Value DDR3 For Intel's P55: Six 4GB Kits Rounded Up

Status
Not open for further replies.

jrharbort

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2009
213
0
18,690
1
I've always insisted that Crucial DDR3 kits are an excellent value, and recommended them to friends for their amazing stability, overclockability, and price.

These kits totally deserved the Tom's award for best hardware of '09.
 

mlcloud

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2009
356
0
18,790
1
I've been buying OCZ for all my DDR2 needs (they were very cheap after rebates), but I think I know who to go to for DDR3 (and awesome power supplies)
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]coolkev99[/nom]This is good info, but I wish they would develop some 3gb x 2 kits out there.[/citation]

3GB modules don't make a lot of sense due to the way memory chips are organized. In order to do it "right" (same physical organization), you'd have to use different chips on each side of the module, such as 1gb chips on one side and 2gb chips on the other, and I'm not even sure such a module would be compatible with current memory controllers.
 

jodpel

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2009
12
0
18,510
0
I had an idea in my mind that they look at the test results from every shipment of memory they get from the fab... the stuff that tests poorly gets sold as value and the stuff that exceeds specs gets heat sinks and sold as performance RAM.

I was always leery of buying value RAM because I figured it failed a spec somewhere along the line and got thrown in the "sell it to Mikey because he'll buy anything" bin at the virtual store.
 

Ryun

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2006
133
0
18,680
0
"OCZ’s maximum data rate of only 1,240 MT/s came from our second attempt to test the memory. Both modules in our first kit threw errors even at a modest 1,066 MHz data rate."

Glad you found this as well. I, and others on newegg who ordered that set of sticks, got DOA memory. Gave me errors and couldn't OC at all. It's crap RAM.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]jodpel[/nom]I had an idea in my mind that they look at the test results from every shipment of memory they get from the fab... the stuff that tests poorly gets sold as value and the stuff that exceeds specs gets heat sinks and sold as performance RAM.I was always leery of buying value RAM because I figured it failed a spec somewhere along the line and got thrown in the "sell it to Mikey because he'll buy anything" bin at the virtual store.[/citation]

From the samples Tom's purchased it appears that there are two grades of memory: "Everything Else" and OCZ Gold.
 

void_pointer

Distinguished
May 8, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
Providing results for Memtest86+ and SiSoftware Sandra is important (IMHO), but these results really don't tell us much about real-world performance of apps/games/etc. The Crucial kit gets a win based on max data rate (and price), but there is no guarantee that you'll see a performance increase when you crank up the data rate and run your favourite app/game/etc., because the way it accesses memory with the cranked-up latencies actually cause a reduction in performance.

If we could get a small sample of benchmarks with real apps (e.g., one or two games, an encoder or two, a file compressor or two) I think readers would have a far better understanding of what "Super-Value" means for them (and their apps/games/etc.)
 

notty22

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2009
2,958
0
21,160
103
I think its the end user, the home builder that is being cheated out of quality and value in the current ram market. With all these supposed ram modules available at different speeds/timings then multiply that by meaningless things such as color and non functional heat spreaders the end result is story after story of ram NOT WORKING at default bios settings for a given processor/memory configuration. All I know is it seems like its russian roulette building a system and expecting your ram to work with default bios settings.
 

tpb

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2006
5
0
18,510
0
I have found that memtest86+ simply isn't good at finding problems from overclocking.
I have an AM3 motherboard with 8 gig of ram and I could run memtest86+ for hours and not have any problems, boot into windows and have unpredictable crashes from minutes to hours later.
If I boot into windows and run the memory tester in the link below, the problem shows up within seconds or minutes.
I have no idea why this memory tester appears to be better than memtest86+.
After you get the system working reliably, run one of the CPU stress programs at the same time as the memory test to heat up the CPU and ram and see if the system is still reliable.

http://hcidesign.com/memtest/download.html

 

rockyjohn

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2006
2,813
0
20,960
74
I used Crucial in my last build and am very happy with it.

I agree with those who stated it would have been informative to see some applications used in the test. Also, it would have been more informative if they had included one or two of the performance RAM for comparison.
 

philosofool

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2008
49
0
18,530
0
That crucial memory kit isn't compatible with many Gigabyte boards. I went through RMA hell over it. It's not crucial's fault, but if you're a system builder, you should know this.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]void_pointer[/nom]Providing results for Memtest86+ and SiSoftware Sandra is important (IMHO), but these results really don't tell us much about real-world performance of apps/games/etc. The Crucial kit gets a win based on max data rate (and price), but there is no guarantee that you'll see a performance increase when you crank up the data rate and run your favourite app/game/etc., because the way it accesses memory with the cranked-up latencies actually cause a reduction in performance.If we could get a small sample of benchmarks with real apps (e.g., one or two games, an encoder or two, a file compressor or two) I think readers would have a far better understanding of what "Super-Value" means for them (and their apps/games/etc.)[/citation]

No. Get out your calculator, it's all about latency TIME. If you could get DDR3-1066 CAS 4, it would have the same latency time as DDR3-1333 CAS 5, DDR3-1600 CAS 6, and DDR3-1866 CAS 7. But since you can't get any of those the calculations are harder even though the concept remains the same.

Once you get beyond a certain level of memory performance, going farther doesn't have much effect on program performance. Thus, the only way to consider the added value of memory that exceeds practical performance limits is to consider the overclocking capability as added value for overclockers.

[citation][nom]rockyjohn[/nom]I used Crucial in my last build and am very happy with it.I agree with those who stated it would have been informative to see some applications used in the test. Also, it would have been more informative if they had included one or two of the performance RAM for comparison.[/citation]

Testing program performance at speeds exceeding DDR3-1333 is impractical for this processor, since it doesn't support the appropriate ratios. To do so would require CPU overclocking, which would skew the results artifically.
 

Ryun

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2006
133
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]philosofool[/nom]That crucial memory kit isn't compatible with many Gigabyte boards. I went through RMA hell over it. It's not crucial's fault, but if you're a system builder, you should know this.[/citation]

Which ones? I just put together a build for a friend using the crucial memory kit from the article and it booted it up fine with a Gigabyte 785G.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS