G.Skill RipjawsZ F3-19200CL9Q-16GBZHD
With a model number that’s easy to decipher but difficult to remember, G.Skill’s PC-19200 CL 9 quad-channel kit is the only 16 GB set in today’s round-up to carry a DDR3-2400 rating.
G.Skill says that, apart from its XMP profile, this is the same hardware as found in its DDR3-2200 kit. That made it the perfect product for a surreptitious appearance in our recent X79 motherboard round-up, where it was used as the second set for eight-DIMM overclocking tests.
We were happy to see G.Skill’s DDR3-2400 automatically configured at DDR3-1600, but a little disappointed that JEDEC’s slowest CAS 11 timings were used. While it is possible that G.Skill was simply seeking the ultimate compatibility, it’s been a while since we’ve seen a “performance” motherboard that didn’t support DDR3-1600 CAS 9 at 1.50 V.
Boards that can’t use DDR3-1600 by default will find lower SPD values, while those that support XMP will configure the correct DDR3-2400 timings using Profile 1 from UEFI. CPU-Z misreports that value as a data rate of 2286 MHz, but our motherboard had no problem reading it correctly.
G.Skill memory includes a lifetime warranty.
Performance gains via memory even when given a favorable playing field (reduced graphics) are pretty small. The reference CAS 9 1600 appeared to hold its own at a fraction of the cost. As was eluded to I think kits like this are really only aimed towards the small crowd of super-enthusiasts that want to squeeze every last drop out of a system regardless of price.
Nice article and one that I think illustrates both the benefits (ease of overclocking) and disadvantages (less fine tuning) of the multiplier friendly yet limited bclk of both 1155 and 2011.
Also it would have been nice to add some Ram Disk benchmarks to the review aswell.
bauboniIt would be nice to compare these 2.4Ghz Quad Channel memories with the usual 1.6Ghz DualChannel kits, specialy at gamming scenarios.That's why there's a DDR3-1600 reference data set on each chart. Of course it's quad-channel because that's what the CPU is designed to run, and we wouldn't want to artificially handicap it...would we?
SB-E hasn't changed much here, at most ~1% boost.
Well, I really wanted to see the practical difference between dual to quad channel at gamming =P
Of course we'd like to gauge the marketability of this concept before putting money behind it, so perhaps you can start a thread in the Forums to gauge its popularity? On a platform limited to $500-1000 CPU's, would any readers really spend that much a second time for memory?
Just wondering, but does this mean there is a bottleneck in the CPU? Is OCing the ram worth it when paired with a 5ghz processor? It is just hard to suggest any of these products when there is so little difference between them and the stock version. Good article though
All the same I would love to be proved wrong and see some real world tests on the subject!