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 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
Okay... So I have the kingston ram, and I pulled it out to take a look at it... it has 4 chips on each side.. does that make it double sided or does that mean it's a single sided like the one in this article?Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#2 -As I said in the review "You will have to decide if the increases in performance from using faster memory are worth the cost of that speedier memory. For some, these increases will matter a great deal, while for others, they will not be worth the cost."
Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
OCZ Rocks :-DAnonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link
#1, get a life, no one likes a blind haters. OCZ has proven themselves, I'm sorry your you feel your geek life has been threatened.Anyway, great review as always Wesley. Keep up the excellent work. :)
AgaBooga - Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - link
I am currently reading the first page and I saw "Quake3 Demo FOUR.dm_66" and since I was first browsing it before reading it, I think it said "Quake FOUR!" But then, I went back since I was scrolling down quickly only to see it was Quack ;) 3, hehe.Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - link
You have got to be kidding me. You're going to suggest that 6fps(at most) in UT2003 is worth spending double the price on RAM?Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - link
Well I'm not going to bother reading the article, but I'll take a wild guess and say OCZ was declared the winner.