The ram comes in a double style box, cardboard on the outside and plastic inside.

The ram is mostly black with copper accents on the fins.

The ram is labeled with timings of 8-8-8-24 but the patriot website says 8-8-9-24, I guess not much of a difference really.

Specifications:

Viper Xtreme Series DDR3 4GB 1600MHz Low Latency Kit

4GB (2 x 2GB) PC3-12800 (1600MHz) Low Latency Kit

Part number: PX534G1600LLK

Speed: PC3-12800 (1600MHz)
Timings: 8-9-8-24
Voltage: 1.65V

The Patriot Viper Xtreme Series, part of the Extreme Performance (EP) line, is the ultimate performance memory solution for the Intel P55 system platform. Engineered for extreme enthusiasts and PC gamers the Viper Xtreme modules utilize our custom heatshield solution with an extruded aluminum outer shield built around a copper core to provide improved cooling. Each module has 6 grams of copper at its core paired with an extruded aircraft-grade aluminum outer shield. The Viper Xtreme Series are built using only the highest quality pre-sorted IC’s available and are subjected to rigorous testing and validation on the P55 platform to achieve optimized performance and maximum quality. These modules are engineered to reach 1600MHz (PC3-12800) at 8-9-8-24 timings and are available in 4GB (2 x 2GB) capacity kits and carry our lifetime warranty.

Price: $79.99 (from NewEgg at time of review)

Even with the larger heatsinks the ram fits just fine and should work with most CPU cooler out there today.

I installed it in my Corei5 750 CPU and an EVGA P55 motherboard model 132-LF-E655-KR.

When I installed the ram it showed up with timings of 11-11-11-30, so I had to restart and go back into the BIOS and change the settings manually. CPU-Z lists the ram as running at 2T, but it runs at 1T with no problems.

For testing I’m comparing the Patriot Viper to OCZ Reaper HPC 1600Mhz ram with OCZ Gold 1600MHZ 8gb kit and Kingston LoVo 1866Mhz 4gb Kit.

First up how about calculating Pi to 1 million places, lower is better of course.

Times are very close no matter how you look at it.

Next would be 3dMark Vantage.

Things are still very close here.

Next up is Cinebench 10 and 11.5.

Main Processor Performance (CPU)

The test scenario uses all of your system’s processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene (from the viral “No Keyframes” animation by AixSponza). This scene makes use of various different algorithms to stress all available processor cores.
In fact, CINEBENCH can measure systems with up to 64 processor threads. The test scene contains approximately 2,000 objects containing more than 300,000 total polygons and uses sharp and blurred reflections, area lights and shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and much more. The result is given in points (pts). The higher the number, the faster your processor.

Graphics Card Performance (OpenGL)

This procedure uses a complex 3D scene depicting a car chase (by renderbaron) which measures the performance of your graphics card in OpenGL mode. The performance depends on various factors, such as the GPU processor on your hardware, but also on the drivers used. The graphics card has to display a huge amount of geometry (nearly 1 million polygons) and textures, as well as a variety of effects, such as environments, bump maps, transparency, lighting and more to evaluate the performance across different disciplines and give a good average overview of the capabilities of your graphics hardware. The result given is measured in frames per second (fps). The higher the number, the faster your graphics card.

Surprisingly is all of these tests the patriot Viper performs very close to the 1866Mhz Kingston Ram.

Again with the Viper installed it’s close to the 1866Mhz Kingston.

CPU Arithmetic Test:

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units
Results Interpretation
Dhrystone (MIPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Whetstone (MFLOPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.

Yet again the 1600 is close to the 1866 ram, very good really.

Cache and Memory Test:

Benchmark the processors’ caches and memory access (transfer speed).
Results Interpretation
Cache/Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Speed Factor (MB/s) – lower results are better, i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.

Same thing here, the 1866 is better but not by much.

CPU Multi-Media Benchmark.

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Benchmark the (W)MMX(2), SSE(2/3/4), AVX processor units.
Results Interpretation
Multi-Media Integer (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Multi-Media Single/Double Float (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.

