Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Corsair And Crucial

Eight 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Memory Kits For P67 Express, Rounded Up
By

Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9

Rated at DDR3-1600 CAS 9-9-9-24, Corsair’s latest modules put stability, capacity, and compatibility ahead of frequency and latency. We find a 1.50 V rating written right on the module, which means that these should run on nearly any DDR3-based system.

Maintaining compatibility is easy, since Corsair programs these to default to DDR3-1333 CAS 9. A single XMP of DDR3-1600 runs at 1.50 V, but only Corsair knows for sure why this wasn’t included within normal SPD registers. We’re guessing the 2T command rate is the culprit, though reliance on XMP means that motherboards without this feature must be manually configured to run at the rated settings. We’ll use 1T exclusively in today’s test.

Also available in Blue (add a B to the end of the model number), Corsair offers a lifetime warranty to the original purchaser of its DRAM products.

Crucial Ballistix BL2KIT51264FN2001

Crucial did not update its Ballistix portfolio to reflect the limited BCLK adjustment range of Intel’s LGA 1155 platform, but instead lists its LGA 1156-spec DDR3-2000 as the highest performance 8 GB kit. The same kit turns up when searching “compatible memory” for some P67 motherboards, even though most builders can’t get the specified speed to run. We’ll test these at DDR3-1866 and DDR3-2133, both of which are valid settings for our platform.

That is to say, the DDR3-2000 rating isn’t a hardware problem; it’s more of a marketing issue. Our search of Crucial’s Web site for DDR3-1866 and DDR3-2133 yielded no 4 GB modules at all, and relabeling/reprogramming these at a standard ratio could have filled at least one of those gaps.

Serial presence detect tells motherboards to use DDR3-1333 CAS 9 at boot, but anyone with an XMP-capable motherboards will also find this memory’s rated settings. Our test board set the correct DRAM ratio without the BCLK overclock, resulting in the expected DDR3-1866 data rate.

Crucial memory carries a lifetime warranty for the original purchaser.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 48 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 6 Hide
    James296 , April 18, 2011 4:30 AM
    now watch as that kingston ram price suddenly jumps up :/ 
  • 1 Hide
    tacoslave , April 18, 2011 4:31 AM
    i miss the days when you could get 4gb of ram for 30 bucks *sigh*
  • -1 Hide
    hmp_goose , April 18, 2011 4:51 AM
    What happened to "get DDR3-1333 with tight timing: You'll never be able to appreciate `faster' stuff"?

    [Brand X] stuff rated 7-7-7-18 ment something, I thought …
  • -2 Hide
    werr20 , April 18, 2011 5:44 AM
    what cpu cooler did you use? because some cpu coolers don't alow big memory ram instal
  • 0 Hide
    enforcer22 , April 18, 2011 6:35 AM
    MMk sorry goose more ram is almost always and i mean 99.99999% better then faster ram :)  i never saw any differences in ram speed turning off t1 and t2 timings slowing it down to a crawl turning off dual channel.. NEVER gave me an effective visual result. But adding more ram always gave me an instant result. I had this same argument with someone last week.. Nice to now have proof he was wrong about faster ram meaning something :)  My ram is rated at 1600 but i have it only set on 1333 :/ 
  • -1 Hide
    dalauder , April 18, 2011 6:40 AM
    My DDR3 2000 CL9 runs @ 1915MHz CL6 just fine. And I had some DDR2 800 @ 1010MHz & DDR2 533 @ 727MHz. I think most RAM just OC's nicely. I've also had a few weaker sticks (DDR2 667 that can't go over 727MHz), but it all exceeds posted specs.
  • -4 Hide
    CyberAngel , April 18, 2011 8:34 AM
    I'm expecting to get my 2*4GB + 2*4GB DDR2 800MHz this week
    BUT
    If I could do it over again I'd get that overly expensive DDR3 motherboard and just 1GB of RAM then later add more RAM sticks

    Whenever DDR4 comes I'll jump in with small sticks and upgrade to more RAM when it gets cheaper (due to 20nm->15nm shrink)
    Well, that's when Windows 9 arrives and 16 cores is the mainstream (2017?) I hope I have enough money for 3D projector at QuadHD, 4feet by 8feet white wall...
  • 0 Hide
    Onus , April 18, 2011 8:49 AM
    I would like to have seen something like the G.Skill Value series tested, but it really looks like RAM just doesn't make all that much difference for games.
  • 0 Hide
    ubercake , April 18, 2011 9:34 AM
    I know this wasn't the primary focus of the article, though it is a good example of how sending more juice to your RAM and upping the speed on it has no noticeable effect on gaming performance.
  • 0 Hide
    gaborbarla , April 18, 2011 9:46 AM
    ubercakeI know this wasn't the primary focus of the article, though it is a good example of how sending more juice to your RAM and upping the speed on it has no noticeable effect on gaming performance.

    Agreed,

    I would like to see a cheaper stick thrown in there like my Kinston Standard 512M X 64 Non-ECC 1333MHz 240-pin Unbuffered DIMM (DDR3, 1.5V, CL9, FBGA, Gold)

    These RAMs with 19" Alloy wheels dont really seem to be worth their pricetags.

    I think it is safe to say it is better to spend money on a better graphics card or CPU, perhaps a PSU.
  • 0 Hide
    Olle P , April 18, 2011 9:53 AM
    In the performance tests I notice that the PNY at 1600 performs just as well as the G.Skill at 2133. So from a gaming price/performance point of view cheaper most definitely means better!
  • -1 Hide
    hixbot , April 18, 2011 3:15 PM
    Overclockers no longer NEED fast RAM. High speed RAM has simply become a bragger's product, since there is little performance increase. K brand 1155 CPUs can easily be overclocked with cheapo value RAM. Stability is the new name of the RAM game.
  • -1 Hide
    torque79 , April 18, 2011 4:07 PM
    Ive never seen any article show that faster ram = any significant change in gaming FPS. Every article completely ignores this, and I've complained multiple times before. The range of prices between RAM in this article is nearly double. Will this net you anywhere near double FPS? not even 25%, I suspect not even 5% difference. I can only imagine buying high end RAM if I just didnt know what to do with all my money, or I were buying a $2000 system.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , April 18, 2011 5:15 PM
    I don't feel too bad about getting 16GB of the PNY now for $100 :) 
  • -1 Hide
    Onus , April 18, 2011 5:34 PM
    Just bought 8GB of Corsair Vengeance on a Newegg Shellshocker for $75.
  • -1 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , April 18, 2011 5:45 PM
    Nice, now what about triple channel RAM?
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , April 18, 2011 5:58 PM
    mushkin ?
  • -1 Hide
    festerovic , April 18, 2011 7:24 PM
    Yeah I was just thinking Mushkin too. I got a 2x4gb silverline ddr1333 set a few months ago for $81 from newegg. I am glad I got that speed and capacity, highly doubtful I will need more RAM before a new CPU, and also, this article suggests that the speed is irrelevant to games and most other tasks.
  • -1 Hide
    cadder , April 18, 2011 7:47 PM
    Quote:
    but it really looks like RAM just doesn't make all that much difference for games


    I don't think ram speed makes all that much difference to overall system speed. In the case of overclocking some CPU's you had to have pretty fast ram just to run the system bus up to the speed that you needed, such as with multipliers of 9 or less. Newer CPU's have changed things.
  • -1 Hide
    huron , April 18, 2011 7:48 PM
    This came at the perfect time...I've been piece-mealilng my new Sandy Bridge system together and this really helps.

    Thanks again Toms for another well-tested article. Thinking seriously about those Corsair modules on Shell Shocker now.
Display more comments