Four High-End Quad-Channel DDR3 Memory Kits For X79, Reviewed

Page 1 of 11:

Complementing Core i7-3000 With Quad-Channel DDR3

Anyone willing to drop one thousand dollars on a CPU probably wants to match it up to the best possible memory kit, especially armed with the knowledge that Intel’s new quad-channel memory controller is located within that CPU. How are we to know which kit is the best, though?

We left it up to manufacturers to decide which quad-channel kit they thought would be best, making it clear that our judgement would be balanced between overclocking, minimum latencies, and capacity.

With such general terms for qualification, we ended up with one 8 GB kit (made up of four 2 GB modules) and three 16 GB sets (naturally composed of 4 GB modules), rated at DDR3-2400 or DDR3-2133, and with extremely similar timings

8 And 16 GB Premium Quad-Channel DDR3 Rated Settings
	Frequency	Timings	Voltage	XMP VCCA
Corsair Dominator GT CMGTX8 (4 x 2 GB)	2400	10-12-10-27	1.65 V	1.40 V
G.Skill Ripjaws Z F3-19200CL9Q-16GBZHD	2400	9-11-10-28	1.65 V	1.20 V
Geil Evo Corsa GOC316GB2133C9AQC	2133	9-11-9-28	1.65 V	Auto
Mushkin Redline 993997	2133	9-11-10-28	1.65 V	Auto

We're going to go ahead and start testing on our end. In the meantime, check out each kits details on the next few pages. We promise that by the time you're finished reading, the results will be ready for you!

Current page: Complementing Core i7-3000 With Quad-Channel DDR3

Next Page Corsair Dominator GT CMGTX8

Thomas Soderstrom

Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.

Topics

Components

Corsair

G.SKILL

Geil

Memory

Mushkin

Overclocking

RAM

40 Comments Comment from the forums

a4mula

The article seems supports the same basic premise we've since at least the bclk limited 1155. Even with the 125 and 166 straps added to LGA2011 there is still too little base clock manipulation available push memory very far.

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.
Reply
panderaamon

I'll take 8 GB per slot Ram's for my X79 thank you very much.

Also it would have been nice to add some Ram Disk benchmarks to the review aswell.
Reply
bauboni

It would be nice to compare these 2.4Ghz Quad Channel memories with the usual 1.6Ghz DualChannel kits, specialy at gamming scenarios.
Reply
Crashman

a4mulaThe article seems supports the same basic premise we've since at least the bclk limited 1155. Even with the 125 and 166 straps added to LGA2011 there is still too little base clock manipulation available push memory very far. The board supports DDR3-2400 data rate, limitations on this CPU's memory controller made it impossible for most modules to reach that setting. You can underclock or overclock the base clock by a wide enough margin to fill the holes between 2133 and 2400, etc.
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?
Reply
noob2222

Where is AMD's memory testing? Since SB-E was mostly SB, memory already wasn't expected to improve much. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3/6

SB-E hasn't changed much here, at most ~1% boost.
Reply
bauboni

CrashmanThe board supports DDR3-2400 data rate, limitations on this CPU's memory controller made it impossible for most modules to reach that setting. You can underclock or overclock the base clock by a wide enough margin to fill the holes between 2133 and 2400, etc.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?
Well, I really wanted to see the practical difference between dual to quad channel at gamming =P
Reply
Crashman

panderaamonI'll take 8 GB per slot Ram's for my X79 thank you very much.Also it would have been nice to add some Ram Disk benchmarks to the review aswell.The reason you didn't see 16GB kits in the past is that Tom's Hardware has always had trouble finding "widespread" applications that could benefit from more than 8GB. RAMDISK is an interesting option for eight-DIMM motherboards because 64GB can be employed. That would be really handy for a 48GB RAMDISK and 16GB of free memory!

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?
Reply
CaedenV

so... while there are differences in synthetic tests, there is no practical difference between 1600 and 2133 (and in some cases a negative effect). A bit disappointing, but it does follow previous test results.
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
Reply
CaedenV

CrashmanThat would be really handy for a 48GB RAMDISK and 16GB of free memory!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?I have always wanted a RAM disc simply due to the slow seek speed of HDDs, but now with SSDs available (and doping in price like a rock) it simply makes sense (and ease of use) to use an SSD or SSD RAID instead. Sure, system RAM is still faster, but SSDs take the cake for speed/size/performance for most applications where a ram disc would have previously had a sizable advantage. Ram discs still have a home in servers, but for video/audio/3d work on a workstation I think the money would be better spent elsewhere.
All the same I would love to be proved wrong and see some real world tests on the subject!
Reply
theuniquegamer

I haven't expected that the price of quad channel Rams will be such a premium price like the gskill ripjaw
Reply

Show more comments