First Look: Corsair CM3X1024-1333C9DHX - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 28th May 2007, 14:05

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...24_1333c9dhx/1

DDR3 is hot off the press but does it offer the performance and scaling it's been marketed to provide? Corsair hooked us up with its latest 1333MHz XMS3 modules with DHX cooling so we could find out exactly how DDR3 compares to DDR2.

samkiller42 · 28th May 2007, 14:34

Nice review as always guys, cheers. I think i will stick to my DDR2 till i go quad core next year

Sam

Tulatin · 28th May 2007, 14:50

Shame Corsair, of all people, didn't have the PR guns to OC their sticks by 4Mhz out of the box...

Ramble · 28th May 2007, 15:03

Agreed, needs to be 1337MHz before I'd consider buying it.

Funny thing is, I have no doubt that they'd raise the price for a 1337MHz module just for the idiots that would buy it.

Tim S · 28th May 2007, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugo.B

£352...

Is there anyone here able to justify paying that much for RAM?

H.B.

You had to a few months ago if you wanted 2GB

Mankz · 28th May 2007, 17:04

When the Corsair PC2-8888 C4 Dominator 2Gb kit came out, it was about £450, so actually, thats not that bad for good memory.

Highland3r · 28th May 2007, 17:39

Any chance you can run a test showing DDR2 @ 800 vs DDR3 @ 800 using the same timings pls? Even 1066 would be good if thats do-able, just for a quick like for like comparo.
Also, can you confirm the DDR3 was running at 760FSB please? Just a little confused as you mention 760 DDR in there too.

From those tests though, as you've said it doesn't look like a huge leap at the moment. Guess we'll see reduced timings and increased speeds as the technology progresses and refinements are made.

Bindibadgi · 28th May 2007, 17:48

Ah crap, I forgot to put these pics in

nm.

It's not 760FSB, it's on a 1:2 divider, so it's 380FSB*2.

The lowest timings we'll see are probably CAS6. I'd have to set the DDR2 timings more relaxed because the DDR3 won't do DDR2 speeds, but at the same speed DDR3 will out perform DDR2 due to a better prefetch and burst rate.

I'll see if I've got time in the week, but I've moved onto other stuff now and the boards are disassembled.

Oooo · 28th May 2007, 19:14

It doesn't get better than DDR2 on an Intel system.

But am I wrong saying AMD use more bandwidth?
If not, than wouldn't DDR3 @ 1600 make a real big memory performance increse when they relese a chip that support it. Even tough the latencies are a bit high.

Bindibadgi · 28th May 2007, 19:36

AMD has an internal controller that allows them a far lower latency and higher overall bandwidth. You get around 8000MB/s on a good AMD AM2 system.

Spaceraver · 28th May 2007, 19:59

They should consider supporting DDR2 for a few years yet, that way the current chipsets can mature a bit more. We need better timings instead

samkiller42 · 28th May 2007, 20:12

What motherboard did you use for the tests can i ask?

Sam

TRG · 28th May 2007, 20:48

He used the P5K3 Deluxe and P5K Deluxe.
On pages 5 and 6, shouldn't the charts say "Frames per second (higher is better)" instead of "Time in seconds (lower is better)" ?

Morphine-Kitty · 29th May 2007, 00:45

I noticed that too. Other then that, good article.

Krikkit · 29th May 2007, 01:15

Great article, but ridiculous price for basically 0 performance gain.

For the price of the P5K3 deluxe and the cheaper, slower DDR3-1066MHz C7 modules, you can buy a P5K Deluxe plus 3 (yes, 3!) sets of Crucial PC8000-C5 Ballistix (nearly the same as the Corsair PC8000C5 Dominator, but £50 cheaper). Madness.

Bindibadgi · 29th May 2007, 09:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by samkiller42

What motherboard did you use for the tests can i ask? Sam

It seems so obvious now someone points it out. I was concentrating on getting all the numbers for the memory right I forgot to put the test setup in. It's now back on page 2, in full.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRG

He used the P5K3 Deluxe and P5K Deluxe.
On pages 5 and 6, shouldn't the charts say "Frames per second (higher is better)" instead of "Time in seconds (lower is better)" ?

