Comparison Graphs

DDR2 533 Calculation Performance

DDR2 533 Standard (Buffered) Memory Test

DDR2 533 Unbuffered Memory Test

DDR2 667 Calculation Performance

DDR2 667 Standard (Buffered) Memory Test

DDR2 667 Unbuffered Memory Test

DDR2 800 Calculation Performance

DDR2 800 Standard (Buffered) Memory Test

DDR2 800 Unbuffered Memory Test

The above comparison graphics indicate the stellar performance of the new Micron Fat Body D9 chips contained in the pair of Ballistic modules that we tested. If you are seeking low latency timings on a DDR2 platform, these are the modules for you. Not only will they produce very good bandwidth numbers and stability, but they will provide cross-platform compatibility and longevity, with the AM2 chipset available fairly soon.

Please note some final images of performance from the PC2-5300 modules below:


Click to enlarge.


Click to enlarge.

Last, but not least, is some imagery from a final look at the performance of the PC2-6400 modules by Crucial Technology below:


Click to enlarge.


Click to enlarge.


Click to enlarge.


Click to enlarge.

Comparison of Memory Timings and Ratios to Performance Final Words
POST A COMMENT

27 Comments

View All Comments

  • Griotspeak - Sunday, March 12, 2006 - link

    2GB PC-5300 modules should be available?

    i KNOW there isnt much hope of a definite answer, but i'd like to have some idea since i could wait a month or so.
    Reply
  • Regs - Saturday, February 25, 2006 - link

    Maybe i'll wait until it has a use. Reply
  • pnyffeler - Thursday, February 23, 2006 - link

    I'm feeling a little uncertain about why anyone would want to rush out and purchase a new AM2 system ASAP. What advantage would you gain over a 939 rig? Right now, DDR2 memory is loads more expensive than DDR, and according to Tom's Hardware's analysis, there isn't any advantage. Well, at least, not theoretically until DDR2-800 becomes available, but even so, are we going to see a significant increase in performance? It seems that the smart move is to set up a 939 system, dump it full of good, cheap DDR RAM, and save your pennies for the new DirectX 10 graphics card that will be available at the end of the year when Vista comes out. I just see DDR2 as the next logical transition, especially with chip makers changing over time to DDR2, but you won't see me jumping on the bandwagon any time soon.... Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=270...">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=270...

    WTF is up with this review in terms of spelling errors and inconsistencies??

    quote:

    The tightest timings were maintained on the PC2-5300 kit, which held 3-2-2-8 timings up to an FSB of 345 (13X multiplier producing 1382.5 MHz set at DDR533 memory strap).


    The tightest timings are NOT the PC2-5300 kit according to the table, but RATHER THE OCZ DDR2 PC2-4200.

    The only one I see that achieves 3-2-2-8 at FSB of 345 is OCZ DDR2 PC2-4200, not the Crucial PC2-5300 kit.

    quote:

    This produced buffered bandwidth of 8455 MB/s on Sisoft Sandra Professional 2005, and 4616 MB/s unbuffered bandwidth.


    Plus, CONSISTENT spelling errors that say MB/s. I sure don't want my memory bandwidth to be single digit MB/s even on a 486 PC.

    Reply
  • leexgx - Saturday, February 25, 2006 - link

    quote:

    This produced buffered bandwidth of 8455 MB/s on Sisoft Sandra Professional 2005, and 4616 MB/s unbuffered bandwidth.


    what spelling errors (ram does not work at 9000GB/s) that result is right
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - link

    quote:

    what spelling errors (ram does not work at 9000GB/s) that result is right


    I was likely referring to the fact that the table and the paragraph below is inconsistent. There are no such numbers on the table.
    Reply
  • hwhacker - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link

    He explains this in the article. Overclocking the FSB on intel's chips is different than on AMD chips. You can much finer tune an AMD because of the adjustable multiplier...unless you have mega-cooling to allow the processor to scale with the memory speed...It's kind of tough.

    RTFA. ;)

    Reply
  • Marlowe - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link

    They could reach 400 MHz mem easily with the 4:5 divider. (would require 320 MHz FSB) Reply
  • Marlowe - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link

    Last time I checked DDR800 is 400 MHz real frequency. I've looked through the heap of hard to manage screenshots, (yes what happened to graphs?) but the highest I saw was 350 MHz. Did I miss something? Were you not able to reach 400 MHz? Reply
  • ATWindsor - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link

    Why do I suddenly hae to enable referer logging to see the pictures in the article? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now