What is CAS in RAM memory?

The rule for memory is: lower latency = quicker, higher frequency = faster. The CAStency numbers represent a delay (in cycles) for the time in which data is requested by the memory controller to delivery and is actually delivered.

The speed of the ram or frequency 1333MHz, 1600MHz etc represents speed of the memory with higher numbers there indicating greater data retrieval/throughput.

Speed doesn't matter much in gaming, neither does CAS to an extent, a 1600MHz/CL9 is good for the job.
In designing/ developing however both speed and latency matter, and the best common memory taken are 2133/9 or 2400/10. Power users for workstation builds prefer higher speed.

Column Address Strobe (CAS) Latency is the delay time from when the user gives a command to the RAM module to access a certain part of the memory to the moment the data is available.
Read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency
The lower the CAS Latency,the better.Generally,CL of 9 is the best.
Hope this helps.

RAM Speed = CAS x 1000 / DDR Speed

1600 CAS 9 = 9 x 1000 / 1600 = 5.625 nanoseconds
2400 CAS 10 = 10 x 1000 / 2400 = 4.167 nanoseconds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

JackNaylorPE has defined the thing or concept in a good manner. Put it simply, CAS or CL indicates the actual response time of the RAM against read/write request.

For example, in any service provision, customer seeks the lowest possible service time i.e time it takes for the customer request to be served. Lowest number indicates the good quality level of the service provider.

Similar is the case with the RAM, the time it takes to respond to the read/write request of the program is called CAS/CL. The lower this number, the more speed response from the RAM which comes in handy for desktop applications where most of the data remains in the RAM like database etc. It hardly effects the gaming though.

In an above post by JAckNaylorPE RAM with 2400 speed with CAS 10 has better response time as compared to the RAM with speed 1600 with CAS 9.

CAS 7 1600 is almost as good in that respect .... some apps tho react to CAS better than they react to DDR speed and visa versa.

1600 CAS 8 or 2400 CAS 12 ? Both are 5 seconds ?

^Agree with above. For gaming, just don't go over 1.5V in 1600/1866MHz sticks (like the Kingston HyperX Beast). CS 9 or anything lower will be good

That myth just won't ever die. When DDR3 first came out 1.65 was the most common voltage at the XMP setting of 1600 ....as production lines improved, they were able to get acceptable yields out of 1.5 volts, first at 1333, then 1600 and now 1866. But if you have an older set of modules or trying for higher speeds, you should in no way be concerned about using 1.65 v, 1.7v and higher..... sure lower voltage is always better as it will mean a lil less heat ..... but if more voltage is needed, never be afraid of upping the voltage to 1.65 .... Hynix modules can go over 1.9 w/o breaking a sweat.

The 1.5 comes out of the JEDEC standards but they have no standard at 1600 and above, anything above 133 is 'overclocked' or XMP. Here's an old post on the topic:

=============================================================

Its wrong RAM. U need 1.5V. Not 1.65V, as the IMC on the chip doesn't like the voltage above 1.5V.

Click to expand...

1.5 volts is for the JDEC profiles .... most XMP profiles for i5 and i7 RAM is 1.65. In fact, over 2/3 of the RAM on Intel's XMP compatible list are over 1.50 volts.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/gaming-computers/intel-extreme-memory-profile-xmp.html

Intel® Extreme Memory Profile (Intel® XMP) allows you to overclock compatible DDR3 memory to perform beyond standard specifications. It’s designed to enhance the gaming features built into Intel® technology–based PCs. If you like to overclock and squeeze as much performance from your PC as possible, then memory based on Intel XMP gives you that extra edge you need to dominate—without breaking a sweat.

Predefined and tested Intel XMP profiles can be loaded via BIOS or a specific tuning application through a computer’s operating system. Often the easiest way to load Intel XMP profiles is using a tuning utility, which may be available depending on the particular board manufacturer. To learn whether a tuning utility is available on your system, you should contact the board manufacturer.

Click to expand...

Most listed compatible i5 / i7 RAM is 1.65 .... at least according to Intel's compatibility lists

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/gaming-computers/core-i5-processor-memory-datasheet.html
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/gaming-computers/core-i7-memory-suppliers-datasheet.html

Intel's approved i7 Compatibilty List (April 2012) includes:

34 1.65 volt modules
07 1.60 volt modules
19 1.50 volt modules
01 1.25 volt modules

=====================================================================

No doubt 1.65V is not a problem. I myself use 1.65V. But going for 1.65V for 1600/1866 when 1.5V is available makes no sense IMO. I fully recognize 1.65 is nowhere high, but if you can get 1.5 sticks for same or even less price, why go with higher V which you'll have to set by enabling XMP manually to get the stated performance, for gaming?