Done! Forgot to change it from one graph to the next

Henk · 29th May 2007, 10:38

Interesting article, I wonder how long before DDR3 will be as affordable as DDR2 is now...

Also, this just doesn't seem right:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article, page seven

The modules look great, perform as you'd expect but most importantly scale really very well.

ComputerKing · 29th May 2007, 13:38

LOOL . DDR3

Never thought that.. thanks for the disappointing. Nice review

Bindibadgi · 29th May 2007, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henk

Interesting article, I wonder how long before DDR3 will be as affordable as DDR2 is now...

Also, this just doesn't seem right:

Well, they *do* look great. They *do* perform as you'd expect: higher latency at same speeds = slower, higher frequency than DDR2 = still pretty quick. Scales well: 1520MHz from 1333MHz modules is pretty damn good imo.

Henk · 29th May 2007, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

Well, they *do* look great. They *do* perform as you'd expect: higher latency at same speeds = slower, higher frequency than DDR2 = still pretty quick. Scales well: 1520MHz from 1333MHz modules is pretty damn good imo.

Yes, I agree with that. It was just the wording "really very well" that caught my attention, it didn't look right

I guess I'm a bit too picky sometimes

28th May 2007, 14:05	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	First Look: Corsair CM3X1024-1333C9DHX http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...24_1333c9dhx/1 DDR3 is hot off the press but does it offer the performance and scaling it's been marketed to provide? Corsair hooked us up with its latest 1333MHz XMS3 modules with DHX cooling so we could find out exactly how DDR3 compares to DDR2. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

28th May 2007, 14:34	#2
samkiller42 KEEP IT CLEAN! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Havant, Hampshire, England Posts: 3,189	Nice review as always guys, cheers. I think i will stick to my DDR2 till i go quad core next year Sam __________________ The Rig: i7 920 D0, Gigabyte EX58-UD5, 12GB DDR3 1600mhz, BFG GTX295, Samsung 64gb SSD, WD 640gb Black, Samsung F2 Eco 1TB, Dell 3007WFP, Windows 7 RC. The Netbook: Samsung NC10 Black, Intel Atom, 2gb DDR2 The Mac: Awaiting Delivery

28th May 2007, 14:50	#3
Tulatin The Froggy Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 2,942	Shame Corsair, of all people, didn't have the PR guns to OC their sticks by 4Mhz out of the box... __________________ Desky E8400 @ 4.0 1.42v; P5K-E WiFi; 4x1 Kingmax Mars 1066 @ 1129 CAS 5; 2x [TOO CHEAP TO SPONSOR] 4850 @ 675/1050; Enermax Liberty; WCing in a CM690

28th May 2007, 15:03	#4
Ramble Ginger Nut Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Exeter, Devon/Wantage, Oxfordshire Posts: 5,235	Agreed, needs to be 1337MHz before I'd consider buying it. Funny thing is, I have no doubt that they'd raise the price for a 1337MHz module just for the idiots that would buy it. __________________ Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky are beaming down to the planet. Guess who's not coming back.

28th May 2007, 17:39	#7
Highland3r I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Leeds UK Posts: 7,159	Any chance you can run a test showing DDR2 @ 800 vs DDR3 @ 800 using the same timings pls? Even 1066 would be good if thats do-able, just for a quick like for like comparo. Also, can you confirm the DDR3 was running at 760FSB please? Just a little confused as you mention 760 DDR in there too. From those tests though, as you've said it doesn't look like a huge leap at the moment. Guess we'll see reduced timings and increased speeds as the technology progresses and refinements are made. __________________ Prawn or not...?