And again the Patriot compares well to the faster Kingston ram.

Memory Bandwidth test:
Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer
Results Interpretation
Integer Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Float Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.

>

Here the Viper performs better than the other two sets at the same speed.

Memory Latency Test:

Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory
The latency of caches is measured in processor clocks (i.e. how many clocks it takes for the data to be ready) as it is dependent on the processor clock speed.
The latency of memory is measured in nanoseconds as it is typically independent on processor clock speed.
Results Interpretation:
Latency: Lower is better
Speed Factor: Lower is better

Lower is better here and you can see the Viper performs the best.

I’d say the Patriot Viper ram is some good stuff.

Conclusion:
I’m impressed truly, the Patriot Viper running at 1600Mhz easily compares to the Kingston running at 1866Mhz and bests the other 1600Mhz kits.

The Viper features nice looking and decent heat spreaders but they’re small unlike others out there so the ram should fit fine with most CPU cooler.

Pros:
+Looks great
+Performs very well
+Small heatspreaders

Cons:
-None really

Grades:
Overall
Design
Performance

To learn more about our review policy please visit this page HERE.

Review of Patriot Viper Xtreme Series DDR3 4GB 1600MHz Low Latency Memory Kit is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog

The ram comes packaged is an easy open plastic hang style box.

The Reaper HPC ram is certainly unique looking,  and rather large. The HPC in the name means Heat Pipe Conduit and that’s what the ram uses to keep it cool a large heat pipe. The ram is heavy, the combination of the thick heat sink and heat pipes make it this way, well at heavier than you except ram to be.

Specifications:

OCZ DDR3 PC3-12800/ 1600MHz Reaper Edition Ultra Low Voltage CL7 4GB Dual Channel Memory Kit

Part Number:  4GB (2x2GB)D/C Kit PN – OCZ3RPR1600ULV4GK

OCZ DDR3 PC3-12800/ 1600MHz / 4GB Dual Channel / Reaper Edition / Ultra Low Voltage

OCZ Reaper Ultra Low Voltage (ULV) DDR3 kits are designed specifically to comply with that latest low-voltage CPUs including the Intel P55 Chipset and subsequent Intel Core i7, i5, and i3 (Socket 1156) processors, and AMD 7 Series / 8 Series Chipsets and X4/X6 CPUs. Configured for dual channel mode, these ultra-compatible kits ensure optimal performance with an ideal combination of improved lower power requirements and overclocking capabilities.

Developed for enthusiast platforms that are becoming increasingly more power-efficient, OCZ ULV Dual Channel solutions are the choice counterparts for leading-edge performance, allowing high-speed memory to function below the upper voltage thresholds at 1.5 Volts. OCZ ULV memory helps lower internal case temperatures along with your utility charges as less power is required for high-speed DDR3, offering incredible stability at stock speeds along with substantial overclocking potential.

The Reaper HPC Series makes use of an innovative cooling solution to more effectively dissipate heat produced by high-speed memory, and offers superior cooling technology to ensure superior stability and performance over the entire life of the memory. The thermo-conductive copper heat pipe conduit is ideal for overclocking where every degree matters, ensuring that your cutting-edge investment will maintain its integrity throughout the toughest gaming missions, overclocking, or intense program applications.

OCZ DDR3 ULV Dual Channel Kits are 100% hand-tested for quality assurance and feature propriety XTC (Xtreme Thermal Convection) heatspreaders for the most effective heat dissipation. Furthermore, each OCZ memory kit is backed by the industry-leading OCZ Lifetime Warranty and technical support for unparalleled peace of mind.

Specs:
* 1600MHz DDR3
* CL 7-8-8-24(CAS-TRCD-TRP-TRAS)
* Available in 4GB Dual Channel kits
* Reaper HPC Heatspreader
* Unbuffered
* Lifetime Warranty
* 1.5 Volts
* Qualified on P55/Core i3,i5, i7 CPUs
* Qualified on AMD 7 Series/8 Series and X4/X6 CPUs
* 240 Pin DIMM

Price: $101.99 (from Amazon at time of review)

For testing I’m comparing the Reaper HPC ram with OCZ Gold 1600MHZ 8gb kit and Kingston LoVo 1866Mhz 4gb Kit.

