Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

corsair 3200 vs crucial 2700

Last response: in Memory
June 5, 2002 12:38:40 AM

simple question, which one runs faster and is more reliable. I have experience with crucial and i've had no problems, but that 400 mhz speed of the corsair does look attractive. Which is better?
June 5, 2002 3:14:44 AM

Are you going to raise the FSB up to 200 MHz (400 MHz DDR)?
Only in that case you would see a difference.
I mean, if you are running at 166 MHz (333 DDR) both sticks will perform at the same level.
If your idea is only to run at 333 MHz I would suggest you to consider the Samsung PC2700.
June 5, 2002 12:52:21 PM

well i want the best performing stick of ram, now crucial does not offer a pc 2700 512 mb stick, but i want just one 512 mb stick. The only thing i'm worried about with the 3200 is that it's not JEDEC compliant, not sure what that means but i read it somewhere, and i'm planning to get the Epox 8k3a+ with it and i'm wondering if it's compatible
Related resources
June 5, 2002 4:04:39 PM

Don't worry about JEDEC. They are always behind. Committees, committees, committees!!!

<b>"Sometimes you can't hear me because I'm talking in parenthesis" - Steven Wright</b> :lol: 
June 5, 2002 7:50:53 PM

I'm in a similar situation, the computer I'm currently building also includes the Epox 8k3a+, and I'm trying to decide whether to get 512 MB of Corsair 3200 or Corsair 3000, which is at cas 2 and runs at 1T command rate, as opposed to the 3200, which runs at cas 2.5 and 2T.

However, I do know that the Corsair is highly compatible with your Epox 8k3a+. Actually, all Corsair DDRAM is tested on the 8k3a for Socket A mobos or the Asus P4S333 for P4 mobos. It's also tested at overclocking speeds, according to what I've read, and is highly overclockable.

I've determined I'm going Corsair, I just need a little help deciding 3000 or 3200, both of which are basically the same price (3000 is $.50 more from where I've looked).
June 6, 2002 3:12:25 AM

so now the question is what matters more, latency or memory speed?
June 6, 2002 2:29:41 PM

Does anyone have the correct answer?
I hope FatBurger stops by and helps us out :) 
June 6, 2002 7:18:58 PM

<i>Kaliman says:</i>
so now the question is what matters more, latency or memory speed?

Both, depends on the application and what the difference would be. If you're talking about Cas2 vs. Cas2.5 but 100MHz vs. 200MHz, then it's kind of obvious which would be more important :wink:

<i>Smudgeous says:</i>
Does anyone have the correct answer?

Is there a correct answer? I say go for Samsung PC2700. It's cheaper and will overclock higher than Crucial or Corsair.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 6, 2002 10:07:51 PM

crucial 2700 will overclock higher than corsair 32000 really??? how do you figure?
June 6, 2002 10:17:02 PM

He said SAMSUNG PC2700 will overclock higher than Crucial PC2700 and Corsair PC3200.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
June 6, 2002 11:39:14 PM

|What he said.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 6, 2002 11:43:29 PM


now im a tank, armoured against bs@dum.
<i>if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy
June 6, 2002 11:44:37 PM


now im a tank, armoured against bs@dum.
<i>if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy
June 6, 2002 11:47:44 PM

why exactly does the samsung pc2700 overclock better than the corsair pc 3200? Will it be able to reach a higher fsb, i don't see how that makes sense if the pc3200 is rated for 400 mhz.
June 6, 2002 11:50:38 PM

Quit spamming, fucknaut.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 6, 2002 11:56:41 PM

best oc for samsung than corsair & crucial.
i cant beleive it.
Holy Jesus.

now im a tank, armoured against bs@dum.
<i>if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy
June 7, 2002 2:48:14 AM

sambsung and crucial will run very nicely at 166mhz. they also overclock very well.

however the degree of overclock varies, and you have no guarantee that they will run stable at 200.

brands like corsair PC3200 use hand picked chips and are specially tested to run at 200mhz with certain ram timings.

thus if the stick doesnt run at 200mhz, you can send it back. :smile:
thats why corsair costs more.

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol: 
June 7, 2002 4:31:54 AM

so therefore, the corsair is definitely the better overclocker, but should i go with pc 3200 cas 2.5 or pc 3000 cas 2
June 7, 2002 5:38:41 AM

good question. big discussion about it over on corsairs forum.

basically they use the same PCB. the same sambsung hand picked chips. same layout. same everything

its just that the PC3000 is tested at 187Mhz at cas2 and the PC3200 is tested at 200 at cas2.5

go for whichever u think u will be running closest to.
honestly it really doesnt matter.

