Six Low-Voltage Dual-Channel 8 GB Memory Kits, Overclocked

By Thomas Soderstrom
published

We've abided by Intel's 1.55 V recommendation for two architectures and two die shrinks, yet most performance memory manufacturers ignore it. Recent problems with one of our builds raised the question, how far can we push RAM without killing CPUs?

Results: SiSoftware Sandra

Many performance enthusiasts aren't necessarily eager to roll up their sleeves and try pushing lower-rated parts to marginal ceilings. Instead, they'd rather buy high-performance parts and plug them in at guaranteed specs. Adata, Crucial, and G.Skill appear to specifically target these buyers with secondary and tertiary timings that boost SiSoftware’s bandwidth scores.

Geil’s DDR3-1333 falls behind in the above test for the obvious reason of its lower data rate, while Kingston's and Super Talent's results are more difficult to define. Faster than DDR3-1333, they're still well behind the DDR3-1600 pack.

With all modules set to DDR3-1600 and their tightest stable timings, the top four memory kits all provide similar bandwidth. Kingston and Super Talent fall behind.

G.Skill drops out of the DDR3-1866 test, while Crucial and Geil push through to 25 GB/s. Adata plays catch-up at 24.6 GB/s, while Kingston and Super Talent trail behind.

Crucial never reaches DDR-2133, so Adata takes its place. Data rates climb from the original 21 to 27 GB/s, with the tenacity of Geil’s DDR3-1333 proving even more impressive.

Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.
38 Comments Comment from the forums
  • excella1221
    Nice article.
    A bit surprised that Corsair Vengeance didn't make an appearance though.

    Been using G.Skill RAMs since I can remember, and they've never failed me!
    Reply
  • DarkSable
    Very interesting read, thanks Tom's! Guess we've been bothering you enough about, erm, "half-height" overclocker's ram enough for you to want to do an article on it. Shame that the mystery modules chose not to participate... perhaps I'll send you my 8 gigs. Want to swap? Ship me some ram to use in the mean-time and I'll ship you my sticks.
    Reply
  • rmpumper
    In other words, RAM speed is irrelevant if you are not using an APU.
    Reply
  • Haserath
    No power consumption numbers? :/
    Reply
  • cobra5000
    Good testing but at the start of the article, much emphasis was placed on the degradation of the cpu due to high memory voltage and then it just turns into a memory speed test. What about the cpu degradation?
    Reply
  • envy14tpe
    Good article. Still left wondering why anyone would choose low voltage RAM when costs do not outweigh the benefits.
    Reply
  • slomo4sho
    It is only worthwhile to pickup low voltage ram if you can obtain it at the same price as 1.5v ram. Then again, the Ballistix is around the same price point as other similar timing ram.
    Reply
  • allan_hm
    Pointless analysis for too little performance AND price difference...
    Would be a bit less irrelevant if more brands were tested.
    To be honest I was more interested on that "dirty little secret" details than the test itself.
    Also, an article named "who is who in the RAM marked" would be awesome, just like that one about Power Supplies...
    Reply
  • Crashman
    excella1221Nice article.A bit surprised that Corsair Vengeance didn't make an appearance though.Been using G.Skill RAMs since I can remember, and they've never failed me!Here's from the article:
    We invited every major manufacturer (including a crowd-favorite ODM) to this round-up, and a few (including that ODM) chose not to participate.
    Corsair said they had some new modules coming out and didn't want to focus on older models.cobra5000Good testing but at the start of the article, much emphasis was placed on the degradation of the cpu due to high memory voltage and then it just turns into a memory speed test. What about the cpu degradation?What about it? It's never been seen at 1.50V.
    Reply
  • Crashman
    allan_hmPointless analysis for too little performance AND price difference...Would be a bit less irrelevant if more brands were tested.To be honest I was more interested on that "dirty little secret" details than the test itself.Also, an article named "who is who in the RAM marked" would be awesome, just like that one about Power Supplies...Article intent was to find modules within Intel's 1.55V limit that pulled top numbers in frequency and/or latency. Some were found, article is a success.
    Reply