Here it is installed in my system which has a Corei5 750 CPU and an EVGA P55 motherboard model 132-LF-E655-KR.  The ram is very large so depending on your CPU cooler and where the ram sockets are located it might not fit.

Once I got it installed I ran some tests and tried a bit of overclocking as well, I only got to about 1700Mhz from the original 1600Mhz, so I didn’t get too far. I did though include it in the testing just because not to waste the work.

First up how about calculating Pi to 1 million places, lower is better of course.

Obviously here the 1866 Kingston is a bit better, still we’re talking about 1 sec.

Next would be 3dMark Vantage, no explanation is needed I think.

The ordering I did was according to CPU scores, lowest to highest. If we look at GPU scores though we see the Kingston does the best with the overclocked OCZ Reaper coming in second.

Next up is Cinebench 10 and 11.5.

Main Processor Performance (CPU)

The test scenario uses all of your system’s processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene (from the viral “No Keyframes” animation by AixSponza). This scene makes use of various different algorithms to stress all available processor cores.
In fact, CINEBENCH can measure systems with up to 64 processor threads. The test scene contains approximately 2,000 objects containing more than 300,000 total polygons and uses sharp and blurred reflections, area lights and shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and much more. The result is given in points (pts). The higher the number, the faster your processor.

Graphics Card Performance (OpenGL)

This procedure uses a complex 3D scene depicting a car chase (by renderbaron) which measures the performance of your graphics card in OpenGL mode. The performance depends on various factors, such as the GPU processor on your hardware, but also on the drivers used. The graphics card has to display a huge amount of geometry (nearly 1 million polygons) and textures, as well as a variety of effects, such as environments, bump maps, transparency, lighting and more to evaluate the performance across different disciplines and give a good average overview of the capabilities of your graphics hardware. The result given is measured in frames per second (fps). The higher the number, the faster your graphics card.

Here the ordering was according to the Rendering with 1 CPU, the overclocked OCZ Reaper came in second.

Ordering was done according to the average FPS score. There’s about 3 FPS between them all.

CPU Arithmetic Test:

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units
Results Interpretation
Dhrystone (MIPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Whetstone (MFLOPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.

Higher is better and it appears the OCZ Gold actually came out the best, but the scores are all very close.

Cache and Memory Test:

Benchmark the processors’ caches and memory access (transfer speed).
Results Interpretation
Cache/Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Speed Factor (MB/s) – lower results are better, i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.

Here again the OCZ Reaper has a decent performance, all of these tests are close really though.

CPU Multi-Media Benchmark.

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Benchmark the (W)MMX(2), SSE(2/3/4), AVX processor units.
Results Interpretation
Multi-Media Integer (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Multi-Media Single/Double Float (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.

The 1866 Kingston odes the best, but that should be expected, but there all nice and close.

Memory Bandwidth test:
Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer
Results Interpretation
Integer Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Float Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.

There’s a big difference here though with the results with the OCZ Reaper at 1600MHZ.

Memory Latency Test:

Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory
The latency of caches is measured in processor clocks (i.e. how many clocks it takes for the data to be ready) as it is dependent on the processor clock speed.
The latency of memory is measured in nanoseconds as it is typically independent on processor clock speed.
Results Interpretation:
Latency: Lower is better
Speed Factor: Lower is better

With this final test, lower scores are better so the 1866Mhz Kingston is better but we’re talking nanoseconds.

Seriously though, in all of these tests, the scores are very close, there’s really not much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Conclusion:
The OCZ Reaper Edition ram performs well overall, but I did expect it to perform a bit better as it is considered enthusiast ram. Still though, it’s a decent performer that I think anyone would be happy with really.

