1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hardware First Look: Corsair CM3X1024-1333C9DHX

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 28 May 2007.

  1. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
  2. samkiller42

    samkiller42 For i AM Cheesecake!!

    Joined:
    25 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    140
    Nice review as always guys, cheers. I think i will stick to my DDR2 till i go quad core next year :D

    Sam
     
  3. Tulatin

    Tulatin The Froggy Poster

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    3,161
    Likes Received:
    7
    Shame Corsair, of all people, didn't have the PR guns to OC their sticks by 4Mhz out of the box...
     
  4. Ramble

    Ramble Ginger Nut

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    40
    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.
     
  5. Hugo.B

    Hugo.B New Member

    Joined:
    4 May 2007
    Posts:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    £352...

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


    H.B.
     
  6. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    You had to a few months ago if you wanted 2GB ;)
     
  7. Guest-23315

    Guest-23315 Guest

    When the Corsair PC2-8888 C4 Dominator 2Gb kit came out, it was about £450, so actually, thats not that bad for good memory.
     
  8. Highland3r

    Highland3r New Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    7,553
    Likes Received:
    16
    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.
     
  9. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    Ah crap, I forgot to put these pics in :( nm.

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  10. Oooo

    Oooo Member

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2006
    Posts:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    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.
     
  12. Spaceraver

    Spaceraver Ultralurker

    Joined:
    19 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    5
    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
     
  13. samkiller42

    samkiller42 For i AM Cheesecake!!

    Joined:
    25 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    140
    What motherboard did you use for the tests can i ask?

    Sam
     
  14. TRG

    TRG New Member

    Joined:
    24 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    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)" ?
     
  15. Morphine-Kitty

    Morphine-Kitty Dead account.

    Joined:
    22 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    366
    Likes Received:
    0
    I noticed that too. Other then that, good article.
     
  16. Krikkit

    Krikkit All glory to the hypnotoad! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    23,453
    Likes Received:
    368
    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.
     
  17. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    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.

    Done! Forgot to change it from one graph to the next :blush: :thumb:
     
  18. Henk

    Henk Uninformed Opinionist

    Joined:
    16 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting article, I wonder how long before DDR3 will be as affordable as DDR2 is now...

    Also, this just doesn't seem right:
     
  19. ComputerKing

    ComputerKing <img src="http://forums.bit-tech.net/images/smilie

    Joined:
    8 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    4,200
    Likes Received:
    36
    LOOL . DDR3 :duh: Never thought that.. thanks for the disappointing. Nice review :thumb:
     
  20. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest


    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.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page