Higher voltage with lower MHz (like 1600MHz 1.65V in beast) represent poor chips and I therefore don't recommend them, no other reason for not going with 1.65V. Most 2400MHz are 1.65V and there's no real choice, so I'd never question anyone, that'd be really senseless lol. But where better options are available, then why not

If 1600 is the XMP profile, that's what you'll need to set if you want that speed..... setting to BIOS defaults brings will net you JEDEC profiles.

The only reason I brought up is that its often read as 1.65 is dangerous.....it's very often explicitly stated that it is dangerous. To emphasize the point you just made is why I put "sure lower voltage is always better" in bold text. I can't agree tho that 1.65v 1600 is "poor", it is certainly "acceptable" because Intel has certified it as being so. 1.5v is just "better"

As with anything else, the higher voltage stuff usually comes at a bit of a price discount so the customer can decide whether any cost savings offsets any advantage real or perceived. If your not overclocking your RAM, and just putting a moderate OC on your CPU, no reason to be concerned.

If ya budget allows 1600 and not 1866 (not as realistic today as they are oft same price ....even sometimes at 2133) and you are looking to overclock it to lower CAS or higher DDR speed, then the lower voltage gives you that much more headroom. If you OC'ing CPU to 4.3 or 4.4 Ghz, it won't make a difference but if trying for 4.6 or 4.7 you might see an extra degree or so on your cores at 1.65 versus 1.5.... when i went from 1.65 volts to 1.70 volts at 4.6 GHz / 46 Cache / 2400 (from 1600), my core temps went up an average of 0.25 volts. So yes, lower is definitely better but, as you can see, the real world impact is small.

The problem you find with 1600/1866 and 1.65 is WHY does it need 1.65 when over 90% of the available 1600 DRAM is 1.5 volts or lower, including high performance CL7/8 sticks? This quite often is the DRAM manufacturers taking lower binned chips and pushing them with additional voltage to run at a higher 1600 freq when they are actually better suited to being in 1066 or 1333 sticks (which also may indicate they just want to get rid of weak chips as production of 1333/1066 is almost an afterthought today.....and yes Intel does certify those sticks at 1.65 (in large part to make a little extra cash) to get sticks certified by Intel the manufacturers pay Intel to do so, and again in part just so they can say they are certified (hence usable), most knowledgeable builders and techs shy away from 1.65 at 1600 and 1866 except for some high performance lines....If you take a number of these 1.65 1600 sticks and test them, they have little OC headroom without drastically running voltage up above and beyond say 1.7.....and yes you can go higher, but with prices what they are, it's sort of non-sensical to take sticks and run them 1.75 and up, just adding additional heat to the sticks and the other surrounding components, heat is the big killer of PC components

This quite often is the DRAM manufacturers taking lower binned chips and pushing them with additional voltage to run at a higher 1600 freq

Click to expand...

In other words....exactly what they do with 2400, 2133, 1866....the higher binned chips sell for more money and are priced higher, the user gets to decide if they wanna pay more for faster speeds, lower CAS or better voltage ratings. If the cost is the same for lower voltage, buy it ..... if the cost is the same for lower CAS, buy it..... if the cost is the same for 2133 CAS 9 1.65 volt as 1600 CAS 9 1.5v buy the danged 2133. But if you are budget limited and are getting the 1.65 volt 1600 for a great price, it's strictly a budget decision .... what's more important to the buyer, the money they put back in their pocket versus the real world (as opposed to imagined) impact of the extra voltage ? That's an individual decision.

And that's kinda backwards .... lets remember that when DDR3 broke, as the old post from above shows, 1.65v was by far the most common voltage for XMP at 1600 back then.....so they are not "pushing voltages up", but bringing them down as improved yields since years ago allows them to. Those that can run better than the original design point are rated for lower voltages.

It's pretty much hard to find modules that are rated at 1.65 these days ... but when ya do, it's not always because you didn't get one of the top binned modules.