It looks as though it should be able to overclock, but it really doesn’t, at least for me it didn’t work well. This happens though with some ram, some overclocks more than others.

The heat pipes on the ram do make it large in size making it possibly not able to fit with some CPU coolers.

Pros:
+Decent performance
+Nicely made
+Looks great

Cons:
-Large sized
-Not the best for overclocking

Grades:
Overall
Design
Performance

To learn more about our review policy please visit this page HERE.

Review of OCZ DDR3 PC3-12800/ 1600MHz Reaper Edition Ultra Low Voltage CL7 4GB Dual Channel Memory Kit is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog

The package is just a plastic style clamshell.

The ram inside though is OCZ Gold, yes it’s gold colored ram so it’s got a lot of shine to it. The heatspreaders are full of holes and in the center you’ll find a large Z with a 3 over it like an exponent. On one side of each stick is an identification label. This ram is probably the nicest looking stuff I’ve ever seen really.

Specifications:

OCZ DDR3 PC3-10666 / 1333MHz / 4GB Modules / Gold Edition / Low-Voltage

Addressing the never ending need for greater amounts of system memory, OCZ’s newest Gold Series 8GB Dual Channel kits support the latest memory-hungry applications and games, offering superior performance gains and maximum multi-tasking productivity. Ideal for workstations with 64-bit operating systems, the OCZ 8GB solutions allow users to take advantage of high density memory configurations when working with intensive design and multimedia applications.

OCZ Gold Series 8GB Dual Channel kits are tested and qualified on the latest platforms to ensure ultimate performance and stability, featuring the high densities and ultimate stability enthusiasts and prosumers demand to make the most of the graphic-intensive PC titles and intensive applications.

All Gold Series kits are 100% hand-tested and backed by the OCZ Lifetime Warranty and technical support for unparalleled peace of mind.

Specs:
* 1333MHz DDR3
* CL 9-9-9-20 (CAS-TRCD-TRP-TRAS)
* Available in 4GB modules and 8GB kits
* Unbuffered
* Gold Layered Z3 XTC Heatspreader
* Optimized for P55,H55, and H57 Chipsets
* Lifetime Warranty
* 1.65 Volts
* 240 Pin DIMM

Part Numbers:
* 8GB (2 x 4GB) Kit PN – OCZ3G1333LV8GK

Price: $179.99 (From Amazon at time of review)

I should note one thing about this ram that might disappoint some, it’s that it’s not meant for overclocking at all. It’s more meant for running intensive programs and it will provide good stability for your system. It’s meant to be performance ram yes, but not in the way that some might think of it, like overclocking for example. This ram is perfect for me as I don’t overclock anymore, I used to a while ago, but now what’s important to me is a stable system that allows me to do what I need to do. 8 gigs of ram should help me do that of course.

For testing I put the OCZ Gold against a 4gig kit of Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz ram, Part Number: KHX1600C8D3K2/4GX. I don’t have any other 8gig kits, but I thought a set of HyperX that was clocked faster would be a nice test to put up against the OCZ Gold.

I installed the ram in my Corei5 system on an EVGA motherboard, model 132-LF-E655-KR.

You do have to remember one thing here, the Kingston ram is faster and lower latency as well, but the we’ve got more of the OCZ. So is speed better or is quantity better? Let’s find out!

Here’s CPU-Z screen shots:

First up how about calculating Pi to 1 million places, lower is better of course.

With the OCZ Gold in my system it’s less than a second slower, that’s not bad at all.

Then how about some 3Dmark Vantage?

In the GPU test we see it’s actually better with the Gold, but in the GPU test it seems the Kingston is slightly better. So if you want CPU intensive things then go for the Gold as it were right?!

Next up I ran Cinebench 10 and 11, we’ll start with 10.

Cinebench 10 shows specific information for Rendering with one CPU and then with multiple CPUs, the final test is the OpenGL test.

The OCZ Gold does very well when rendering with one CPU but falls behind for the other two tests for some reason.

