Kingston Launches Low-Latency DDR3

by Wesley Fink on 5/24/2007 4:00 AM EST
POST A COMMENT

45 Comments

Back to Article

  • Kozusnik - Thursday, December 06, 2007 - link

    Kingstone ram is some of the best ram you can put into your computer by asking me i use it in every computer i build! Reply
  • begsh - Saturday, June 23, 2007 - link

    are you really achieved this??
    i have same modules and they cant get even 1400 at 7-7-7, with mobo asus p5k3 and 0403 bios.
    any tips?
    Reply
  • Night201 - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    http://www.memory4less.com/m4l_itemdetail.asp?rid=...">Seems pretty Expensive: ~ $500 Reply
  • MadBoris - Saturday, May 26, 2007 - link

    P.S. Some of the recent reviews almost seem a bit minimalistic. Hope it's not a trend of things to come. Not to be critical, but I would like to see anandtech provide fresh content, perspectives and methodologies like I've grown accustomed to. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, May 28, 2007 - link

    We would appreciate it if you could share specifics of what would constitute a non-minimalist memory review. What tests and procedures would you add? Reply
  • MadBoris - Saturday, May 26, 2007 - link

    You know the more i think about it, the results aren't that tangible. Sure Sandra shows benefits. But if I am running a game at 40 fps, is DDR3 going to give me 41, 42?
    It won't be noticeable.

    Spend less on reliable decent RAM, get a faster CPU or GPU, seriously.

    Same with the P35, just not too tangible with speed tests. Mobo's should be about reliability, features sets, testing devices(USB, SATA, RAID) on them and how well they work.

    Speed testing with RAM or Mobo's isn't tangible enough. When a new chipset or RAM increases things 15 - 20% then I'll be interested. I'm not really interested in shaving .5 seconds off a compile or an encode.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    We have updated ALL charts in the review to make it easier to compare performance. Bandwidth Standard, Bandwidth Buffered, Super Pi, and the 3 games now included 1520 (380x7) results in the last column. This means all four rows are now running at 2.66GHz, with just a change in the memory bandwidth. *00, 1066, and 1333 are running 8x333, and 1520 is 7x380 - all 2.66GHz as stated at the top of the chart.

    We have added an Overclocking Chart to p.5 that includes 7x380 (2.66GHz)- 8-8-8-22, 8x380 (same multiplier as 800/1066/1333 but pushed ot highest OC at 3.04GHz)- 8-8-8-20, and 8x275 (3.0GHz - highest speed at 7-7-7 timings) - 7-7-7-15. so you cna see the impact of timings at the very top overclocks. It should be no surprise that 1500 7-7-7-15 results are the fastest.

    With these changes we think we have addressed your suggestions on making the performance charts more useful for readers.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    For those who requested them, these are the results for the higheest memory speed at slower timings. After further testing, we managed 1520 8-8-8-22 timings at 1.8V.

    The first result is 7x380, which is the same 2.66GHz run at all other memory speeds, and the second is 8x380, which is the same ratio but the highest OC we could reach from the base memory setting of 1333. The sequence is test, 7x380 (2.66), 8x380 (3,04):

    Sandra XI-Standard Buffered - 7329, 7462
    Sandra XI-Standard UNBuffered - 5172, 5263
    Super Pi 1.5 - 45.31, 40.40
    Far Cry River - 107.46, 117.82
    Quake 4 - 116.0, 123.5
    Half Life 2-Lost Coast - 109.5, 111.5

    We will add a chart with these results to the bottom of the overclocking section later today.
    Reply
  • Googer - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    2GB of DDR3 will cost you close to $385!

    http://www.google.com/products?q=KHX11000D3LLK2&am...">http://www.google.com/products?q=KHX11000D3LLK2&am...
    Reply
  • TA152H - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    A lot is being made of DDR3 latency and such, and performance, but hasn't anyone considered the impact of voltages? I see these grossly inflated voltages for DDR2 memory, and I can't help but wonder if they would have so much better performance, even clock speed normalized, if they were both run at stock voltages.