I couldn't see spending $90 for these 1.65 volt CAS 9 DDR3-1600s .... but at $60, for a person on a tight budget .... in the proverbial heartbeat.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104344

It was not long ago that 1.65v was the only option for 1600 CAS 7, then we saw 1.55 and now 1.50 ...... again while time gives us better stuff, the passage of time alone doesn't make the older stuff something we **need** to run out and upgrade. If it was fine when we bought it, it's still fine today.

2 years ago, most of the 1600 line would have been 1.65. Now today, all things being equal, it would be as silly to buy 1.65 v 1600 at same price as it would to just as silly to buy 1600 1.5v when 2133 1.6 v was same price. But if someone is selling an old set that is 1.65, or the rare set that comes off the line needing a voltage boost and is offering it at a big discount, if it was fine 2 years ago, it should still be fine today.

Let's actually look at Intel's compatibility list and see how many there are at each voltage

1.25 volts = 2
1.5 volts = 155
1.6 volts = 7
1.65 volts = 78

That's 65 %..... So in 2 years time, the number of 1.5 volt modules went from constituting 31 % of the Intel's list and now it's doubled to 65% ... Like anything else, you pay more for better stuff. Like anything else, production lines today produce better yields of the higher performance stuff then they did when DDR3 1st came out. But how many of them can you actually find today ? Many of those are no longer in production because what came off that line in April 2012 has been superseded by what comes off today.

As yields have improved so much now that the 1600 set that comes off the line today rarely needs 1.65 volts. Yeay ! But that does not change the viability of what came off the line 2 years ago...... if you can save $30 on a tight budget build, why is the tradeoff for lower performance / lower quality any different for RAM than it is for any other PC component ?

The fact remains, the platform was designed to handle 1.65 volts and more. In 2012, everyone but the misinformed (by that I mean those yelling "Intel voids warranty at 1.65v) found 1.65 volts perfectly fine and it's a much more recent development that 1866 became more available at 1.5 volts. Now even 2133 is down to 1.6v and 1.55 for many models. So how did the passage of 2 years time change whether 1.65v modules were acceptable ? Certainly 1.5 is better, so is 1.35 and 1.25 .... but what is the real world impact of the 3 issues raised:

1. Warranty - 1.65 volts are still today 1/3 of Intel's certified compatibility lists, none have come off....just that so many newer upgraded' models have been added. Back in the Sandy Bridge era, 1.5 volt DDR 1600 was in the minority. Let's remember just as far back as 2012, 2/3 of the sticks on the list and on the market were 1.65 volt rated....and back in 2012, I saw no posts about having to run them up at 1.7 / 1.75 volts to reach their XMP profiles. I certainly have never had to break 1.65 volts on any module ever to run at 1600. Only time I have ever needed to break 1.65 (most times BIOSs would if left on Auto) was with 2400 modules and then only when CPU was substantially overclocked. So zero real world impact here.

2. Overhead - What is the number of regular users here, I'm talking about the peeps who come in and ask questions, not the small % of diehards, go beyond XMP and manually set their speeds and timings ? Only these people will be affected by the loss of headroom. Not a whole lot of those .... and those are the people who invest in DDR2400, invest in better cooling and have no issue paying a bit more for better stuff. Those looking to save $30 on "clearance" deals are not in that group either. So no real world impact here as those that are overclocking RAM are not looking at DDR3 1600....why would they buy 1600 and OC it when they could buy 2133 at same price ?

3. Heat - yes we all know heat is bad .... but real word impacts ? There is simply no way to support this argument with regard to RAM at 1.65 volts. Heat, in this instance, is not the proverbial red herring but the red whale. The Hyper 212 gets recommended here 100s of times a day but yet it delivers 7 - 10C less cooling than a Noctua, Phanteks or Silver Arrow. So why not the "Heat is death message" there ? It's simply a budget decision. Ya get what ya pay for.

Again, let's go to real world numbers. (CPU Multiplier / Cache Multiplier / DRAM Speed / DRAM Voltage = AVG of 4 Max Core temps (HWiNFO64) after 2 hour stress test)....Note ambient temps were not consistent, so appropriate adjustments were made so apples and apples comparisons could be made

42/42/1600/1.65 = 58.75 (warm night)
42/42/2400/1.70 = 59.00

43/43/1600/1.65 = 57.00
43/43/2400/1.70 = 57.00

44/44/1600/1.65 = 58.25
44/44/2400/1.70 = 59.00

45/45/1600/1.65 = 64.25
45/45/2400/1.70 = 64.25

46/46/1600/1.65 = 71.75
46/46/2400/1.70 = 71.50

* 1.65 generated errors at 46/46/2400 so I upped it to 1.7 ..... never did go back and try 1.69 or 1.68 etc as saw no advantage to putting in the T&E....prolly cuda got 1.65 at 42 and 43 multipliers.

