PQI & G. Skill: New Choices in 2-2-2 Memory
by Wesley Fink on October 9, 2004 11:35 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Test Results: G. Skill TCCD
To be considered stable for test purposes, Quake3 benchmark, UT2003 Demo, Super PI, Aquamark 3, and Comanche 4 had to complete without incident. Any of these, and in particular Super PI, will crash a less-than stable memory configuration. We have also included results for RCW-ET using the Radar benchmark.Intel Test Results
| G. Skill TCCD (DDR400) - 2 x 512Mb Double-Bank | ||||||
| Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage |
Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
Wolfenstein - Radar - Enemy Territory fps |
| 400DDR800FSB | 2-2-2-5 2.5V |
335.3 | INT 2899 FLT 2923 |
INT 4513 FLT 4512 |
130 | 71.8 |
| 433DDR866FSB | 2-2-3-5 2.75V |
359.8 | INT 3046 FLT 3066 |
INT 4857 FLT 4854 |
121 | 77.4 |
| 466DDR933FSB | 2.5-3-3-5 2.75V |
382.3 | INT 3112 FLT 3127 |
INT 5176 FLT 5177 |
113 | 81.9 |
| 500DDR1000FSB | 2.5-3-3-5 2.75V |
407.9 | INT 3328 FLT 3394 |
INT 5557 FLT 5551 |
105 | 88.2 |
| 533DDR1066FSB | 2.5-3-4-5 2.75V |
426.3 | INT 3505 FLT 3533 |
INT 5896 FLT 5894 |
100 | 92.6 |
| 561DDR1122FSB | 3-3-4-6 2.75V |
444.2 | INT 3795 FLT 3681 |
INT 6313 FLT 6248 |
94 | 96.3 |
The G. Skill TCCD performed very well on the Intel platform compared to other TCCD memory. The highest overclock was DDR561, verifying the claim of DDR560 performance.
AMD Test Results
| G. Skill TCCD - 2 x 512Mb Double-Bank | |||||||
| CPU Ratio at 2.4GHz | Memory Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage |
Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
Wolfenstein - Radar - Enemy Territory fps |
| 12x200 | 400 DDR | 2-2-2-10 2.6V 1T |
512.7 | INT 2636 FLT 2767 |
INT 6117 FLT 6046 |
81 | 110.4 |
| 11x218 | 436 DDR | 2-3-2-10 2.8V 1T |
513.4 | INT 2791 FLT 2928 |
INT 6486 FLT 6415 |
80 | 110.7 |
| 10x240 | 480 DDR | 2.5-3-3-10 2.85V 1T |
520.4 | INT 2794 FLT 3035 |
INT 6707 FLT 6609 |
80 | 111.5 |
| 9x267 | 533 DDR | 2.5-4-3-10 2.85V 1T |
525.5 | INT 3032 FLT 3226 |
INT 6956 FLT 6875 |
79 | 112.5 |
| 8x292(2.34GHz) | Highest Mem Speed 584 DDR |
3-4-4-10 2.85V 2T |
503.9 | INT 2779 FLT 2969 |
INT 6595 FLT 6514 |
81 | 108.2 |
| 9x285(2.57GHz) | HIGHEST Performance 570 DDR |
2.5-4-3-10 2.85V 1T |
557.8 | INT 3321 FLT 3429 |
INT 7408 FLT 7287 |
74 | 119.8 |
When we first tested memory based on the Samsung TCCD chips, none of the modules performed as well on the Athlon 64 as they did on the Intel test bed. At that time, TCCD topped out at a bit over 500 on Intel and about 466 on the Athlon 64. The lone exception to this was the newest OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2, which reached much higher on the Intel and to at least DDR500 on the A64 platform.
It is now clear with the G. Skill and other later TCCD memory that the OCZ performance was not a fluke. All of the recent TCCD is now doing even better on the A64 than they do on Intel.
The G. Skill reached DDR584 at 2T and achieved the best performance at 1T at DDR570. Both of these overclocks are substantially higher than what we could achieve on the Intel test bed with the same memory.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
10 Comments
View All Comments
adamofwales - Thursday, November 11, 2004 - link
I am considering purchasing a matched pair 1024MB total, of the PQI Turbo 2700, 2-2-2-5 timings, (PQI2700-1024DAL) and I was wondering, do you think that it will overclock as well as the 3200 with the same timings? I read somewhere that the PQI 2700 Turbo 2-2-2-5 512x2 will run at 2-3-2-5 at 3200 speeds.What do you think?
