Super Talent & TEAM Join the Fast DDR2 Club
by Wesley Fink on October 10, 2006 4:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Final Words
Our first encounter with the new Micron D memory chips came with our review of OCZ EL PC2-8000 XTC in early spring. We were impressed with the performance then, and our admiration for the performance capabilities of this DDR2 chip has only grown since. This was the fastest DDR2 memory ever tested at AnandTech, and it also scaled easily to the new DDR2-800 speed to be supported by AM2 and Conroe, on to the DDR2-1067 future speed, and beyond to DDR2-1100. It reached those levels at the fastest memory timings we had seen with DDR2. This DDR2 memory was clearly the new DDR2 standard and we awarded the OCZ EL PC2-8000 XTC our Gold Editors Choice.
With the subsequent launch of AMD AM2 and the launch of the Intel Core 2 Duo, memory based on Micron memory chips has benefited even more. AM2 was not really much of a performance boost, but the DDR2 memory scales very well on AM2. Core 2 Duo does not make as much use of the DDR2 bandwidth as AM2, but it frankly doesn't need it. Core 2 Duo has turned out to be one of the largest performance increases we have ever seen with a new processor, and the brute performance strength of C2D more than offsets any memory performance advantage for AM2. AM2 is clearly a better memory platform in raw bandwidth than Core 2 Duo, and that fact may come back into play in the future. For now it is a moot point.
In the past two months memory prices have increased significantly. For that reason alone, buyers are looking much more closely at memory prices and comparison-shopping. The two memories tested here, the Super Talent DDR2-1000 and the TEAM DDR2-1000, are both an excellent choice in your comparison shopping. In general they perform just as well as the most expensive DDR2 at the critical DDR2-800 and DDR2-667 speeds, running with stability at 3-3-3 and 3-2-3 timings, just like the top DDR2 memory. While neither will overclock quite as far as the top memory we have tested, both do reach DDR2-1067 with ease. While they top out at 1080/1084, the practical difference between these top speeds and 1100+ is pretty minimal. The message here is if you can find Super Talent or TEAM at a cheaper price than the other top DDR2-1000 and up brands then buy it. You will get good value.
There is one caveat, however. The TEAM is definitely the better performer of the two tested brands. It requires a little less voltage at each speed for stability, and it matches the timings of the best DDR2 we have ever tested at all the stock speeds. The Super Talent performs much the same at 667 and 800, but it requires slightly slower timings at DDR2-1067. Therefore if you plan to run your memory at DDR2-1067 choose TEAM or another top DDR2 instead.
It is fair to ask if there is any real reason to run your memory faster than DDR2-800. The answer is Yes, provided your memory is capable of 4-3-4 timings at 1067 like the top memory we have tested. There are small but real performance advantages for any of these memories running at DDR2-1067, as you can see in the performance charts. 4-3-4 timings at 1067 is fast enough to make the 1067 speed a performance advantage, and the TEAM DDR2-1067 and the other top DDR2 memories can run at these timings with complete stability at 2.2V to 2.4V.
When we looked at High-Performance DDR2 in the Conroe Buying Guide, it was clear that the performance we first saw with the OCZ EL PC2-8000 was now available from a wider group of memory manufacturers. OCZ, Corsair, and Mushkin stood out at the top of the group of six, but frankly any of the six could deliver the kind of performance that could make a difference in a top Core 2 or AM2 system. That included the 2GB kits from Buffalo, Kingston, and Crucial. You can now add TEAM to that group of top performers, with Super Talent just an SPD upgrade away from the same level of performance. With memory prices high, this gives you a wide range of brands that will generally satisfy in your quest for the best performance you can achieve in computing.
The TEAM and Super Talent will not displace our top two performers in recent tests - the Corsair 6400C3 and the OCZ Ti Alpha PC2-8000 VX2 both use special binning of these Micron memory chips to push performance and overclocking up another level. The advantage for these two is not huge, but it is definitely real. But just below the absolute best there are now many brands that will bring you competitive memory performance up to DDR2-1067. TEAM and Super Talent join that group.