    A lot of places aren't stupid enough to run DDR2 at 2.2 or 2.3 volts, it creates a lot of heat and lowers the lifespan of the device. Sure, the kiddies will, but the business world isn't that crazy about running things out of spec. Now we have the jackasses at Kingston already producing 1.7v DDR3. Why even bother having a spec if no one pays attention to it???? The memory is just out, and they can't stay to spec.

    But anyway, it might be interesting to compare memory at spec, which, last I remember, was 1.5v for DDR3 and 1.8v for DDR2. Or even at the same voltage, to see what is intrinsic to DDR3 and DDR2. It might be the voltage difference accounts for a lot of the higher timings, and not the standard. Not that I'm advocating running DDR3 at 1.8v, but for testing, it would be informative. Certainly if these nitwits are running DDR2 at 2.2-2.3v, DDR3 at 1.8v can't be too far behind. Good grief.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    The Asus P5K3 Deluxe motherboard allows DDR3 to be adjusted to 2.2V in .05V increments from the stock voltage of 1.5V. We ran voltages as high as 1.8V in this review, as Kingston specifies the memory at 1.7V. We gained nothing at voltages higher than 1.8V so we did not use them for testing.

    You seem to forget that enthusiast memory makers often specify higher than stock voltage for modules and they warrant the memory running at those higher specified voltages.

    We do agree you should be careful with higher voltages on memory, but when manufacturers warrant products at higher voltage we are a bit less concerned.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Wesley,

    You can warrant something all you want, but that doesn't mean running over spec doesn't shorten the lifespan of a product. It will, without a doubt. The only question is, will it lower it significantly enough to matter, meaning during the useful lifespan of the product. Probably not, if they warrant it, but it depends on how long you keep it. Since only the kiddies will buy this junk, and they will replace the machine when the next alien invasion comes from Zargon, in higher resolution, it's probably OK. I doubt any serious machines like servers will have this sub-standard memory.

    But, do they warrant it against additional power use? Do they pay for the electricity it takes? I don't think so. Do they warrant your motherboard against the additional heat? Do they give you additional fans to cool them? Do they pay for the electricity for those fans? Heat and electricity is a big problem, and even if they warranty their part, it stresses other parts too. And just because they'll warranty something doesn't really help that much if it breaks; the big loss isn't the part, but the down time. Do you really think they KNOW how long this part will last anyway? It's not like they can test it for 5 years and say it lasted that long. It's a best guess. The only certainty is they are shortening the life span.

    So, a warranty doesn't cover everything, and there is always a price for running overspec, but that's not even my real point. I remember buying some memory from Kingston, and they had specs listed on it. It was for a mini-ITX, and it didn't have the crazy voltages available (why would it, the whole point was to save power and noise?). Of course, I see 2-2-2-5 and assume, naturally, that this is the timing for it will run at, at spec. Except the voltage you need for this is higher, and it's entirely misleading. I returned it of course, after yelling at them, and am still annoyed that these companies help make a standard, and then disregard it. I mean, if you want to run memory at 2.2 or 2.3 volts, put that into the standard. And it's not like you can say they find out quite a bit later that the standard wasn't realistic. Kingston is breaking it right after it's been made! So why didn't they say in the meeting, let's create the spec for 1.7 volts? Or, create a range. It's absurd they create a spec and the first memory out breaks it. Of course, the other memory makers will do this too, but one of the points of the memory was low power use, so it's a bit conflicting. Also, as they go to PC-1600, and it naturally sucks more juice, how high can you really go with the voltage without creating an enormous amount of heat that can't be ignored? Naturally, they'll be going beyond PC-1600 at some point even though that's the spec, and it'll just get worse. So, being able to make memory with proper voltages will become more and more important.
    Reply
  • bldckstark - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Ummm.. HyperX memory is not marketed to businesses. It is marketed to enthusiasts. Businesses keep using the standard parts, and enthusiasts keep using high performance parts. This would be the same reason that companies don't buy Corvettes for their salesmen to drive. It is not a reasonable business decision for several reasons, some of those being initial cost, maintenance costs, and normal usage costs like gas.