Each of the test pairs were done on different days and therefore subject to different ambient temps. test at each multiplier were both done over a 4.5 hour period (two 2 hour tests, 30 minutes apart) No adjustment was made between days, however where there was a difference between ambient temps which happened on 2 nights (which would be lower in the 2400 tests as they were done later at night), the difference in ambient was added to the 2400 results. For example, the 2400 run at 46 mutiplier had an ambient 3C lower so 3C was added to 68.5 to get 71.5

So yes , it can be said that excess heat is to be avoided but it can't be said that there is an actual significant impact from 1.65v ....even ignoring the 46 drop as an aberration and calling it a tie, that's 1C total over 5 tests or 0.2C average . While an increase of 10C (82C), or some would say 20C (92C) possibly being a potential "big killer" of CPUs, the implication that that 1.65 volts will have such an effect is unsupported and inappropriate ..... If 1.65 volts has no scary heat impact at 2133, 2400 and up .... why is magically "scary" at 1600 and 1866 ? The tests showed 1.7 volts having an average impact of 0.2C Your Tridents are rated at 1.65V; why should anyone using 1600 @ 1.65 be any more afraid than you are of your 1.65v modules ?

So no, 0.2C will not have any real world impact and by no means will it kill anything. As for heating components around the RAM ? No, too small to even be measured. We are talking a 0.3% increase in heat .... that's a 0.01 watt increase in power consumption on a 5 watt RAM stick.....and a 0.4 watt increase in CPU Power consumption....increase ya fan speed by 2 rpm and you have more than compensated.

Again, all things being equal, the lower voltage stuff is always going to be the better choice..... but it is a marginally better choice and getting 1.65 is certainly not going to have any "real world" detriment to your build.

DDR3 1600 CAS 9 @ 1.5 versus DDR3 1600 CAS 9 @ 1.65 (same price) .... take the 1.50
DDR3 1600 CAS 9 @ 1.5 versus DDR3 1600 CAS 9 @ 1.65 (1/3 off) .... budget decision, nothing scary about either choice
DDR3 1600 CAS 9 @ 1.5 versus DDR3 1600 CAS 7 @ 1.65 .... take the CAS 7 if price premium satisfactory
DDR3 1600 CAS 9 @ 1.5 versus DDR3 2133 CAS 9 @ 1.65 .... take the 2133 if price premium satisfactory

No, I wouldn't buy 16 GB of 1.65 volt 1600s .... I'd do what "most knowledgeable builders and techs" would do (in the real world) and ignore the entire 1600 speed 1.5v category entirely and buy 16GB of the 2133 1.65v modules for $150, the exact same price as the cheapest 1.5v 1600s. I'd also relish that they had Hynix modules so if I ever did wanna OC them, I know I could take them up to 1.9 and higher w/o a care in the world.

However, if someone was on a limited budget and finds both the 1600 1.5V and the 2133 1.65v too expensive for their budget, and could potentially save a few bucks by getting 1.65 1600s (if there's no savings why consider it ?), I certainly could not make a legitimate argument that 1.5 v 1600, 1.65v 2133 or 1.65v Tridents at 2666/2400 is just fine and somehow, by no means that has been supported or quantified, 1.65v 1600 was somehow going to be disastrous.

Actually most of the 1.65 1600 DRAM available (primarily Kingston, Corsair and Mushkin) cost more than the 1.5 counterparts and for the most part again are middling CL9 and 10 sets, so there's a much wider variety of sets at 1.5 in CL9 and lower for less money, and with the lower voltages have more OC headroom if one were to choose to do so without having to run up into ridiculously high voltages. So with availability being what it isand you can do better at 1.5 pricewise, why spend more to get subpar sticks at 1.65

Hot debate, lengthy as well. Very informative though.

all memory master guys !! The O.P. might be a newbie, this is his first post.. He's going to post "I don't know what are you talking" But very very informative answers by you all !

I agree Jack, there's nothing to worry about in buying 1.65V for a mainstream gamer/ user, but just take it this way:

Sample pairs taken:

HyperX Blu Red 1.65V 8GB 1600/9 $90.

