Triple-Channel DDR3: 6GB Kit Roundup

[Crashman]

Core i7 is breaking memory bandwidth records, but it’s taken a while for memory manufacturers to combine speed and capacity with moderate voltage levels. We’ve tested twelve 6.0 GB kits to find the best solution.

Triple-Channel DDR3: 6GB Kit Roundup : Read more

 

[arkadi]

Grate article!
What was always bothering me about ram reviews is how much memory speed/timing will really impact on system performance. I it is a lot of work I know, but it was never covered.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]From Article[/nom]Of course, we needed a Core i7 processor, but not just any processor would do. While most reviewers are stuck with engineering samples that only support DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 ratios (3x and 4x base clock, times two), our retail sample supports data rates all the way up to 2,133 MHz (8x base clock, times two).[/citation]

I could be wrong, but shouldn't it be ddr3 ? I'm not aware of i7 supporting ddr2?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]I could be wrong, but shouldn't it be ddr3 ? I'm not aware of i7 supporting ddr2?[/citation]

Heheh, looks like it's been edited.

 

[azone]

I wounder if amd will do quad channel with its am3 motherboards or even dual 128 bit channels. that would be cool. Just something to beats intels triple 64bit channels.

 

[Proximon]

Good info. Would have been nice to see at least one real world benchmark.

 

[goryachev]

Great article. Thanks.

 

[Gian124]

Anyone know the difference between the following
Kingston HyperX T1 Series Kits:
KHX16000D3T1K3/6GX
KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX

What does the UL signify?... would it benchmark the same as the former (which was tested in this article)?

 

[Guest]

'The current problem is one of voltage.'
I loled at that.. maybe it's too early in the morning for me

 

[hexploit]

Interesting just how few people give a damn about DDR3 at this point.
I guess many are a: Not wowed by i7 like they were core2 and b: Laugh and the prices of DDR3 at a time when DDR2 is not only still very fast relative to the software/games on the market but is dirt cheap.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]Gian124[/nom]Anyone know the difference between the following Kingston HyperX T1 Series Kits:KHX16000D3T1K3/6GXKHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GXWhat does the UL signify?... would it benchmark the same as the former (which was tested in this article)?[/citation]

They may have changed the name.

 

[Gian124]

The response I got from Kingston:
=======================================================================
Kingston part number KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX is a DDR3 PC3-16000 memory module running at 2000MHz.

Kingston part number KHX16000D3T1K3/6GX is not a valid Kingston part number. Did you mean to ask about Kingston part number KHX16000D3T1K3/3GX?
=======================================================================

Either Tom's had a typo, and this is really only a 3GB (1GBx3) kit, or it is not released for resale yet (e.g. the sales reps don't have that part number available to them). The *only* 6GB kit I saw had the UL designation.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]Gian124[/nom]The response I got from Kingston:=======================================================================Kingston part number KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX is a DDR3 PC3-16000 memory module running at 2000MHz. Kingston part number KHX16000D3T1K3/6GX is not a valid Kingston part number. Did you mean to ask about Kingston part number KHX16000D3T1K3/3GX? =======================================================================Either Tom's had a typo, and this is really only a 3GB (1GBx3) kit, or it is not released for resale yet (e.g. the sales reps don't have that part number available to them). The *only* 6GB kit I saw had the UL designation.[/citation]

I guess now you want a copy of the invoice? Tom's didn't make a mistake, but it's possible Kingston might have changed the part number after sending the kit.

 

[epsiloneri]

In CPU reviews it is often pointed out that the overclockability of any particular CPU depends on the particular CPU sample, and that results may differ strongly between CPUs of the same model. Why does this not apply to memory modules?

 

[Gian124]

nah, not harping on mistakes or anything, just that Kingston is saying they do not have a 2GBx3 kit with those series available.

Reason I'm asking: Building a new system this week and looking to purchase THIS ram (the Benchmark champion, Kingston HyperX T1 series 6GB kit per this article).

