Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

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

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

Intel’s newest platform lineup has the same memory requirements as P55 Express, yet some of the modules available for it are rated differently. We discuss those differences on our quest to find the best performance/price in an 8 GB dual-channel kit.

We started getting email announcements of a new generation of LGA 1155-compatible RAM right around the same time as details of Intel's second-gen Core processors surfaced. The funny thing was that Intel’s memory requirements didn't change from Nehalem/Westmere to Sandy Bridge.

The former platform’s documented maximum 1.575 V limit remains, with the same wink-and-a-nod from engineers that up to 1.65 V is safe. Indeed, the memory controller built into Intel's new processors remained substantially similar to that of its predecessor. But as it turns out, the introduction of new kits wasn't entirely marketing hype!

All of Intel’s DDR3 memory ratios correspond to data rate multiples of 266.6 MHz, including officially-supported data rates (DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, and DDR3-1333) as well as unofficial overclocked ratios (DDR3-1600, DDR3-1866, and DDR3-2133). Yet, many of the memory kits designed for LGA 1156-based platforms included oddball ratings like DDR3-2000 and DDR3-2200. In order to achieve DDR3-2000 without overclocking the CPU core, the builder had to set the appropriate ratio for DDR3-1866, raise the base clock by 7.2%, and then reduce the CPU multiplier by 7.2%. With 7.2% multipliers and non-integer base clocks unavailable, an approximation had to be made. Some memory manufacturers even abused Intel’s XMP technology in an effort to tell motherboards how to set these approximations automatically, though the builder still had to choose the appropriate XMP profile in the BIOS.

Intel’s new platform does allow fractional base clock increases, but, as we all know by now, does not support the aggressive base clock adjustments enabled by previous platforms. An increase of 7.2%, for example, is easy to set, but it's usually unstable. By significantly limiting the range of accessible base clock adjustments, Intel invalidated memory ratings that didn’t correspond to appropriate ratios. We interviewed several memory manufacturers at CES and confirmed that transforming LGA 1156-specific memory kits into LGA 1155-oriented models required nothing more than a proper name, and proper SPD and XMP values.

For instance, yesterday's DDR3-2000 becomes DDR3-1866, occasionally at lower latency ratings to help offset the sacrificed data rate. Later, as many builders reported no performance gains or even compromises in stability from increasing the controller's voltage from 1.60 to 1.65 Vs, at least one manufacturer responded by dropping its maximum rating to 1.60 V.

The hardware itself didn’t change; just the labels (both internal and external). That’s fine with us though, since a lot of the memory out there is already high-quality stuff. Even still, we'll still put it through the wringer in order to determine how far it can be pushed using Intel's new platform. Before we move on to specifics, let’s take a quick look at what these manufacturers have to say about their products.

8 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 Rated Timings and Voltage
   Data Rate
  Timings 
  Voltage 
Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C916009-9-9-241.50 V
Crucial Ballistix BL2KIT51264FN200120009-10-9-241.65 V
G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-12800CL7D-8GBXH16007-8-7-241.60 V
Geil Evo Two GET38GB2200C9ADC22009-11-9-281.65 V
Kingston HyperX T1 KHX1600C9D3T1K2/8GX16009-9-9-271.65 V
Patriot Viper Xtreme PXD38G1866ELK18669-11-9-271.65 V
PNY Optima MD8192KD3-133313339-9-9-241.50 V
PQI Immortality Turbo MFAFR602SA700120009-11-9-271.65 V


Note that several manufacturers have not yet updated their product portfolios, sending LGA 1156-rated parts for our LGA 1155 platform. Crucial specifically mentioned that it will most likely give these modules a new DDR3-1866 rating (and corresponding model number) in response to LGA 1155’s tighter BCLK limits, while several Geil press partners have mentioned “DDR3-2133” in regards to its DDR3-2200-rated parts. Launched last June for Intel’s previous platform, PQI is confident that its Immortality Edition Turbo D3-2000 will excel under the new platform’s limitations.

Display 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