Crucial Ballistix Sport 1.5V 1600/9 $78.

(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104344
&
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148544
Respectively)

*In General*

There's no 'real world' advantage and nothing which a typical user will see the difference in b/w the 2 sets, agreed. But, assuming both on current price, the 1600MHz will be a better buy *just* because its cheaper, and that's a real world advantage, no doubt. There's certainly no sense in buying something old (Voltage wise) just because its also supported and doesn't do any damage to MoBo, that too at a higher price.

I also acknowledge that you have specified many times you'll go with 1.5V yourself over 1.65V in 1600/1866Mhz. I'd like to ask the OP which particular memory is he interested in buying or wishes to buy, and at what price.

When less Voltage (meaning less heat, more OC headroom) is $12 less and is undoubtably a better value for money, then I'd never even think about 1.65V. Again, 1.65V is nothing bad, its just that 1.5V is better both performance/price wise and also technically. Here, I agree again that performance boost is not much in 1.5V over 1.65V, but then again, why buy a costlier stick for even slightly lower performance when you can very well get better models for less.

My point is very clear: Buy the 1.5V if you find it cheaper or even at par with 1.65V, assuming the MHz and CL are the same. This maybe the 'mainstream' mindset but that's what the public goes for, and is actually in no way wrong.

Moreover, the non-real world advantages of 1.5V over 1.65V are not really much, but are still good to convince a typical user if he's not convinced by the price difference. Getting 1.65V over 1.5V for same price and config will be nothing more than a bad choice IMO.

memory timings are measured in bus clock cycles, not transfers.

DDR3-1600 CAS 9 has a column read delay of 9 cycles on an 800Mhz IO bus, or 11.25 nanoseconds from read request to the strobe corresponding to the first word of the burst. Each subsequent word of the burst will be strobed every half cycle (0.625 ns) with the 8th and final word of the burst strobing after 15.625 ns if the burst isn't chopped or terminated.

Never suggested that you spend more to get less ..... but

-Spending more money to get CAS 7 @ 1.6 or 1.65 instead of CAS 9 @ 1.5 certainly seems reasonable ... upside = 29% speed increase / downside .... I can't think of one.

-Again, why are they "subpar" in 2014 when they were "the norm" in 2012 ?

-Is there really an individual out there who says to themselves, "I wanna overclock my memory so why don't I start with the lowest speed, highest voltage sets available ? Wouldn't someone look at what's available and grab a 2133 set and overclock that since it is the same price ?

The original post clearly stated that all things being equal you should always take the lower voltage, but if the user has a reason to look at the higher voltage modules, whether lower CAS, great price, they like the color the 1.65 volts modules will not cause any more problems than the "norm" 1.65 volt modules from 2 years ago (none), will not produce any more heat than they did 2 years ago, will not produce any more heat than the 1.65 volt memory you and I are using today. 1.65v was the norm in 2012 and the passage of time doesn't suddenly make them "subpar". If there's a reason that we need to be waving WARNING flags for 1.65v 1600 modules today, then we should be telling most of the peeps out there to hurry up and replace those old sticks before the extra heat damages their components or the high voltage does some other scary thing.

There is no negative impact from the heat, there is no negative impact from the voltage, there is no impact from limited overclocking cause if that was a desired goal, I don't see that you'd be looking at DDR3-1600 ... the only worry is ya just don't have the best option available.

No argument from me .... I was speaking in generalities not specific two sets..... we have been reading for years however that 1.65 V RAM will damage your MoBo / CPU and void your warranty. This continues today. What would you rather have ..... a CPU that runs 4.6 Ghz at 1.2 volts or one that runs at 1.275 volts ... or even 1.375 volts.... duh, dumb question right ....don't think anyone got that wrong. If they said that on the box, I'd certainly pay more for the 1st one.

But that's a far cry from saying if you have a CPU that needs 1.275 volts, don't do it cause the heat will kill your MoBo / CPU. I review each users build list before they place the order and if I saw DDR3-1600 @ 1.65 volts, I'd say "Ya know .... you could get 2133 @ 1.65v for same price" and go on saying what that was a good idea. But if he came back saying "yeah but I dig the Logo on those sticks", that's fine. The goal is to get the user the machine that meets his / her goals even if they are not my own. But I'd feel like a hypocrite if I was to issue dire warnings and scary stories about 1.65 volts that risk damage to his machine when I have sticks running at 1.7v in my own box.

