Crucial PC2-4300U

Crucial is basically the retail sales arm of Micron, one of the world's largest manufacturers of memory. The Crucial DDR2 test modules were, therefore, essentially a retail version of the same Micron engineering samples supplied with the Intel 925X/915 launch kits from Intel. This allowed verification of the performance and also gave us a very good idea of the normal variations that you might find in memory modules based on the Micron memory chips.



Test DIMMs were a matched pair of double-sided 512MB DDR2 DIMMs without heat spreaders. The Crucial PC2-4300 appeared identical to the Micron PC2-4300 that we also tested.

Not surprisingly, Micron memory chips were used in the Crucial DDR2 533 DIMMs.



These are basic production DDR2 Crucial dimms, and they are not specially binned for top performance. Crucial has also hinted that they will soon be producing an even higher performing version of DDR2 memory based on specially selected higher speed micron DDR2 chips.

Test Results: Crucial PC2-4300U

The full suite of benchmark tests were run at all memory speeds. This includes Quake3, Super PI, Sandra 2004 SP2 Memory Tests, Aida 32 Memory Tests, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein-Enemy Territory. We also ran UT2003, Aquamark 3, and Comanche 4 at every memory speed to verify stability of the reported memory timings. All benchmarks and additional tests had to complete without incident for the memory settings to be considered stable.

Crucial PC2-4300U (DDR2 533) - 2 x 512Mb Double-Bank
Speed Memory Timings & Voltage Quake3 fps Sandra UNBuffered Sandra Standard Buffered Super PI 2M places
(time in sec)
533DDR
800FSB
3-3-3-10
1.9V
372.6 INT 3185
FLT 3244
INT 4949
FLT 4952
107
667DDR
1000FSB
4-4-4-10
1.9V
459.4 INT 3766
FLT 3833
INT 6167
FLT 6158
86
686DDR
258FSB
4-4-4-10
1.9V
472.4 INT 3997
FLT 4024
INT 6315
FLT 6318
83

Crucial PC2-4300U (DDR2 533)
Speed RCW-ET
Radar
Aida 32
Read
Aida 32
Write
Aida 32
Total
533DDR
800FSB
78.6 5437 2280 7717
667DDR
1000FSB
97.5 6639 2738 9377
686DDR
258FSB
100.5 6839 2916 9755

It was no surprise that CorsairXMS2 667 performed without incident at DDR2 667 and the highest Abit AA8 setting of DDR2 686. However, it was a complete shock that basic production Crucial DDR2 533 also ran without incident at DDR2 667, at the same aggressive 4-4-4-10 timings, and at the highest speed DDR2 686 with the same timings and modest voltage settings.

Corsair XMS2 5300C4PRO Geil PC2-4300
Comments Locked

20 Comments

View All Comments

  • betatest3 - Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - link

    The DDR2 667 memory is allready available and price is around $245 to $270 for 512mb .The only memory I found was made by Crucial and some Generic by doing a search on pricewatch.com site The $245 memory can be seen here -->
    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?DEPA...

    Hmm.. this DDR2 memory was just made for Intel ??? or maybe in newer motherboards can be used with AMD also ? I would not think a newer memory made by many company's would just be designed for intel especially when alot of manufacturers are jumping over to AMD or can AMD use this 667 memory ?
  • jiulemoigt - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link

    A very funny thought aquired to me after reading the older article on AMD's DDR2 stance. If their waiting for DDR2 667 and the memory is ready but quitly being called 533 does that mean AMD may actully be ready to pull a fast on Intel? Considering the way the chip is designed could the memory controller be flashed to update to the memory controller the same way the other frequencies are set? Oh and I would not buy a LGA socket the pin's being spring loaded just looks to be trouble :o cool article
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    FlameDeer -

    Good catch. P. 6 is corrected to 1032FSB.
  • FlameDeer - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    Thanks for quick respond at #10, Wesley! :)

    Really appreciate your hours and hours of hard work to publish this very first hand thorough DDR2 roundup! :)

    A quick look again of this good article, I noticed something need to ask. In page 7 till page 14, is that "258FSB" of 686DDR in every table mean 4 x 258 = "1032FSB"? And is this FSB related to page 6 settings no.3 of "1016FSB/DDR2-686"? Just curious, thank you! :)
  • pookie69 - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    Cool - i think i understand that now.

    Thanks for replying and explaining. Appreciated :)
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    The ratio is 3:4 looking at base clocks (200 to 266). The bus is then quad-pumped to 800 and memory is DOUBLE Data Rate or 533. I do agree it is a bit confusing since the final 800 ratio is 3:2 of the final DDR2 ratio (533).

    The 975/865 standard was 1:1 since the base clocks are 200, even though the final speeds were 800FSB (quad) and 400 DDR. It was never called 2:1.

  • pookie69 - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    Nice article - good job :)

    Only one point; where it reads;

    "This is currently slightly below the memory timing of 250 required to run memory at DDR2 667, at the standard 3:4 Intel memory ratio for DDR2."

    >>> shouldn't that be a 3:2 ratio?

    Or am i confused :S

    Nice article again - keep up the good work Mr. Fink ;)
  • TrogdorJW - Friday, July 9, 2004 - link

    I think a better conclusion might have been: And the winner is... NO ONE! (Or everyone, depending on whether you see the glass as half full or half empty.) While there are definitely measurable differences in performance between the various memories, reality is that only Quake 3 and Enemy Territory are meaningful benchmarks. Seeing that Quake 3 is one of the most bandwidth hungy games of all time, it's rather telling that a 15.4% advantage in Sandra only equates to a 2.7% performance difference in Quake 3 (and even less in W:ET). I'm not criticizing your work, mind you - just pointing out that the best case scenario of Sandra Unbuffered RAM tests are not the way we actually use our systems.

    At some point, it would be nice to see a memory roundup that included all the benchmarks that are used in CPU and graphics comparisons. Obviously, that wouldn't be a prudent use of your time when we're still being limited by the motherboard. However, in another six months, I would like to see a memory comparison put together that broadened the field of view in regards to benchmarks.

    Great article, though. It will certainly be interesting to see how far each memory type can actually overclock when the motherboard is no longer the limiting factor. For the present, though, it looks like we might as well just save our pennies and buy cheaper DDR2 modules. (Not that any of them are actually "cheap"....)
  • Pumpkinierre - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    I suppose with all these new goodies, Wesley, you are going to give up on the excellent straight DDR articles you used to do.

    For the tRAS, the usual formula for DDR is: tRCD+CAS latency + 2 cycles, see:
    http://www.mushkin.com/mushkin/pop-up/latencies.ht...
    So that seems to work for DDR2 at tRAS >10. I dont know why DDR2 still works at tRAS of 4 though. I also dont know why nForce chipsets have their tRAS so high (10-12) on ordinary DDR.

    You've got an engineering sample (multiplier unlocked) Prescott that o'clocks well. So you ought to do some tests at same CPU speed but different FSBs like you have done on the a64s. I know you might think it is stupid given that retail cpus are multiplier locked but some of us want to see whether it is better to put more money in a higher grade cpu or get a cheaper one and o'clock it high using more expensive high speed low latency memory. You had'nt done this with the N'wood/i875 memory tests either, but I cant remember whether you've got a good N'wood engineering sample lying around. Anyway just a suggestion.
  • ariafrost - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    Now if only DDR2 latencies were lower and the pricetag was less than DDR1 :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now