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol: 
June 7, 2002 5:40:47 AM

oh yeah. one other thing...

its not an absolute that corsiar is better than sambsung

you MIGHT get lucky and get a superoverclockable stick of sambsug. but its best to get corsair... they take the guesswork out.

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol: 
June 7, 2002 11:48:13 AM

I generally see Samsung PC2700 overclock higher than Corsair.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
June 7, 2002 12:43:50 PM

ok, jsut stop and listen to me.
If you dont care about $$$, go for Corsair 3000.
It is the best one now.
If you dont have mush $$$$, go for Samsung 2700.
I'm sure Corsair 3000 is better than the 3200, and Samsung 2700. I have tested them all. Maybe you have seen the Samsung 2700 oc better than the Cosair2700, but not all the Samsung stick can do that, sometimes depends to "Chance". But for corair 3000, im sure 9/10 are reliable.
Dont just think about the result, quality & stability is more important. I'm not gonna use a chip let my computer Freez *no oc.
June 7, 2002 2:30:32 PM

what are your reasons for saying the 3000 is better than the 3200?
June 9, 2002 6:05:09 AM

Well, according to theoretical <A HREF="" target="_new">benches</A>, the Crucial PC2700 and Kingmax PC2700 will offer the most performance, and given the reputation of those companies, I'd go with them. In fact, Corsair XMS3000 performs relatively worse than the all the other sticks tested, all the way from 133/133 to 166/166. Granted, you're promised 187MHz out of the Corsair, but I don't think it's worth it. Since all the other sticks tested were able to handle the most agressive memory timings at 166/166, it's probably safe to say that you could get the others to 187MHz or even 200Mhz (though that's probably pushing it) with less agressive timings and good cooling.

If you're looking to overclock with the best performance, I'd say Crucial PC2700 or Kingmax PC2700.

If you're looking for the most headroom that removes the RAM as a bottleneck to extreme overclocking, the Corsair PC3000 would be the best choice, as it is rated 187MHz@CAS2, and not the PC3200, as the CAS of 2.5 seriously downgrades the performance, and it shows that the stick is already near the end of its overclocking ability. At least with the PC3000, you can ease off on the memory timings to squeeze out a few more MHz on the FSB.

Disclaimer: Since these are theoretical benchmarks, and the results spread is less then 10% (actually no more than 4% for most of the tests), it is most likely impossible for a human to preceive the differences between the Kingmax or Crucial and Corsair. Also, since these samples were supplied by the companies and not purchased through regular channels, they are possibly hand-picked sticks, and not representative of the actual performance of the product. In the end, you should make your decision on what you want: a high performing system overclocked to get more performance, or bragging rights to the highest extreme overclock possible on a certain setup. Both are valid choices, though I lean to the performance, and therefore the Kingmax and Crucial.

June 9, 2002 3:05:34 PM

i don't understand this, i took a look at the link you posted and the results baffle me. How the hell can crucial pc2700 rated at cas 2.5 best the corsair pc3000 rated at cas 2.0 in every single test. In fact it looks like the corsair was left in the dust in every single test. How is this possible and why did it happen?
June 9, 2002 7:38:14 PM

Yeah, it is kinda sad that the Corsair at the most agressive memory timings is just barely able to match the Kingmax and Crucial at the least agressive memory timings at 166MHz. What that tells me is that more attention was paid to finding RAM chips that could hit PC3000 than to the PCB. The PCB is what makes or breaks a stick of RAM. That's why Crucial and Kingmax time and again run away with the performance crown. They take the time to lay out the PCB so that the RAM chips can perform to their best ability. Also, the fact that Kingmax and Crucial sticks can run at PC2700@CAS2 even though they are rated for CAS2.5 means that they, for the most part, have the highest quality RAM chips and PCBs. I'm running my Crucial PC2100 at the most agressive timings, even though it's only rated for CAS2.5. But I'm still at 133MHz, and that makes a big difference.

In the end, when you go with Corsair, you sacrifice performance for overclocking headroom (at least removing the RAM as the reason for an OC bottleneck). If that's your thing, by all means go for it. But I personally buy Kingmax and Crucial, for the express reason of their unmatched performance, and decent OC ability. Plus they are a lot cheaper.

June 10, 2002 9:13:49 PM

There's a head-to-head review of a mess of memory modules at <A HREF="" target="_new"></A> that may interest you. The modules tested are all PC2700, but the brand comparison information may interest you. I should add that I forward the info strictly as is, making no warrant, express or implied, as to its accuracy or utility for any purpose whatsoever. :) 
June 11, 2002 2:13:04 AM

i think the corsair is a sligthly better brand especially the gold XMS series.