Now if ya really wanna get me excited, we can change the subject to should you buy faster RAM. Love those critiques to a posted build that say "Don't get that 2133 set cause buying faster RAM is a waste as the benefits are miniscule" and then post a link to to a 1600 set that is the exact same price.

This again goes "back to the day" when DDR3 was in its infancy and 2133 was a substantial premium over 1600 and 2400 was in the stratosphere. Back then it wasn't worth it ..... but many of the peeps who remember those posts from 3 years ago parrot that logic today when it, depending on weekly price variations, no longer is applicable. The cheapest set of 16GB I could find on newegg yesterday was 2133 ! So coming around full circle, yes I would not suggest buying 1.65 when 1.5 was cheaper, just as I wouldn't suggest buying 1600 when 2133 is cheaper. But that doesn't make 1600 "subpar" as I'd be hard pressed to quantify the differences. The differences are very small and hard to detect .... tho it is significant that one thing that is smaller than the performance difference is the price difference.

Read my post again, it's using the example of 1600/9 (which is entry level, and while here 2012 was 2012 this is 2014, the SB and IB CPus ran cooler in the first place than do the Haswells and even the Haswell refresh CPUs, they have stronger MCs (memory controllers) and are native to 1600 so there's ne need for the higher 1.65 voltage. These 1600 at 1.65 are rapidly being phased out (and have been for some time now), DRAM is more balanced out, and prices are far different, overall they are higher, but 1866 and 1600 are basically the same price) I stated 1600/9 at 1.5 is far more prevalent and lower priced than 1600/9 at 1.65 and actually if you want to drop to 1600/7, here in the States at the Egg, the lowest priced 1600/7 2x4GB set is a 1.5 set. Also I see no real reason to invest anything in 1600 sticks, basically any new CPU can run 1866 so why even consider tight CL 1600 sticks when you can get the higher bandwidth of 1866 and pperformance for the same price

My point is very clear: Buy the 1.5V if you find it cheaper or even at par with 1.65V, assuming the MHz and CL are the same. This maybe the 'mainstream' mindset but that's what the public goes for, and is actually in no way wrong.

Click to expand...

This debate can go and on. I'm yet to see a reply from OP on this thread. Clear the air man, what was the purpose for asking? Help in choosing for a build/ for general knowledge?

Moreover, yes even I'd prefer 2133 over 1600, just because speed is throughput of data and there's no sense in buying tightly timed memory which can't tranfer more data vs its competitors. I'd prefer a 2133/10 or preferably 9 over 1600/7 or 8. No arguement there.

It's not a 29% speed increase, it's a 29% reduction in first word read latency. It's fairly negligible in comparison to the total penalty incurred, which on modern Intel processors is around 60 ns for a random access. I challenge you to find a benchmark which shows that low CAS memory is statistically superior to high CAS memory at the same data rate.



If it's the exact same memory module, then it's not necessarily sub par. However, the 1.65 volt DDR3-1600 modules from 2011 are not the same 1.65 volt DDR3-1600 modules from 2014. The 2011 modules are hand picked and overvolted to achieve data rates that were considered exotic for the time. The 2014 modules are most likely bottom of the barrel modules that failed validation at 1.5 volts and may be hiding underlying issues. 1.5 volt DDR3-1600 modules have been available for years, any remaining 1.65 volt DDR3-1600 modules are either ancient inventory or lemons.



No but there are a lot of customers out there who are looking for a bargain. They don't understand the risks or compatibility issues involved with using memory that was saved from the waste bin and then come to us wondering why their memtest86 run started throwing errors.



This is all based on the assumption that the 1.65 volt modules today are the same as the 1.65 volt modules from several years ago. This is not necessarily the case.

1.65 volts was never the norm for DDR3. DDR3 was designed and standardized with the SSTL_15 electrical interface in mind, not some fictional SSTL_165 interface. It is, and has always been, designed around 1.5 volts for DDR3 and 1.5/1.35 volts for DDR3L. 1.65 volt modules dominated the market for a couple of years while DDR3 was new in order to give it a perceptive edge over the then dominant and mature DDR2. Once DDR3 made it into mainstream motherboards with the Intel P55 series vendors started targeting mainstream users.

________________

+1

Jack

many, many of us have pushed faster sticks for years, and rather than price, I remember many claiming there is no benefit to anyone.....while price has played in also, many people now see the benefits of faster sticks as higher end computing and computing projects becomes more common