    How come you don't buy servers from Alienware for your company? Do you buy EE processors for your companies desktops? Your argument is similar to that of not having a space program, because we can't use rocket engines on jets.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

    I was saying the same thing. I guess most people are too simple to realize that even though, in a general sense, you are against something, you can make a point for why it exists. I pointed out that only kiddies will buy this memory, and it won't be used for servers, so it's not that bad. You couldn't understand that?

    But the main thing is, why make a standard when you're going to break it.

    Your remark about rocket engines on jets is purely idiotic. It's a terrible analogy, and makes no point at all. But, just so you know, there were in fact rocket propelled airplanes (German ME-163), but jets are a competing technology, you have one or the other. But again, you missed my point, because you naturally assumed everything I was saying was against this over-voltaged memory, but I was giving both sides. I still don't like it though. They should have made the spec 1.7volts, or whatever, if they fully intended to make it at that voltage, which clearly they did.
    Reply
  • menting - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    "But the main thing is, why make a standard when you're going to break it. "
    is same as why set a speed limit when people are going to speed.

    standards are there just for a standard. It doesn't say if they are prohibited from doing more. If they sell memory and say it conforms to JEDEC standards, then it means they can run at specced speeds at the specced voltages. They could go faster at higher voltages if they want. If they dont even say they conform to JEDEC standards, they can spec whatever they want and it's up to the user to decide if they want to buy memory that runs at the manufacturer's settings.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Another bad analogy.

    You can get a ticket for going over the speed limit and get fined. It's proscribed. You do it at your own risk and it's illegal. That's good?

    If they intended to go at higher voltages, why not spec it at that? Or create a range? Why create a spec if everyone breaks it? My big problem is how it's advertised, it's not so clear that the timings are for grossly inflated voltages. You have to look, and unless you know to and not make an assumption that memory is made according the specification, you can be fooled. You don't make a standard to break it, that's just plain asinine. You make a standard for conformity, that's the point of standards.
    Reply
  • rjm55 - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    You seem obsessed that Kingston sold you some memory sticks in the past that were rated at higher than JEDEC voltage. You learned that pretty much everyone in the memory industry does this and most people think nothing of it. You really need to get on with your life or seek professional help. Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Sunday, May 27, 2007 - link

    He may perhaps have a point in that the DDR3 standard has only just arrived, and already modules are arriving which are intended to be used well above the rated voltage.

    I run my memory above voltage like most of us, but when a new standard arrives and the recommended voltage has already been exceeded by over 13% almost immediately, it makes a mockery of it.
    Reply
  • yyrkoon - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Well, I kind of agree both ways here, but would err on the side of staying with the specification. Just like companies like Asrock releasing a motherboard with supposed SATAII ports, but they do not support NCQ, which is part of the SATAII spec!

    Granted this situation here is a bit different, they added to the spec, but not only did they add voltage capability, they added potetnial heat/overvoltage as well. This has impact on more than just the memory, this could adversely effect a motherbaord as well, and possibly even a PSU(over time).
    Reply
  • bobsmith1492 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Why did you not put up some numbers at this speed for comparison? Granted the CPU may be running 35MHz slower, but might the RAM be enough to make up for it? At the very least, the bandwidth numbers would be impressive... assuming the latency affects the bandwidth? Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    We ran a complete test suite at DDR3-1500 7-7-7-15. Not surprisingly ALL of the results were a bit higher than those reported at 1520 9-8-8-22.

    As a result we will be replacing the 1520 results on all performance charts with the higher 1500 7-7-7 results. Give us about 15 minutes to complete the update. Enjoy!
    Reply
  • photoguy99 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    It would be a good accomplishment for Barcelona to come out and surpass Core2 performance that wowed the world last year.

