Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

G.Skill And OCZ

Value DDR3 For Intel's P55: Six 4GB Kits Rounded Up
By

G.Skill DDR3 CAS 8

A favorite among many value seekers in our community forums, G.Skill is the first company in today’s lineup to offer overclock-rated settings at a standard-component price.

Read Customer Reviews of G.Skill's 4GB DDR3-1333 CAS 8 Kit


The risks to G.Skill are minimal, since nearly any DDR3-1333 can use its rated CAS 8-8-8-21 latencies at 1.60V. But it’s nice to know that this part number F3-10600CL8D-4GBHK dual-channel kit is guaranteed to do so.

G.Skill even adds an XMP value for users who prefer to set the rated overclock by simply enabling a profile in BIOS, though CPU-Z detects the tRAS value as 23 cycles, rather than the rated 21.

OCZ Gold Series DDR3-1066 CAS 7

OCZ is the only company in today’s roundup to put its value focus on low latencies at lower data rates. While some so-called experts claim that certain systems yield better performance results from lower-latencies rather than from greater speeds, our calculator shows that DDR3-1066 CAS 7 and DDR3-1333 CAS 9 offer similar latency times.

Read Customer Reviews of OCZ's 4GB DDR3-1066 CAS 7 Kit

Originally one of the least expensive of today’s retail samples, OCZ’s part number OCZ3G10664GK comes with perforated heat spreaders that shouldn’t have any negative impact, even if poorly applied, which these were not. We’re hoping to actually see some benefit from these heat spreaders in our overclocking evaluation.

Rated at DDR3-1066 and with 7-7-7-16 timings using 1.60V, OCZ programs its SPD values with the same speed and timings at 1.50V. This could cause the memory to be unstable at “motherboard defaults,” and OCZ buyers need to be aware of this potential programming issue, which can only be compensated for by a manual voltage increase. The purpose of SPD is to prevent this very problem, which is why most of OCZ’s competitors program slower default timings and require tuners to manually configure voltage and latency simultaneously.

Display all 60 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    Onyx2291 , November 12, 2009 5:13 AM
    Very nice how Crucial edges out so slightly and is cheap.
  • 0 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 12, 2009 5:22 AM
    I've been advocating that Crucial memory kit since time began.
  • 0 Hide
    presidenteody , November 12, 2009 6:30 AM
    should i wait for the price to be cut in half in 6 months? I want it now for L4d2!
  • 4 Hide
    dirtmountain , November 12, 2009 6:33 AM
    Would running these same kits work any differently in an AM3 system with it's ability to handle higher voltages?
  • 1 Hide
    NeatOman , November 12, 2009 6:36 AM
    Why would you guys use memtest86+ v1.7? if "v4" or is out?
  • 1 Hide
    MAD4AMD , November 12, 2009 6:57 AM
    Could you please provide information what memory chips are used in all RAMs. Thank you!
  • 0 Hide
    micky_lund , November 12, 2009 7:08 AM
    looks good, especially for CAS9. spose it makes it better for OCing.
    pity it ain't available in Australia :S
  • 0 Hide
    jrharbort , November 12, 2009 7:40 AM
    I've always insisted that Crucial DDR3 kits are an excellent value, and recommended them to friends for their amazing stability, overclockability, and price.

    These kits totally deserved the Tom's award for best hardware of '09.
  • 0 Hide
    mlcloud , November 12, 2009 9:31 AM
    I've been buying OCZ for all my DDR2 needs (they were very cheap after rebates), but I think I know who to go to for DDR3 (and awesome power supplies)
  • 0 Hide
    coolkev99 , November 12, 2009 12:41 PM
    This is good info, but I wish they would develop some 3gb x 2 kits out there.
  • 0 Hide
    Crashman , November 12, 2009 1:01 PM
    coolkev99This is good info, but I wish they would develop some 3gb x 2 kits out there.


