OCZ PC3-14400 Platinum Edition

In the last several years, OCZ has developed a deserved reputation as a true innovator in the computer enthusiast market. They were the first of the memory companies to market high-end, high-quality power supplies, a product offering now available from other memory companies as well. OCZ cemented that relationship with the power supply market with their recent acquisition of PC Power and Cooling - a well-regarded player in the high-end PSU market. OCZ has also begun to market high-end video cards under their own brand name, something Crucial has done for several years.

In the end, if you're part of the computer enthusiast community, OCZ has been constantly introducing new and innovative products for that market, from ram cooling to CPU coolers to video cards to the very latest in memory technology. While most enthusiasts recognize OCZ as a memory company, many these days also recognize them for their power supplies, CPU coolers, or other products.

OCZ maintains an up-to-date website that provides specifics for their products. They are also represented on many forum sites, and they maintain dedicated forums for OCZ products on several websites. OCZ memory products come with a lifetime warranty.


Like several other manufacturers, OCZ has moved to the smaller dual-channel clear clamshell package for memory kits. The card in the memory package is now a 4-page glossy instruction sheet with information on the features and installation of the memory.


The DIMMs themselves are also easily recognized as OCZ with the large "Z" in the middle of the perforated XTC (Xtreme Thermal Convection) heatsink design. The XTC heatsinks are a familiar sight on high-end OCZ memory. OCZ tests and certifies the memory for DDR3-1800 8-8-8 performance on ASUS DDR3 boards. Like the other DDR3 DIMMs based on Micron Z9 memory, the OCZ DIMMs are single-sided 1GB parts. That means 2GB parts and 4GB kits are definitely a possibility in the future, when chip availability improves and the very high memory chip prices drop. Performance and timings would likely be somewhat below current specs in a 4GB kit.

OCZ PC3-14400 Platinum Edition
Memory Specifications
Number of DIMMs & Banks 2 SS
DIMM Size 1 GB
Total Memory 2 GB (2 x 1GB)
Rated Timings 8-8-8-27 at DDR3-1800
Rated Voltage 1.9V (Standard 1.5V)

DDR3 is lower voltage, higher speed and slower timings than DDR2. The chart below was published in our introduction to DDR3 and summarizes some of the differences in the official JEDEC DDR2 and DDR3 specifications.

JEDEC Memory Specifications
  DDR2 DDR3
Rated Speed 400-800 Mbps 800-1600 Mbps
Vdd/Vddq 1.8V +/- 0.1V 1.5V +/- 0.075V
Internal Banks 4 8
Termination Limited All DQ signals
Topology Conventional T Fly-by
Driver Control OCD Calibration Self Calibration with ZQ
Thermal Sensor No Yes (Optional)

JEDEC specs a starting point for enthusiast memory companies. However, since there was never a JEDEC standard for memory faster than DDR-400 then DDR memory running at faster speeds is really overclocked DDR-400. Similarly DDR2 memory faster than DDR2-800 is actually overclocked DDR2-800 since there is currently no official JEDEC spec for DDR2-1066. DDR speeds ran to DDR-400, DDR2 has official specs from 400 to 800, and DDR3 will extend this from 800 to 1600 based on the current JEDEC specification.

The OCZ PC3-14400 is the first DDR3 we have tested with a rated 1800 MHz or higher speed. It also offers somewhat lower specified latencies of 8-8-8 at 1.9V. The OCZ DDR3-1800 is available as single 1GB DIMMs or a 2GB kit providing a matched pair of 1GB DIMMs.

Index Memory Test Configuration
POST A COMMENT

25 Comments

View All Comments

  • Mithan - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    I am guessing these games were run at 800x600, which is fairly standard for memory tests?

    IF that is the case, then all this article does is prove once again why over-spending on memory is not the best use of your dollars (except in the case of over-clocking)


    My point is this:
    Farcry going from 112 to 122 FPS is probably being done at 800x600 or 1024x768.

    Bump that resolution up to 1600x1200 or 1920x1200, and that becomes 1 or 2 frames per second difference.