    But how many of these can Barcelona beat:
    1) Original Core2 Quad at 2.66Mhz (probably what they were aiming for)
    2) Add P35 chipset for 5-10% performance increase
    3) Add DD3 at 1333Mhz or higher with low latencies for 5-10% increase
    4) Add Penryn core for 5-10% performance increase at same clock speed
    5) Penryn releases at 3.2 Ghz, add another 10% increase

    When is the pain gonna stop for AMD?

    It seems by this fall the Intel platform is going to be a lot faster that the original Core2 or Core2 quad releases.
    Reply
  • defter - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    quote:

    5) Penryn releases at 3.2 Ghz, add another 10% increase


    Since Intel has already demonstrated air-cooled 3.33GHz Penryn based quad cores, and desktop Penryn based CPUs will use 1333MHz FSB and support half multipliers, I guess that desktop Penryn based quad core CPUs can be launched at least at 3.33-3.5GHz if necessary.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    OK, this post really irritates me.

    You think AMD started design on the Barcelona last year? How else could you possibly say they were aiming for the 2.66 Core 2 before it was even released if this wasn't true? Good grief, think!

    The P35 most certainly does NOT add 5-10% application performance. Maybe in specific applications you will see something like this, but overall, it's not that high.

    DDR3 at 1333 isn't adding much of anything right now. 5-10%???? Where are you getting these numbers from? In fact, in every gaming benchmark they ran, it was either slower or the same as the DDR2-1066. 5-10% my ass.

    Penryn numbers are also made up, it would be extremely optimistic for 5-10% increase in IPC for most applications. Maybe a few will, but broadly, it's probably not true, and absolutely speculative.

    Hmmmm, going from 3.0 GHz they have out now, to 3.2 GHz is 10%? I think it's more like 6.67%.

    In short, all your assumptions are either, at best speculative, or at worst, just wrong.

    Will DDR3 timings go down? Of course, but so will DDR2 since that's the dominant memory. Considering the changes to the Barcelona memory controller, I think you can expect a pretty substantial improvement there, but we won't know until we see it. A lot of stuff we won't know until we see it.

    The big thing that bothers me is AMD still has not fully implement memory disambiguation, and while the scheduling of loads is improved to P6 levels, I'm not sure if it's enough. I'm also not crazy about their substantial x87 implementation, as it's a deprecated technology and more and more becoming dead weight. It's not even part of x86-64.

    So, I'm not saying Barcelona will be better or worse, we'll see soon enough, but the reasons you give are, at best, specious, and at worst pure nonsense.

    Reply
  • yacoub - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    I would guess they would aim for 20-25% improvement over last year's core2duo so somewhere around 3-4 of your 5 should be the level of Barcelona performance if it works out. In that case since I don't think you won't see all 5 of those combined this year, especially at a competitive price-point I think Barcelona still has a chance. =) Reply
  • Anonymous Freak - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    One of my big gripes with the DDR3 reviews so far, which were the same when DDR2 first came out, is the direct comparison of same-bus-speed results. Of *COURSE* DDR3 at 800 MHz will be slower than DDR2 at 800 MHz. As this review shows, even the best DDR3 timings are slower than the best DDR2 timings.

    But, that's not what DDR3 is designed to do. It's designed to have higher latency in exchange for significantly higher bus speeds, as this test shows. You should be comparing the DDR3-1333 results with the DDR2-800 or 1066 results.