I know the article said you can't find this anywhere, I was merely asking Kingston for when this ram might become available.

 

[mdma35]

mushkin FTW again great price/performance value as always

 

[billiardicus]

Tom's,

But what about performance in areas that count? I want to know if DDR3 2000 gives me more FPS than DDR3 1066 in games (Crysis, COD: WaW, FC2, etc). Because what I've seen so far, the answer is no or very very little.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]epsiloneri[/nom]In CPU reviews it is often pointed out that the overclockability of any particular CPU depends on the particular CPU sample, and that results may differ strongly between CPUs of the same model. Why does this not apply to memory modules?[/citation]

It does apply to memory modules, but to a lesser extent. If you overclock six sets of modules with identical specs, you usually get a varience of around 20MHz.

[citation][nom]Gian124[/nom]Building a new system this week and looking to purchase THIS ram (the Benchmark champion, Kingston HyperX T1 series 6GB kit per this article).I know the article said you can't find this anywhere, I was merely asking Kingston for when this ram might become available.[/citation]

Because both are rated at 2000 MHz CAS 8-8-8 1.65V, the most likely scenario is that Kingston sent its test module set to THG first, then altered the model number BEFORE making them available. That would mean the original model number never even made it into the stocking system. Since that's the most likely scenario, I wouldn't have any problem buying the parts with the UL designation.

 

[Gian124]

coolio! Thanks Crashman!!!

 

[marraco]

Wonderful. Nice Article.
I are preparing a XY chart with Price-Performance based on that data, to post here soon.

Now, This article need a second part, Real world benchmarck, and bus overclocking limits on the wonderful P6T Deluxe.

 

[Lurker87]

Guys, seriously, thank you for this article. I was talking about how I really wanted a good test between all the top ddr3 6gb sticks. But most of all, I wanted to see if those Mushkins were as good as I was hoping they were. This has made my decision so much easier. Thanks everyone!

 

[marraco]

Each point represent a memory module graficated as Price Vs Performance

This chart shows an XY price performance chart:

The second chart is relative performance, above the cheapest chip Vs Difference price:

Only the memories united by the blue line are worth of a buy.
Any other module is more expensive or more slower
The super talent is the cheaper memory, so if you are really strict on budget, you should buy it.
Paying 28 U$S for the patriot module give 7% extra speed
For 50 $, the Wintec gives 8% extra speed over the Super Talent
Now, the Musking gives almost 10% gain for 70$
The Crucial Ballistic, gives only 11%, almost the same as the Muskin, but at a premium of 224 U$S, 154$ dollar more than the Muskin, only for 1% extra speed.
Is clearly not a smart choice
The Kingston offers 16% extra performance at a 390 Premium extra price over Super Talent. Is 8% faster than Musking for 320 extra U$S

The red point represents the OCZ, but is a looser, because the Patriot is 1% faster, and 12$ more expensive, altougt is in the same leage

I would recommend:
Super Talent as a smart cheap buy.
The Muskin as the max performance than a reasonable price can buy
The Kingston if money does not matter

The Crucial is absolutely not recomendable

 

[marraco]

The Mushkin does not look as good in the article. Probably is a typo or error in the Mushking performance in the TomsHardware chart.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]The Mushkin does not look as good in the article. Probably is a typo or error in the Mushking performance in the TomsHardware chart.[/citation]

Mushkin performed as it performed. It didn't beat Ballistix or HyperX because it wasn't as good. It cost almost 50% less than Ballistix however, so what more do you want? A slanted performance chart that favors Mushkin? Different test settings for Mushkin? Or perhaps the article should have left out Ballistix and HyperX 2000?

 

[Zed03]

Why did they review the "OCZ DDR3 PC3-12800 Intel® i7 Triple Channel" when "OCZ DDR3 PC3-12800 Gold Low-Voltage Triple Channel" has proven countless times to be a far superior overclocker, cost less, and rated at a lower voltage?