Wesley Fink - Saturday, October 16, 2004 - link
#3 - We have NEVER implied you need an FX53 to review memory. We have , however, stated the need for a standardized memory test bed and the FX53 is the CPU we have chosen. The trends over spped would apply to any Athlon CPU since they are all unlocked below the stock speed.Others - We are planning a Value RAM roundup in the near future - after the huge number of new equipment launches for the rest of October. Since every memory vendor now has a Samsung TCCD memory it should be clear that TCCD is now at the top in almost everyone's mind. Samsung TCCD chips are also expensive, which is why we have reviewed alternative brands based on those chips.
MadAd - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
yup, i have to agreeIts difficult to complain at the tremendous quality of memory reviews here at AT but I too believe it would be useful to have a catchup on how the other half of the memory market is shaping up.
If it was a case of 'this months exculsive is next months mainstream is a 6 months time bargain' like gpu/cpu/etc then it wouldnt matter so much, but its not, leaving a gap in the product review landscape.
Infact, what is value ram at all these days? Lower speed binned chips from a recent stepping silicon (like gpu) or seperatly RND'ed low cost engineering or even lower purity processes?
You see, theres an article in the making already :)
CalvinHobbes - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I'd love to see a comparison of cheaper memory as well. I'm in the market for some new ram and I just want to know if I can spend $170 for 1GB or is it really worth while to spend the $245+ for the 2-2-2 stuff.Zebo - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Sup Concillian;):PIt's almost like AT only reviewing FX's and EE's on the processor side.
I really feel AT is doing a diservice to the community by continually pimping this overpriced RAM in every review. Even for overclcokers this holds true, since much budget ram scales the same as the boutique ram when pushed..albeit with mybe a little looser timings and a little slower.
But sure as heck ain't 100% slower to justify boutiques ram 100% price premium. Especially when most users are on fixed budget and thier money is better spent on a better video card, more HD space or something else.
But comming to AT, as a builder, you'd think this overpriced RAM is your only choice since that's all they like present and are getting your budget jammed on the front end for almost nothing in return.:(
Zebo - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Would you guys *PLEASE* test some budget ram like crucial 8T to show what a ripoff this boutique stuff is price/performance wise?Concillian - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
It is very interesting to see the very high performance results of the best memory out there. However, I feel it would be useful to compare this to some of the common forms of value memory.As a consumer about to go spend hard earned dollars on a new motherboard/CPU/RAM, the question I ask myself is:
Is it worth it to spend the bucks on super fast memory, or do I spend about HALF and get decent PC3200 CAS 2.5 value memory from the likes of OCZ, Mushkin, or Corsair and use a memory divider when overclocking an A64.
In reality, the typical memory showcased here on Anandtech is very expensive, roughly twice the price of typical value memory.
When you can get an A64 2800+ and motherboard for around $200, I can't be the only one questioning whether $250-$300 just on a gig of memory to overclock a $200 mobo/CPU combo, when closer to $150 may work almost as well. I can't help but wonder if the extra ~$150 (or a nearly 40% increase in cost of the total package mobo + CPU + 1gig RAM in this case) is really worth the system performance.
Uff - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
This is the second memory test that claims that you need an FX-53 to test memory speed because it's completely multiplier unlocked. I don't see you going above the multiplier 12 anywhere in these tests, thus you could do the exact same thing with 3400+ (2.4GHz version), 3700+ or 3800+, as all the AMD CPUs are multiplier unlocked downwards.Secondly, do you have any further information on the Corsair 2-2-2 sticks? My own tests have shown they can barely run at 3-4-4-10@218MHz fsb and fail to reach 240MHz at any timings :(
Wesley Fink - Sunday, October 10, 2004 - link
The timings used at each speed are included in the Test Results tables on pages 6 and 7.There is only so much information you can include in a chart before it gets too confusing, but we always include timings and voltages for each speed in the Test Results tables.
AkumaX - Sunday, October 10, 2004 - link
nice article! were all different memory speeds (actual: 200, 233, 250, 275) at 2-2-2-5|10 also?