Here’s the information from the Cinebench 11 site as to what the results mean for 11:

Main Processor Performance (CPU)

The test scenario uses all of your system’s processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene (from the viral “No Keyframes” animation by AixSponza). This scene makes use of various different algorithms to stress all available processor cores.
In fact, CINEBENCH can measure systems with up to 64 processor threads. The test scene contains approximately 2,000 objects containing more than 300,000 total polygons and uses sharp and blurred reflections, area lights and shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and much more. The result is given in points (pts). The higher the number, the faster your processor.

Graphics Card Performance (OpenGL)

This procedure uses a complex 3D scene depicting a car chase (by renderbaron) which measures the performance of your graphics card in OpenGL mode. The performance depends on various factors, such as the GPU processor on your hardware, but also on the drivers used. The graphics card has to display a huge amount of geometry (nearly 1 million polygons) and textures, as well as a variety of effects, such as environments, bump maps, transparency, lighting and more to evaluate the performance across different disciplines and give a good average overview of the capabilities of your graphics hardware. The result given is measured in frames per second (fps). The higher the number, the faster your graphics card.

Here with version 11 we see the scores are really fairly close, about 2 FPS more with the Kingston but would you really even notice that in the real world?

Next up is a series of tests using SiSoft Sandra.

CPU Multi-Media Benchmark.

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Benchmark the (W)MMX(2), SSE(2/3/4), AVX processor units.
Results Interpretation
Multi-Media Integer (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Multi-Media Single/Double Float (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.

Here with the Multimedia test we see the scores are very close, you’d never notice the difference in the real world.

CPU Arithmetic Test:

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units
Results Interpretation
Dhrystone (MIPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Whetstone (MFLOPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.

Here again we don’t see much of a difference at all. I’m rather surprised actually, I thought the faster HyperX would do better all around with these tests.

Cache and Memory Test:

Benchmark the processors’ caches and memory access (transfer speed).
Results Interpretation
Cache/Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Speed Factor (MB/s) – lower results are better, i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.

Here we see with the Kingston is quite a bit better overall.

Memory Bandwidth test:
Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer
Results Interpretation
Integer Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Float Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.

Here again the Kinston seems to perform better.

Memory Latency Test:

Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory
The latency of caches is measured in processor clocks (i.e. how many clocks it takes for the data to be ready) as it is dependent on the processor clock speed.
The latency of memory is measured in nanoseconds as it is typically independent on processor clock speed.
Results Interpretation:
Latency: Lower is better
Speed Factor: Lower is better

The Kingston is lower latency so the results here are no surprise at all.

The results of these tests really show that there’s not much of a difference and that’s surprising really.

Conclusion:

The OCZ Gold surprised me quite a bit in just how well it performed. I put it up against a set of performance ram that runs faster and at a lower latency but the OCZ Gold held its own and performed very well in all of my testing.

Sure it fell behind in some things, but that’s to be expected, overall you can’t argue with the results of the testing here you can se how see the OCZ Gold performs.

The OCZ Gold isn’t made for overclocking so hardcore enthusiasts might not like, but it’s made for a different kind of enthusiast, those that want high capacity, good performance and stability and OCZ Gold offers that for those that want it.

Pros:
+Very good performance
+Looks great
+Stable

Cons:
-Not great for overclocking

Grades:
Overall
Design
Performance

To learn more about our review policy please visit this page HERE.

Review of OCZ DDR3 PC3-10666 8GB Gold Edition Ram is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog

Today at Testfreaks we ponder the question — how much RAM is too much? During the days of Windows XP two gigabytes was considered a boatload of memory; as Windows Vista made its way onto the scene, 4 gigs became the standard. With the recent release of Windows 7 more people are adopting 64 bit iterations of the newest Microsoft OS. One advantage of 64 bits systems is the ability to use massive amounts of memory; thus memory manufacturers are starting to take advantage of this capacity by offering larger size memory kits.

