR 2-3-3-5 2.6V

Two of the DDR400 parts, from G. Skill and Kingston, appear to be based on Infineon B die memory chips, BE5 or BE6. The third DDR400 from Team reached a higher DDR533, but is still likely based on the Infinity B die. The Infineon B die normally performs very well to the DDR480 to DDR 500 range. The DDR500 kit from Mushkin is likely based on Infineon C die memory chips, CE5 or CE6. The C die chips are nearly as fast at slower memory speeds as B die, but they overclock further to the DDR550 to DDR580 range.

Crucial is the marketing arm of Micron, so Crucial is the only 2GB kit featuring Micron memory chips. The Micron-based 2GB chip performs exceptionally well, but availability has been an issue since the Crucial 2GB kit was first introduced. Apparently, yields have been and remain an issue with this 2GB kit.

Corsair submitted a "Value" DDR500 2GB kit for Part 2 that is based on Samsung UCCC memory chips. The Samsung parts are about 60% the price of Infineon 2GB kits. Corsair tells us that the chips are a bit slower in memory timings, but the overclocking capabilities are very good - matching or exceeding the OC capabilities of the Infineon 2GB kits.

This is a very wide range of 2GB kits, and with the retest of our three earlier kits, we will have results from nine 2GB kits to help you choose the 2GB DDR kit that is right for your needs and budget.

Index Performance Test Configuration
POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • bigtoe36 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Tom

    The 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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 right Reply
  • ozzimark - 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
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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?
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now