Our first encounter with the new Micron D memory chips came with our review of OCZ EL PC2-8000 XTC in early spring. We were impressed with the performance then, and our admiration for the performance capabilities of this DDR2 chip has only grown since. This was the fastest DDR2 memory ever tested at AnandTech, and it also scaled easily to the new DDR2-800 speed to be supported by AM2 and Conroe, on to the DDR2-1067 future speed, and beyond to DDR2-1100. It reached those levels at the fastest memory timings we had seen with DDR2. This DDR2 memory was clearly the new DDR2 standard and we awarded the OCZ EL PC2-8000 XTC our Gold Editors Choice.
With the subsequent launch of AMD AM2 and the launch of the Intel Core 2 Duo, memory based on Micron memory chips has benefited even more. AM2 was not really much of a performance boost, but the DDR2 memory scales very well on AM2. Core 2 Duo does not make as much use of the DDR2 bandwidth as AM2, but it frankly doesn't need it. Core 2 Duo has turned out to be one of the largest performance increases we have ever seen with a new processor, and the brute performance strength of C2D more than offsets any memory performance advantage for AM2. AM2 is clearly a better memory platform in raw bandwidth than Core 2 Duo, and that fact may come back into play in the future. For now it is a moot point.
In the past two months memory prices have increased significantly. For that reason alone, buyers are looking much more closely at memory prices and comparison-shopping. The two memories tested here, the Super Talent DDR2-1000 and the TEAM DDR2-1000, are both an excellent choice in your comparison shopping. In general they perform just as well as the most expensive DDR2 at the critical DDR2-800 and DDR2-667 speeds, running with stability at 3-3-3 and 3-2-3 timings, just like the top DDR2 memory. While neither will overclock quite as far as the top memory we have tested, both do reach DDR2-1067 with ease. While they top out at 1080/1084, the practical difference between these top speeds and 1100+ is pretty minimal. The message here is if you can find Super Talent or TEAM at a cheaper price than the other top DDR2-1000 and up brands then buy it. You will get good value.
There is one caveat, however. The TEAM is definitely the better performer of the two tested brands. It requires a little less voltage at each speed for stability, and it matches the timings of the best DDR2 we have ever tested at all the stock speeds. The Super Talent performs much the same at 667 and 800, but it requires slightly slower timings at DDR2-1067. Therefore if you plan to run your memory at DDR2-1067 choose TEAM or another top DDR2 instead.
It is fair to ask if there is any real reason to run your memory faster than DDR2-800. The answer is Yes, provided your memory is capable of 4-3-4 timings at 1067 like the top memory we have tested. There are small but real performance advantages for any of these memories running at DDR2-1067, as you can see in the performance charts. 4-3-4 timings at 1067 is fast enough to make the 1067 speed a performance advantage, and the TEAM DDR2-1067 and the other top DDR2 memories can run at these timings with complete stability at 2.2V to 2.4V.
When we looked at High-Performance DDR2 in the Conroe Buying Guide, it was clear that the performance we first saw with the OCZ EL PC2-8000 was now available from a wider group of memory manufacturers. OCZ, Corsair, and Mushkin stood out at the top of the group of six, but frankly any of the six could deliver the kind of performance that could make a difference in a top Core 2 or AM2 system. That included the 2GB kits from Buffalo, Kingston, and Crucial. You can now add TEAM to that group of top performers, with Super Talent just an SPD upgrade away from the same level of performance. With memory prices high, this gives you a wide range of brands that will generally satisfy in your quest for the best performance you can achieve in computing.
The TEAM and Super Talent will not displace our top two performers in recent tests - the Corsair 6400C3 and the OCZ Ti Alpha PC2-8000 VX2 both use special binning of these Micron memory chips to push performance and overclocking up another level. The advantage for these two is not huge, but it is definitely real. But just below the absolute best there are now many brands that will bring you competitive memory performance up to DDR2-1067. TEAM and Super Talent join that group.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
View All Comments
PeteRoy - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
Anandtech you should really stop using these graphs, their a pain to read.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
Would you prefer the bar graphs like we used in past memory reviews? If so, let us know.imaheadcase - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
Yes stop using these graphs. Whats the point of putting squiqly lines on a graph if the performance is pretty close to equal on memory tests you can't notice a diffrence visually? It would be diffrence if your comparing perfomance based on early computers to the latest computer..you could see a change.Stick to the bars plus numbers graphs please.