Kingston one of the premier names in memory business has released the HyperX 1600MHz 12GB Triple Channel Kit (KHX1600C9D3K6/12G). This set is designed for those using an X58 LGA 1366 motherboard in conjunction with the Core i7 series. The kit is composed of six 2GB sticks of DDR3 memory designed to operate at 1600 MHz.

Another nice feature with this kit involves the ability to run Intel’s Extreme Memory Profiles (XMP). If your motherboard can take advantage of XMP then getting your system running at 10-9-9-24 800MHz is as easy as changing a BIOS setting.

The Kingston review kit we received arrived in a plain brown cardboard package with an adhesive label indicating the model number and memory size on the box. Inside the box we find the HyperX 1600MHz 12GB Triple Channel Kit resting in two plain plastic memory protective cases. For the consumer a protective label sticker will cover the cases as seen with previous HyperX Ram models. In general Kingston tends to avoid fancy packaging and prefers to focus on creating quality performance memory.

Now the obvious question is why Kingston didn’t just use three 4 GB sticks instead of six 2 GB modules? The answer is economics; the production of 4 GB memory would make a 12 GB set very cost prohibitive. But if you are interested in such a set Kingston does make a 3 x 4GB set. Just be prepared for some sticker shock.

Taking a closer look at an individual module we see the familiar blue and silver HyperX heat spreader. On one side of each memory stick is an information sticker with the Kingston logo that lists the model number, serial number and memory voltage. Since the lines inception, HyperX memory has had a distinctive look with its electric blue and silver heat spreader. So if you have a see through panel on your case you can proudly show off your slick looking RAM.

Kingston designed these as well as other triple channel HyperX modules with low-profile heat spreaders. The reason is DDR3 memory used with X58 motherboards requires lower voltages for safe operation. Intel restricts the memory used on these motherboards from running higher than 1.65 V due to the memory controller being located on the Core i7 CPU itself. Thus higher RAM voltages run the risk of damaging the CPU itself. We certainly don’t want that to happen.

With these lower voltages comes decreased heat production meaning large obtrusive heat spreaders are not required. If you are still concerned about the temperature of your memory you can always pick up the Kingston HyperX Fan, which we have reviewed in the past. Another advantage of these low profile modules is that they can easily fit under most CPU heatsinks, even the gargantuan ones.

Specifications:

Kingston HyperX 1600MHz 12GB Triple Channel (KHX1600C9D3K6/12G)

Specifications
-Capacity 6 x 2GB (12GB Total)
-Speed DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
-XMP Profile
-Model Number KHX1600C9D3K6
-240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM
-Cas Latency 9
-Voltage 1.65V DRAM 1.4v QPI
-240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM
-Hexa-Channel Kit

For testing the memory we used the following test platform with a fresh installation of Windows 7 Professional (64 bit) running the latest patches and updates.

System:
Motherboard: Asus P6T Deluxe
CPU: Intel Core i7 920
Memory: Kingston KHX16000D3K3/3GX – 3GB
Video Card: MSI n260GTX
Hard Drives: Western Digital 250GB 7200RPM, Samsung 1 TB 7200 RPM
PSU: Ultra X-Finity 1000 Watt Power Supply
Cooler: Noctua NH-U12P SE1366
DVD Burner: ASUS DRW-22B1LT and LG GH22NS30
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit
Thermal Interface: OCZ Freeze Thermal Extreme Conductivity Compound
Cooler: Noctua NH-U12P SE1366
Case: NZXT Zero2

To put the memory through its paces we tested the Kingston HyperX 1600MHz 12GB Triple Channel kit with the following software:

Cinebench R10, 3DMark06, SiSoftware Sandra 2010 Portable USB Edition and Crystalmark.

As a frame of reference we ran this HyperX kit against Kingston HyperX DDR3 3GB 2GHz Memory Kit KHX16000D3K3/3GX using the XMP Profile #1 running 2000MHz-9-9-9-27-1T @ 1.65V.

So here are some fancy graphs with the results.

First up is Crystal Mark where we looked at the total “Mark” score and the Memory Score.