    My point is that the article should articulate this difference better.
    Reply
  • MadBoris - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    quote:

    I am guessing these games were run at 800x600, which is fairly standard for memory tests?
    IF that is the case, then all this article does is prove once again why over-spending on memory is not the best use of your dollars (except in the case of over-clocking)

    From a testing perspective of any hardware among each other, you have to isolate and remove the other bottlenecks. That should be done and is of course common sense. As you state, the main goal of these types of articles should at their very foundation stay focused on real world performance impact. Otherwise it looks too much like technology promotion and they lose their actual value to the reader. They don't have to go "real world" overboard, but I think that should be the consistent goal of hardware reviews.

    quote:

    Farcry going from 112 to 122 FPS is probably being done at 800x600 or 1024x768.
    Bump that resolution up to 1600x1200 or 1920x1200, and that becomes 1 or 2 frames per second difference.

    Test info would be nice.
    In the same vein of real world impact, the comparison should never have been between DDR3@800 compared to DDR3@2000. That's not even really applicable, the upgrade path isn't from DDR3 800, so I am not sure why the particular comparison was even made. The comparison at the very least, needs to be to current DDR2 offerings. The best case performance that DDR3 can provide right now is actually around 3 - 5 percent from current DDR2 offerings under those specific game tests (as I mentioned earlier), whatever those settings were.

    Obviously testing these memory comparisons isn't simple from an apples to apples standpoint especially with limited time, so I am just glad Anandtech is getting in there and doing the testing and making their findings known. :)
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    Factoring in the slower performance of current 965/975 boards on p.4 of the article, you will see that DDR3-800 on the P35 clearly beats DDR2-800 on the P965 platform. In fact, DDR3 is generally faster than DDR2-1066 at 4-4-3 timings on the P965 (the only exception being Far Cry). Taking that into account our broad statement that current DDR3 can provide as much as an 8% to 10% real world performance improvement over current DDR2 systems is certainly fair. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    DDR2-800 is the fastest official JEDEC spec for DDR2, and memory running at 3-3-3 at that resolution is common among better DDR2. It is among the fastest DDR2 performance due to the fast timings. The fastest DDR2 can reach 1066 at slower timings but it cannot reach 1333.

    Similarly we would compare to DDR-400 at 2-2-2 looking at DDR, since this was the fastest JEDEC speed looking back at DDR. DDR3 starts at 800 and goes officially at the present time to DDR3-1600. It will likley go higher in the future.

    We have compared DDR3 to one of the fastest DDR2 memories ever made at the fastest timings available for DDR2 at both 800 and 1066 in the overlap speed results on p. 4. We also did not really factor in the fact that DDR2 runs slower on the P965, P975, and other current boards than it does on the DDR2 version of the current P35 chipset.

    Reply
  • NegativeEntropy - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link

    I read through the article and (quickly) double checked the test config and gaming pages, but I did not see the settings the games were tested at? Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    All games were run at 1280x1024. That has been in past commentary, but was dropped somewhere along the way. We will add that info to the game results page. Reply
  • Jodiuh - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    Unfortunately, you're right in the $$ issues. Those of us that would be willing to pay 2-3 times the amount for 10% gaming improvement would be better off w/ a better GPU, or even a Q66/X32 CPU for games like Supcom.

    Would you mind guessing what perf improvement would come from running @ say 1600x1200 or greater + 8xQ/6x AA? It'd be even less, no?
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link

    Another underwhelming and unnecessary "update" to memory specifications. Just another example of the memory mfgs and motherboard makers forcing people to upgrade every few years for marginal performance gains. Oh well, good news is DDR2 is dirt cheap and has been for a while. Reply
  • LTG - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link

    I started the complaint thread last time about the lack of comparable results, so I want to say this time:

    Great work, excellent article.

    I was a little taken aback by your heated reaction to criticism, due to the fact that I didn't provide the solution, but hey, that's kind of human nature and I'm sure I've done it before.

    The main point here is that AT not only has the best writers of any tech site, but also the only site where they are not afraid to allow feedback and actually engage debate on the issues.

    Tech articles are near impossible to get perfect, because there is so many details to know and new things are discovered across the net every hour. But don't every get discouraged, the effort is all appreciated.

    LTG

    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - link

    Thank you for your comments. They are sincerely appreciated. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now