Frumious1 - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
You people are friggin morons! "Oh noes! We can't read the graph! Please make a goddamn huge ass page with EIGHTEEN graphs instead of three useful charts!" They even give you the numbers at the bottom - is it THAT HARD!?!? Well, for you two, probably, but PLEASE AnandTech, stick with charts like this where it makes sense.Allow me to demonstrate how much less desirable separating the data would be, by using as an example Half-Life 2: Lost Cost. Here you go, all 6 settings put into in-duh-vidual charts:
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-400
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-533
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-667
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-800
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">DDR2-1067
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/frumious1/...">Maximum Performance (OC)
Isn't that GREAT!? I mean, now we can't easily see how performance is affected going from DDR2-400 to 533 to 667, etc. If you want to whine about non-zero-based charts, whatever. Mine are zero-based, and as you can see there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference past DDR2-800. In fact, there's not much of a difference from DDR2-400 through maximum OC performance... 8.8% more performance from minimum (Super Talent DDR2-400) to maximum (OCZ/Team Highest). Great!
Know what? ALL OF THAT DATA WAS ALREADY CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ONE CHART!
Please, go back to junior high and retake some of those math classes, because clearly they didn't stick.
theprodigalrebel - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
I see nothing wrong with the graphs in this article. For instance, I see a green line (TEAM) stand out at DDR2-667 for the first two tests & stand out again at DDR2-533 in Q4. It is more or less tied with the others. This is useful information. I don't care about 1-3% differences (which could very well be nominal variance) - that means, just buy whatever is cheaper.Why would I need bar graphs that detail performance variances as tiny as .16 frames per second?
imaheadcase - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
Most people would rather glance and pure numbers than any graphs. You would take LESS space than what they use now.Shortass - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
Well the graphs are certainly a little harder to read than large bar graphs, but I enjoy them more since it compresses a lot of information into a smaller space and you can see on one graph the entire set of tests (easier comparison and taking a few extra seconds to read the data is much better than scrolling down a massive page trying to remember the numbers each scored at different speeds, etc).Guuts - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
It would be nice if you could include some "value" RAM in with these performance RAM reviews for comparison. Instead of just talking about how you need to use fairly decent timings if you want to run the modules at 1067 to see a performance advantage, why don't you add in some actual value DDR2-800 RAM that maybe can only run 5-5-5 @ 1067 and 4-3-4 @ 800 (or whatever they can do these days) so we can see just how much performance we're going to lose if we want to save 100$ on RAM? Just how much performance is lost by having looser timings at the same speed?I love performance parts, and want the best components I can afford, but I can't justify paying 50% more for a 5% increase in performance (or +5 FPS) that I'm never going to even be able to notice in real-world use. Note that I said that *I'M* not going to notice, before you start flaming me...
Good article though!
deathwalker - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
Careful guy...there are flaming hound-dogs just lurking around out there waiting for value minded people like you and I. But in defense of the article it was not created with the intent to satisfy that niche. Check out this AT article for some value ram suggestions..http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797Guuts - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
Yes, thanks, I've read that one... increasing the voltage and loosening tbe timings on DDR2-667 is a little TOO value. I was basically asking what one could do with some value DDR2-800 running at 1067 and how much of a performance hit would be incurred by the loose timings you'd have to use, or even the performance of value DDR2-800 with 4-4-4 timings.Sure that article shows what you could do with that Value RAM as far as pushing the speed and tweaking the timings, but I don't see any performance numbers, nor any comparisons between different timings at the same speeds...which seems pretty important since the price of memory starts to really climb the tighter the timings are at a certain speed. I'd just like to know how much performance one loses between 3-3-3, 4-4-4, and 5-5-5 with DDR2-800, for example, because I sure know how much the price difference is.
I can see the small difference in the TEAM memory vs. the slightly looser timed Super Talent memory, but I can't remember ever reading about the performance differences between more widely varied timings and was curious to see just how much of a hit it makes on the new Core 2 Duo platforms...especially with memory prices what they are today, and 2GB kits seemingly being the recommended "standard" configuration in new systems.