Next we have the Futuremark benchmark well known to most gamers – 3DMark06 Ver. 1.1.0

Here we see how the HyperX matched up with Cinebench R10

Last but not least is the utility no benchmarker should be without – Sandra 2010

Processor Cache and Memory

Benchmark the processors’ caches and memory access (transfer speed).

Results Interpretation:
Cache/Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Speed Factor (MB/s) – lower results are better, i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.

Processor Arithmetic

Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units. Shows how your processors handle arithmetic and floating point instructions

Results Interpretation: Higher index values are better.

Memory Bandwidth

Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Memory Latency

Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory

Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Since this kit is composed of six sticks of memory, we knew going in that overclocking would not yield tremendous gains. Luckily it was rather simple to get a modest overclock from this kit of Hyper X. By increasing the BCLK we achieved respectable gains with very small increases while keeping the 9-9-9-27 2T timings. Let’s face it, 12 GB of DDR3 is expensive, so trying to squeeze the last drop of overclock juice out of these sticks is not worth the risk of FUBARing the memory or one’s nice Core i7 rig.

We were able get a top overclock of around 1700 using a timing of 9-9-9-27 1T with it passing Memtest and a few rounds of Prime95 without any glitches. Decreasing these timings led to lock ups and crashes.

So what do all these fancy graphs reveal? Well for starters Kingston easily achieves their 1600 MHz rated speed and still have room for some overclocking by increasing the memory ratios and BCLK.

Conclusion:

Kingston is renowned for the quality memory and this kit is just another in the long line of great HyperX memory. While Kingston tends to be more conservative in what their performance memory can handle in respect to overclocking; they still provide sufficient performance for most folks looking to squeeze out some extra oomph from their systems.

Running 12GB of memory on a home system is probably overkill and will be so for a little while longer. If you run a workstation and need stable well designed memory, then look no farther than the HyperX 1600MHz 12GB Triple Channel Kit. If you desire to have the most memory in town and want to overclock the heck out of it too, then you may be better off with a three stick kit; of course this will cost you a pretty penny. Since this kit features six sticks of memory overclocking gains will not be tremendous, so you should keep that in mind if looking for bragging rights.

The Kingston KHX1600C9D3K6/12G package is awesome memory and if you are looking for the most memory for your shiny Core i7 system then this is the one to get.

Pros:
+Low profile heat spreaders
+XMP profiles
+Lifetime Kingston Warranty
+Excellent performance and stability
+Much less expensive than 3 stick kits

Cons:
-Unless running workstation type system, may be overkill
-Overclocking hampered by six sticks of memory

Grades:
Overall
Design
Performance

This product was given to TestFreaks for review by the company for review purposes only, and is not considered by us as payment for the review, we do not, and never will, accept payment from companies to review their products. To learn more about our review policy please visit this page HERE.

Review of Kingston HyperX 1600MHz 12GB Triple Channel (KHX1600C9D3K6/12G) is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog

When the Corei5 and the Corei7 came out we quickly realized that our DDR3 wasn’t going to work anymore with the new CPUs because of the lower voltage requirements, so we had to go and buy low voltage ram for our new systems. You’ve got plenty of choices out there when it comes to ram but if you’re interested in overclocking then you’ll want more specialized ram like what I have today for the review. I’ve got a 4gig set of Kingston HyperX DDR3 ram that runs at 1600Mhz and has the low voltage requirements of the Corei5 system. In my time with this set of ram I’ve found that it easily overclocks to almost 2000Mhz and it will even run at a lower latency. I put it in my system with my Corei5 750 CPU and ran a bunch of tests to see just how well it performs, so read on to learn more…

It’s ram, it’s HyperX.

It comes packaged in a plastic box.

The ram features blue heatspreaders with the Kingston HyperX logo on them. This ram is small in height so it should fit in any system with any sized CPU cooler.

