Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2
by Wesley Fink on August 26, 2003 11:11 PM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Kingston HyperX 4000
Click the image to view a larger picture.
Kingston is one of the largest memory manufacturers, and they use the HyperX name for their highest performing memory modules. The trademark bright blue aluminum heatsinks immediately identify the memory as Kingston HyperX. HyperX 4000 is supplied in a Dual-Channel kit. The modules that were sent are the only single-sided DDR500 modules that we received, and as requested, Kingston supplied two pairs of modules for testing. Kingston uses Samsung TCCC chips, which are binned for performance — the highest performers going into HyperX 4000 modules.
The Kingston modules performed well when 4 SS DIMMs were used for testing. This was expected. As you can see below, 2 SS DIMMs did not perform quite as well, which is consistent with the information in Intel White Papers. The Intel 875P Chipset Memory Configuration Guide White Paper is available at ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25273001.pdf, and the Intel 865P Chipset Memory Configuration Guide White Paper at ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25303601.pdf.
We were very surprised when we compared overclocking of 2 SS DIMMs versus 4 SS Kingston modules. We tried both pairs of SS memory, but could not overclock any higher than DD514. However, with all four of the same DIMMs, we reached a DDR535 overclock.
Early revisions of HyperX 4000 from Kingston met their specifications of DDR500 and did run at rated speed. However, they were very poor overclockers, regardless of configuration. Later revisions supplied by Kingston overclocked much better, and were used for Kingston testing in this roundup.
Kingston HyperX 4000 — 4 x 256 MB Single-Bank | |||||
Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered | Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
400DDR 800FSB |
2.5-3-3-6 2.55V |
324.30 | INT 2589 FLT 2671 |
INT 4808 FLT 4745 |
131 |
500DDR 1000FSB |
3-4-4-7 2.65V |
394.57 | INT 3218 FLT 3195 |
INT 5841 FLT 5905 |
107 |
535DDR 1070FSB |
3-4-4-8 2.85V |
421.33 | INT 3459 FLT 3344 |
INT 6093 FLT 6111 |
100 |
Kingston HyperX 4000 — 2 x 256 MB Single-Bank | |||||
Speed | Memory Timings & Voltage | Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered | Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
400DDR 800FSB |
2.5-3-3-6 2.55V |
320.13 | INT 2514 FLT 2500 |
INT 4735 FLT 4757 |
132 |
500DDR 1000FSB |
3-4-4-7 2.65V |
386.30 | INT 2821 FLT 2786 |
INT 5830 FLT 5748 |
109 |
514DDR 1028FSB |
3-4-4-8 2.85V |
396.77 | INT 2835 FLT 2864 |
INT 5923 FLT 6010 |
106 |
77 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
I am tired of setting the memory timing and bench mark all the time. Is there a program there which can tell me what kind of results I would get? Say if I can increase my CPU by 5 MHz but have to set back my memory timing a bit, which way should I go?oldfart - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
Here are some reviews comparing tight timings Vs loose:http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2003/ddr400_roun... (need language translator)
http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=articles/c...
http://www.3dxtreme.org/Corsair_xms3700_twinx_p1.s...
Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
I think this was an extremely helpful and thorough review. There was one comparison, though, that I would find most helpful and haven't found anywhere. I'm currently debating the importance of running synchronously, and thus found the section "Does memory speed really matter in the real world" extremely interesting. However, I would have greatly preferred one additional test -- running 1066FSB at 3:2 and 5:4 with memory with tight timings (2-2-2-5), since my real debate is whether to buy PC3200 or PC3500 with tight timings and run at 5:4 or 3:2, or PC4000 with loose timings and run at 1:1. While I expect that the synchronous memory would result in better performance, I'd really like to know how much better, since PC4000 memory is expensive!Thanks,
Steve
Dennis Travis - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
Great Review Wes. Keep Em coming. I am not "PAID" to say this either. I wanted to. I am getting nothing for it either. Just the satisfaction of telling Wes I loved his review.Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
Great review Wesley. Nah I'm not paid to say this, I just enjoyed the review!Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
I have tested Kingston HyperX RAM at 1:1 3-4-4-8 @ DDR500, and 5:4 2-2-2-5 @ DDR400 at the same FSBs on a P4P800, with MAM Enabled and Turbo performance mode in both cases. While the 1:1 gets about 3-5% better Sandra bandwidth scores (buffered and unbuffered), SuperPI completes about 1.5% sooner at the 5:4 settings.So real-world performance may be slightly better at 5:4, but you won't win any Sandra bragging rights with it.
--MeowChow
Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link
oldfart - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Wow, looks I'm not the only guy who wants to see250 FSB
1:1 3-4-4-8
5:4 2-2-2-6
type of testing. I've seen several reviews that show the lower latency ram @ 5:4 to be faster.
Part 3??
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Hey Wesley,Thanks for all the good info...
Any chance you could test Various FSB's
5:4 2-2-2-5 vs the same FSB at 1:1 2.5-4-4-7
It would be great to show the readers how the new PC4000 REALLY compares to older slower low latency RAM, Mushkin PC3500 level2 would be perfect for that.
Now that would be a seriously good Anandtech caliber review. :D
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#32 and #40 -Mushkin did not have a product in our hands when the review was done. In fact I completed a review of Mushkin PC3500 Level II just a couple of days ago, and compared it's performance to ALL the memory in this review at DDR400. I also tested Adata DDR450, which did not meet our requirement of running at DDR500, but DID perform well at DDR400.
The reviews should be up here shortly. The Mushkin did VERY well at DDR400 to DDR450. Mushkin is also about to release DDR500 - but they did not have a product ready in time for our review. We WILL be testing it as soon as it is available if time allows.