    Just as when DDR2 came out, it had much higher latency than DDR1, but faster bus speeds. Try comparing a top of the line DDR2 rig to a top of the line DDR1 rig now. (Say AMD AM2 vs. 939.) The faster bus speed of the DDR2 rig will just blow away the DDR1 rig, regardless of how good the DDR1 timings are. The same will be true with DDR3. Faster timings will come, as will faster bus speeds. The two will cause DDR3 to completely dominate even the fastest overclocked DDR2. Just look at this review, we have fast, but *within spec* DDR3 performing the same as the ultimate in overclocked DDR2. Just wait until we have the equivalent ultra-high-end DDR3 running at a *fully within spec* 1600 Mhz with 5-3-3 timings; and we'll probably see overclocked settings even higher.
    Reply
  • lopri - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    I'm afraid that your assertion is not quite the reality. AM2 CPU's memory controller has never been up to the level of Socket 939 CPU's. Under the same configuration sans memory, Socket 939 rig will always win over Socket AM2 rig. Reply
  • takumsawsherman - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    I doubt you will actually see a significant difference between DDR and DDR2 running on otherwise similar chipsets. It wasn't very difficult to find 2-2-2-5-1 or 2-2-2-6 latencies with DDR memory. Even now, I am finding it hard to consistently source DDR2 for a reasonable price that has a reasonably low latency. But if you were to take 2-2-2-5-1 DDR and 3-4-3-9 DDR2 module pairs and run them with similar chipsets, with the same processors, you may in fact get some victories for DDR in your benchmarks.

    Bandwidth isn't everything. For some tasks, latency is far more important. Therefore, it is vitally important for someone to actually test real world scenarios and publish results. That way, people can save their money for an upgrade that might have a chance at improving their performance.
    Reply
  • bobsmith1492 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Don't forget... latency is not just the CAS number; it is a function of the clock speed and the number of cycles of latency. The overall latency time is the important part. DDRII 800MHz at CAS3 will have better latency than DDRI 400MHz at CAS2 (if either of those exist even...) Reply
  • Chunga29 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Those both exist as unofficial RAM speeds, though the DDR is harder to find these days. Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    How did you arrive at the 1520 DDR3 memory speed? FSB increase from 8x333 or a memory ratio change. Do you have any overclocked DDR2 memory scores on the P965? It would be interesting to compare overclocked DDR2 to DDR3. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    You can look back at the Corsair Dominator memory review where we ran benchmarks at the highest overclock we could achieve. THe review is at http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=291...">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=291.... THere are also overclocked test scores that can be compared in any of our more recent DDR2 reviews Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    From the 1333 memory setting we overclocked to 380x8, or 3.04GHz. At that OC, with a base 1333 memory setting, the memory speed is 1520.

    One reader pointed out that 7x380 is also 2.66, which is our test frequency at other speeds. That is correct and it is an intriguing idea to also run all benchmarks at the 380x7 speed. We'll consider for a comparison in an upcoming review.
    Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    quote:

    From the 1333 memory setting we overclocked to 380x8, or 3.04GHz. At that OC, with a base 1333 memory setting, the memory speed is 1520.


    So it is very possible that the improvements in scores came from the increase in cpu speed and not the memory or it is a combination of both? How close can you get to 1333 memory speed at 8x380 so we know how much improvement there is in cpu speed over the increase in memory speed.

    quote:

    One reader pointed out that 7x380 is also 2.66, which is our test frequency at other speeds. That is correct and it is an intriguing idea to also run all benchmarks at the 380x7 speed. We'll consider for a comparison in an upcoming review.


    That is what has been confusing to me. Why not run at 7x380 to keep the CPU at the same speed so we can see how much performance is gained in running the memory higher. The one flaw is the increase in FSB speed would alter the scores if the app responds to cpu throughput improvements. I would suppose that would be minimal in the game testing but it would throw off the sandra scores. Does high memory speeds at high latencies beat stock memory speeds at low latencies?

    The article yesterday mentioned 1t command rates. Did you try 1t to see what happened with the Kingston memory? You used to report Everest scores and I was wondering if those scores are available or maybe Memtest if you use it. I think it would be interesting to see latency numbers in the article.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Our standard procedure has been to test to the highest available memory setting, in this case 1333, and then overclock as far as we can go using this base memory setting. It is just a fortunate accident that 1520 was top OC here (and it still wasn;t the fastest results - 1500 7-7-7 was faster)which is also 7x333 or the same 2.66 used in the other memory speed tests. It would not likely hit that exact number again in future DDR3 reviews. Reply
  • yuchai - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    the 1520 speed is probably achieved by a 380 x 7 = 2660 configuration, so processor speed remains constant while the RAM runs at 1520 speeds.

