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

[El_Capitan]

Not likely. The upward trend has been going a while and the dollar is falling fast.

True, but the upward trend has started for SSD's since June/July and most other products since September/October. The dollar was gaining a bit in October 2008 to March 2009 (against the Euro), and falling since. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the upward trend and a falling dollar rate.

We'll know better once "Black Friday" and the few weeks until the New Year hits.

 

[Guest]

Users of P55 chipset BEWARE!!!
http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Standard-DRAM-Memory/My-new-RAM-does-not-work-at-its-rated-parameters/td-p/7375

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=20-148-262&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&SelectedRating=1&PurchaseMark=&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&Page=6&Keywords=

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]fedot[/nom]Users of P55 chipset BEWARE!!!http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Standa [...] /td-p/7375http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] &Keywords=[/citation]

The tested RAM was purchased retail FROM Newegg, using the SAME motherboard, so the most likely reason some people are having problems is that they're using the wrong slots. I've seen this type of issue frequently "solved" by underclocking when real problem was with the builder.

The correct slots are the 2nd and 4th from the processor. This is opposite of the correct slots for LGA-775 builds, where the correct slots were the 1st and 3rd from the processor.

Tom's Hardware has tested many of these modules from several sources on multiple motherboards, including many Intel and AMD chipsets. Tom's knows how to test RAM, so it's a lot easier to look at the complainers in this case.

Also, concerning the Newegg reviews, it appears that several of these people are reporting what they read and don't even own the RAM.

 

[Guest]

> it's possible to use the "wrong" slots on some
> motherboards and still get stability by underclocking,
> which is most likely what you did.

That is a very bold assumption about the "builder"! Let me assure I used the correct slots. Why? Because ASUS P7P55D does not even POST if you try to use 1st and 3rd slot away from the CPU socket. As simple as that...

Let me reiterate what was said on Crucial's forum (forget the neweggs forum). Forget the overclocking: my system does not run stable at all the _default settings_ but runs ok at memory speed lowered to 1066. And there is at least 3 other users who posted about this on Crucial's forum here:

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Standard-DRAM-Memory/Problem-with-Crucial-4GB-2-x-2GB-240-Pin-DDR3-SDRAM-DDR3-1333/m-p/5761


If you still have this memory and P7P55D board at Tom's Hardware, would you care to run it at the default BIOS settings (BIOS v.915) with the Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility Memory Stress test and see what you get out of it?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]fedot2[/nom]> it's possible to use the "wrong" slots on some> motherboards and still get stability by underclocking,> which is most likely what you did.That is a very bold assumption about the "builder"! Let me assure I used the correct slots. Why? Because ASUS P7P55D does not even POST if you try to use 1st and 3rd slot away from the CPU socket. As simple as that... Let me reiterate what was said on Crucial's forum (forget the neweggs forum). Forget the overclocking: my system does not run stable at all the _default settings_ but runs ok at memory speed lowered to 1066. And there is at least 3 other users who posted about this on Crucial's forum here:http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Standa [...] 3/m-p/5761If you still have this memory and P7P55D board at Tom's Hardware, would you care to run it at the default BIOS settings (BIOS v.915) with the Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility Memory Stress test and see what you get out of it?[/citation]

Tom's DID run it at the default values without problem. Tom's will NOT be using Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility unless it's part of a cra...<cough>...software overclocking program comparison.

 

[Guest]

Here is some interesting reading for you. I hope you believe me now and stop denying there is absolutely nothing wrong with this RAM (which I bought directly from Crucial, by the way!)

http://www.alternativerecursion.info/?p=797

Regarding "Tom will NOT be using IETU", perhaps you should reconsider. Who else but Intel themselves would know how to test their own components for stability. Intel's utility found the problem with my RAM in 2 seconds, while Memtest86+ and other "stress test benchmarks" ran for hours with no problems.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]fedor3[/nom]Here is some interesting reading for you. I hope you believe me now and stop denying there is absolutely nothing wrong with this RAM (which I bought directly from Crucial, by the way!)http://www.alternativerecursion.info/?p=797[/citation]

Interesting stuff regarding the .16FF suffix, as all the modules Tom's has gotten from both Crucial and Newegg have had this suffix (to the best of my knowledge). So, if there's an incompatible batch with a different suffix, you can supply everyone all the information you have on that batch in an effort to explain how you AND Tom's can both be right even though your results are completely different.

 

[Guest]

I purchased the 4GB Crucial memory in mid-December based on this article. It was $89 which didn't break my budget. Using it with an ASUS P7P55D LGA and an Intel Core i5. The memory has been running great. At 1.65V and 1333 I wasn't able to get the timings as low as Tom's did without applications throwing errors. However, I did get it down to 7-7-7-18, which is 7ns less latency than the stock timings of 9-9-9-25. I've been running Super PI, Sandra and COD4 at high graphics settings with the memory at these timings and its been performing great.

I wasn't expecting to drastically overclock or reduce latency with this memory. It was fast enough at stock speeds, and I've managed to squeeze a little more out of it. I'm very satisfied with this memory.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]Newi5builder[/nom]I purchased the 4GB Crucial memory in mid-December based on this article. It was $89 which didn't break my budget. Using it with an ASUS P7P55D LGA and an Intel Core i5. The memory has been running great. At 1.65V and 1333 I wasn't able to get the timings as low as Tom's did without applications throwing errors. However, I did get it down to 7-7-7-18, which is 7ns less latency than the stock timings of 9-9-9-25. I've been running Super PI, Sandra and COD4 at high graphics settings with the memory at these timings and its been performing great.I wasn't expecting to drastically overclock or reduce latency with this memory. It was fast enough at stock speeds, and I've managed to squeeze a little more out of it. I'm very satisfied with this memory.[/citation]

You can get a little better timings if you up the uncore voltage to 1.30V. As for the VDIMM, you don't really need 1.65V for what you're running. Depending on the airflow you have around your DIMMs, you might be better off using the same timings at lower voltage.

 

[misha87]

y didnt they use kingston hyper x

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]MISHA87[/nom]y didnt they use kingston hyper x[/citation]From Page 1

We don’t expect our readers to go out and buy every available low-cost kit, while relying on manufacturers to provide samples could result in specially-prepared or hand-picked parts that inaccurately represent the retail product. But putting the words “budget” and “overclocking” in the same sentence makes it hard to arrange a truly-representative comparison, so we instead logged on to Newegg.com and bought the six module sets that were available for less than $80 as of October 1.

(all) Kingston HyperX was far more expensive at that time.