    3GB modules don't make a lot of sense due to the way memory chips are organized. In order to do it "right" (same physical organization), you'd have to use different chips on each side of the module, such as 1gb chips on one side and 2gb chips on the other, and I'm not even sure such a module would be compatible with current memory controllers.
  • 0 Hide
    enzo matrix , November 12, 2009 1:11 PM
    What about Mushkin ram? I'd like to see them included in future articles.
  • 0 Hide
    jodpel , November 12, 2009 1:19 PM
    I had an idea in my mind that they look at the test results from every shipment of memory they get from the fab... the stuff that tests poorly gets sold as value and the stuff that exceeds specs gets heat sinks and sold as performance RAM.

    I was always leery of buying value RAM because I figured it failed a spec somewhere along the line and got thrown in the "sell it to Mikey because he'll buy anything" bin at the virtual store.
  • 0 Hide
    Ryun , November 12, 2009 1:27 PM
    "OCZ’s maximum data rate of only 1,240 MT/s came from our second attempt to test the memory. Both modules in our first kit threw errors even at a modest 1,066 MHz data rate."

    Glad you found this as well. I, and others on newegg who ordered that set of sticks, got DOA memory. Gave me errors and couldn't OC at all. It's crap RAM.
  • 2 Hide
    Crashman , November 12, 2009 1:45 PM
    jodpelI had an idea in my mind that they look at the test results from every shipment of memory they get from the fab... the stuff that tests poorly gets sold as value and the stuff that exceeds specs gets heat sinks and sold as performance RAM.I was always leery of buying value RAM because I figured it failed a spec somewhere along the line and got thrown in the "sell it to Mikey because he'll buy anything" bin at the virtual store.


    From the samples Tom's purchased it appears that there are two grades of memory: "Everything Else" and OCZ Gold.
  • 1 Hide
    void_pointer , November 12, 2009 2:25 PM
    Providing results for Memtest86+ and SiSoftware Sandra is important (IMHO), but these results really don't tell us much about real-world performance of apps/games/etc. The Crucial kit gets a win based on max data rate (and price), but there is no guarantee that you'll see a performance increase when you crank up the data rate and run your favourite app/game/etc., because the way it accesses memory with the cranked-up latencies actually cause a reduction in performance.

    If we could get a small sample of benchmarks with real apps (e.g., one or two games, an encoder or two, a file compressor or two) I think readers would have a far better understanding of what "Super-Value" means for them (and their apps/games/etc.)
  • 0 Hide
    notty22 , November 12, 2009 2:29 PM
    I think its the end user, the home builder that is being cheated out of quality and value in the current ram market. With all these supposed ram modules available at different speeds/timings then multiply that by meaningless things such as color and non functional heat spreaders the end result is story after story of ram NOT WORKING at default bios settings for a given processor/memory configuration. All I know is it seems like its russian roulette building a system and expecting your ram to work with default bios settings.
  • 0 Hide
    tpb , November 12, 2009 2:57 PM
    I have found that memtest86+ simply isn't good at finding problems from overclocking.
    I have an AM3 motherboard with 8 gig of ram and I could run memtest86+ for hours and not have any problems, boot into windows and have unpredictable crashes from minutes to hours later.
    If I boot into windows and run the memory tester in the link below, the problem shows up within seconds or minutes.
    I have no idea why this memory tester appears to be better than memtest86+.
    After you get the system working reliably, run one of the CPU stress programs at the same time as the memory test to heat up the CPU and ram and see if the system is still reliable.

    http://hcidesign.com/memtest/download.html

  • 0 Hide
    rockyjohn , November 12, 2009 3:07 PM
    I used Crucial in my last build and am very happy with it.

    I agree with those who stated it would have been informative to see some applications used in the test. Also, it would have been more informative if they had included one or two of the performance RAM for comparison.
  • 0 Hide
    philosofool , November 12, 2009 3:19 PM
    That crucial memory kit isn't compatible with many Gigabyte boards. I went through RMA hell over it. It's not crucial's fault, but if you're a system builder, you should know this.
Display more comments