    That said I'm surprised at the big improvement from 1333 to 1520, especially compared to the relatively small difference between 1333 and 1066.
    Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    quote:

    the 1520 speed is probably achieved by a 380 x 7 = 2660 configuration, so processor speed remains constant while the RAM runs at 1520 speeds.


    If that is the case then how do we know how much the FSB increased the score or how much the memory affected the results. I still think it is important to show overclocked DDR2 if they are going to show overclocked DDR3.
    Reply
  • Chunga29 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    I wish that you were correct, but looking at the tables at least on says "8x380" - page 4. So it's not apples to apples. The text never talks about how fast the 1520 RAM speed is, likely because that's partly due to a 14% CPU overclock.

    While we're at it, where are the numbers for P965 with 1333 FSB? We've seen overclocking results on P965 with bus speeds as high as 2000+, so don't give us any excuses about it not being possible. Using ratios, you can come somewhat close to DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066, and if you're throwing in overclocked DDR3 scores anyway.... At least let us see what DDR2 can achieve on P965 with a decent effort. Sure, it's out of official spec, but then DDR2-800 with 3-3-3 timings isn't JEDEC spec either.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    The 7x380 and 8x380 results are in a comment below and will be added to the OC section in a table.

    As for the P965, it was not designed to run 1333 processors or DDR3 memory, so there is no 1333 CPU raio available or any memory ratio above 1066. While it is true you can run a 25% overclock at 1333 FSB, the memory is also overclocked 25% from whatever ratio you selected. Even if you OC and select to get close to 1333 you will be running different memory straps on the P35 and P65 which definitely impacts results. It is very difficult to fairly compare P965 to P35 at speeds above 1066.

    At 1333 FSB the DDR2 memory is OC'ed from the 1066 base to 1333, and we don't have a single stick of DDR2 that is stable at 1333. An 800 speed base on P965 at 1333 would be DDR2-1000, which should be compared to what on the P35? Try to select OC vlues on your P965 board to see what we are talking about here.

    You are correct that it is is not impossible to come up with something somewhat close in a P965 test, it is just everything on the P965 would be overclocked while P35 would be running in spec. We can always compare an overclcoked P965 to a spec part, but is that more like justification for a P965 purchase than a revealing comparison.

    We will likely run some more P965 tests just to answer questions here, but we will only be including overlap speeds, where comparisons can be fairly made, in future reviews. There are also a multitude of P965 OC results in reviews out there for those that are interested.
    Reply
  • Zaitsev - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    I noticed this as well. It just seems odd because the jump from 1066->1333 is 267MHz, while 1333->1520 is 187MHz. In Far Cry and Quake 4 that translated into 10.91 and 8 more frames per sec. respectively. Did I miss something in the article or can someone explain why a smaller increase in MHz yielded a larger improvement?

    Oh, I see now that the processor is overclocked.
    Reply
  • CK804 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Page 2, second line, first word - "manufacture" should be "manufacturer". Reply
  • yacoub - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Always nice to see Anandtech staying on top of things with fresh reviews! =) Reply
  • rree - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link


    http://ecartshopping.biz">http://ecartshopping.biz

    Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

    Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
    Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
    Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

    Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
    Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
    New era cap $15

    Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

    FREE sHIPPING
    http://ecartshopping.biz">http://ecartshopping.biz
    Reply
  • huran - Sunday, April 03, 2011 - link

    Hello! The burning hot summer arrived, this is the demonstration stature good season,
    the retreat wi nter sincere appearance, lets lithe, the individua lity, the fashion,
    the sex appeal, mature you sta rt from here! Has a good news to tell everybody: R ecently,
    every bought full 200 US dollars in this company, then has the present to see off,
    Vietna m which buys delivers are more, please do not miss this good opportunity!!!
    welcome to : http://www.2kuu.com
    free shipping
    competitive price
    any size available
    accept the paypal
    Reply
  • sjbderen - Thursday, July 14, 2011 - link

    Come go and see, will not regret it Oh look

    http://www.ifancyshop.com
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now