28th May 2007, 17:48	#8
Bindibadgi Richard Swinburne bit-tech Staff Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Omnipwntent Posts: 28,284	Ah crap, I forgot to put these pics in nm. It's not 760FSB, it's on a 1:2 divider, so it's 380FSB*2. The lowest timings we'll see are probably CAS6. I'd have to set the DDR2 timings more relaxed because the DDR3 won't do DDR2 speeds, but at the same speed DDR3 will out perform DDR2 due to a better prefetch and burst rate. I'll see if I've got time in the week, but I've moved onto other stuff now and the boards are disassembled. __________________ Made you look, made you stare, made you clicked this in your underwear! Den of Geek!

28th May 2007, 19:14	#9
Oooo Minimalist modder Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 64	It doesn't get better than DDR2 on an Intel system. But am I wrong saying AMD use more bandwidth? If not, than wouldn't DDR3 @ 1600 make a real big memory performance increse when they relese a chip that support it. Even tough the latencies are a bit high. __________________ THE System= CPU Core 2 Duo E6300/ Mobo Gigabyte P45 / GFX HD 4850/ Memory Corsair XMS2 6400 3 GB / Badly modded Antec 300

28th May 2007, 19:36	#10
Bindibadgi Richard Swinburne bit-tech Staff Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Omnipwntent Posts: 28,284	AMD has an internal controller that allows them a far lower latency and higher overall bandwidth. You get around 8000MB/s on a good AMD AM2 system. __________________ Made you look, made you stare, made you clicked this in your underwear! Den of Geek!

28th May 2007, 19:59	#11
Spaceraver Weekend Junkie Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kolding, Denmark Posts: 1,307	They should consider supporting DDR2 for a few years yet, that way the current chipsets can mature a bit more. We need better timings instead __________________ "Faith: not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca Last thing I remember, I was drinking this glowing green sht out of a test tube and dancing like a bstard.

28th May 2007, 20:12	#12
samkiller42 KEEP IT CLEAN! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Havant, Hampshire, England Posts: 3,189	What motherboard did you use for the tests can i ask? Sam __________________ The Rig: i7 920 D0, Gigabyte EX58-UD5, 12GB DDR3 1600mhz, BFG GTX295, Samsung 64gb SSD, WD 640gb Black, Samsung F2 Eco 1TB, Dell 3007WFP, Windows 7 RC. The Netbook: Samsung NC10 Black, Intel Atom, 2gb DDR2 The Mac: Awaiting Delivery

28th May 2007, 20:48	#13
TRG Minimodder Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 22	He used the P5K3 Deluxe and P5K Deluxe. On pages 5 and 6, shouldn't the charts say "Frames per second (higher is better)" instead of "Time in seconds (lower is better)" ?

29th May 2007, 00:45	#14
Morphine-Kitty Dead account. Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 366	I noticed that too. Other then that, good article. __________________ Not posting on this forum anymore...

29th May 2007, 01:15	#15
Krikkit Don't panic! Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lancs, UK Posts: 15,209	Great article, but ridiculous price for basically 0 performance gain. For the price of the P5K3 deluxe and the cheaper, slower DDR3-1066MHz C7 modules, you can buy a P5K Deluxe plus 3 (yes, 3!) sets of Crucial PC8000-C5 Ballistix (nearly the same as the Corsair PC8000C5 Dominator, but £50 cheaper). Madness. __________________ \|E8400 @ 4.4GHz\|WC: 2*120.1 GT's, MCP350, Storm G5\|4GB Dominators\|DFI LT X48-T2R\|8800GT\|74GB Raptor\|Chieftec BA01\|OCZ ModXStream 600W\|Dell 2208WFP\| The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, The LOL!!1!!1!, The Zlad!, The Kempness, The Braaaaaains...

29th May 2007, 13:38	#18
ComputerKing Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dubai\|Alexandria Posts: 4,100	LOOL . DDR3 Never thought that.. thanks for the disappointing. Nice review __________________ GigaByte Triton 180\|GigaByte EP45-UD3LR\|Intel Q9450\|Transcend 4GB 1066Mhz\|Sapphire 3870X2\|Creative X-FI ExtremeGamer\|Enermax Galaxy DXX 1KW\|Samsung 2220WM\|Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme\|3TB WD Green The King Of CK Appreciation Society Group