Wow, maybe OCZ don't deserve the criticism they receive. I was going to go for some Kingston HyperX for my A64 system as it's nice looking and nicely priced, but OCZ is teh shineh . Nice review .
Thanks, Kingston HyperX is and has always been nice memory, I've got some BH-5 modules of theirs which clock higher than any other BH-5 I've had These Kingston HyperX modules clocked very well too, but the ability of the OCZ to hold the tighter timings gave them the edge, even though they didn't clock quite as high. You wouldn't be making a bad choice buying either the Kingston or the OCZ
I want to get me some of that Geil memory, been looking at it for ages but it costs to much money . Nice reviews *again*
read through it, little too in depth for me to wrap my grey matter around. one suggestiong though, if you are going to be doing a string of charts its much easier to read when the items don't change positions through each one. Yes, I understand they were done that way to show who was on top, but it makes it easier to compare multiple tables. Yes, I know it's small stuff. Vazz
Thanks for the comments, it's good to know positive and negative feedback... I have got a memory timing article in the pipeline as we speak, which should explain quite a bit that is "unexplained" in this particular review... I had to try and keep things down to a reasonable level in order to keep the pages to a respectable number - anything over 15-16 pages is getting on a bit in my opinion. If you do have any questions about anything, please don't hesitate to ask them I understand what you're saying about the tables, and while I agree with what you're saying, I disagree to a certain extent too. When you're doing something like this, we're looking at what's good and what's not, so lining modules up in performance order made sense to me in that respect. However, I can fully appreciate where you're coming from - it could just get a lot more complex if you're trying to pick out what's the best memory around. With plans to do many more memory reviews, I feel that this is the way to go. We had to start somewhere with this, and in future, the memory reviews will be single or double headed reviews which add the modules into the performance tables - the OS state will not change and nor will any drivers or hardware in the test bed; only the memory modules will change. The tables will become a bit easier to read, as the newly reviewed modules will get highlighted in the tables I would imagine, at least that is what I plan to do at the moment. We're also in the process of getting a DDR2 testbed set up, but this will prove a little more difficult as there are no "slow" processors that would have the possibility of running 333MHz FSB in 1:1 mode. Thanks again
Nice article, changed my opinion on OCZ . One thing though, why not test some 2-2-2 modules? BH-5 is dead, but Samsung have manufactured some chips capable of it, heres some memory from Corsair running the 2-2-2 latencies: http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/products/specs/twinx1024-3200xlpro.pdf
Just had a look at these and they look excellent. This morning I read a Slashdot article on Dual Channel memory and just as I thought I'd get some more Crucial, I was blown away by the poor performance of it's sticks. THis new Ballistix stuff looks like they have addressed the problem of their weak timings which is something that for me, is a bit more important than the overclocking potential . Just thought the links might help . As an aside, I found the original article in this post a bit better for reading and it was more informative, but the article I posted just shows more sticks.
There's a possibility that I'll have these in the test bed soon.... I have something coming from Crucial in both DDR and DDR2 flavours I started reading that review yesterday, and I find it rather flawed from a conclusive point of view... they've also left a lot out of the review despite having 18 modules in the comparison. The Corsair XL gains a rating of 9 out of 10, for finishing 1st at 200MHz, 11th after overclocking, and 2nd overall... Given an editors choice, costing close to £260... ok fair enough. Next the OCZ PC3700 Enhanced Bandwidth gets a 7 out of 10 for finishing 2nd & 3rd at 200MHz, 6th after overclocking, and then 1st overall... no award, and they moan about them being expensive - what? £10 more expensive than the already expensive Corsair XL, hardly a lot of money when you're spending nearly £275 on some high-end DDR memory... Where did the rating numbers come from? I've tested the Corsair XL and I'm in the process of writing up my review of it - it's fast without doubt; but you can't say one is expensive and not the other in the case of the TR megatest. I could go into more detail about some other problems with their review, but I choose not to at this moment in time.
Nice review Could someone tell me what that means? What are these dividers? Cheers http://www.encorehome.com
Thanks When I was finding the maximum speed that my processor and motherboard could handle, I didn't have memory that was capable of running in 1:1, so I ran the memory with a divider to find the maximum speed that my processor could achieve. I ran 287MHz fsb, which gives just under 230MHz on the memory at 5:4, and 191MHz when using the 3:2 divider. It basically allows you to run the processor faster than what your memory is capable of.