Specifications:

HyperX DDR3 1600Mhz 4gig Kit

Part Number: KHX1600C8D3K2/4GX
4GB 1600MHz DDR3 T1 Series Non-ECC
CL8 DIMM (Kit of 2) XMP
Timings: 8-8-8-24
Voltage: 1.65V

HyperX DDR3 memory; the latest generation of DDR memory technology. Like all Kingston HyperX products, DDR3 modules are specifically engineered and designed to meet the rigorous requirements of PC enthusiasts. DDR3 memory offers faster speeds, lower latencies, higher data bandwidths and lower power consumption than DDR2.

HyperX DDR3 features:
* 1.65v voltage for dual-channel Intel Core i5 7xx series and Core i7 8xx series applications
* Currently available in speeds up to 2133MHz and kits capacities of 8GB dual-channel, and 12GB triple-channel configurations

I installed the HyperX in an Asus P7P55D LE motherboard with a Corei5 750 CPU. The cooler I’m using is the Noctua NH-U12P, and the ram just fits in there.

The specs list the timings as 8-8-8-24, but when I installed it the ram set itself at 8-8-8-20 timings, so that works for me. CPU-Z also lists the XMP settings as the same 8-8-8-20.

So I’ve got a bunch of test for you of course. The ram that was in my system before I got the HyperX 1600 was the Kingston Value Ram 1333MHZ, a 4 gig kit of course. So that’s what I’m comparing the HyperX to in this review.

In all of the following charts you’re going to see test results for four different things. The first is the Kingston Value Ram at 1333MHZ, then the HyperX running stock speed and timings, then I found I could run the HyperX at stock 1600Mhz, but running at Cas7. The last result is the overclock of the ram that I achieved, it’s the maximum stable overclock I could get which was 1926Mhz.

For all of my testing I didn’t involve overclocking the actual CPU, we’re only interested in the performance of the ram itself after all. So what I did was adjust the CPU multiplier to keep the CPU running at as close as possible to the stock 2.67Ghz speed. It’s not going to be exactly the same of course for all of the tests, but it’s as close as possible. Making the CPU go faster is obviously going to skew any results that we might get concerning the performance of the ram. So the actual CPU speed varied between 2.67ghz up to 2.73GHZ depending on the speed and the multiplier. So the biggest difference in speed of the CPU was running the ram at the overclocked 1926MHz setting, and that was only about 60Mhz, that little amount should not result in any big difference in the testing.

In the real world of course you’ll get this type of ram to also overclock your CPU, the idea here is to find out how fast it can go over the stock speed and I got a respectable 326Mhz over the stock of this ram at the same timings of 8-8-8-20.

The first test is the old standard benchmark of 3dMark06:

For the most part we don’t see that great of a difference between Cas8 and Cas7 settings, but there is one about 20 points more when running the lower cas latency. We see something a bit odd though when running the ram at the higher 1926Mhz, the test result is actually lower. As you can see there’s a fairly big difference between the 1333Mhz and the 1600Mhz of the HyperX.

The next test is 3dMarkVantage. The profile was set to Performance, but I changed the resolution to 1080P or 1920×1080 resolution.

Again we see a slight drop when running the ram at the higher speed. Even when running he lower Cas latency we see a drop in performance, it’s odd to say the least. Once we get farther into this though, you really see an improvement in the scores or results of the tests…

The next test I’ve got is Cinebench10.

The test procedure consists of two main components: The first test sequence is dedicated to the computer’s main processor. A 3D scene file is used to render a photoreaslistic image. The scene makes use of various CPU-intensive features such as reflection, ambient occlusion, area lights and procedural shaders. During the first run the benchmark only uses one CPU (or CPU core) to ascertain a reference value. On computers that have multiple CPUs or CPU cores and on those that simulate multiple CPUs (via HyperThreading or similar technolgies), MAXON CINEBENCH will run a second test using all available CPU power.

The second test measures graphics card performance and is run inside the 3D editor window. The project file used can test all graphics cards that support the OpenGL standard. In this scene, only the camera was animated. This scene places medium to low demands on graphics cards and tests the maximum speed with which the scene can be properly displayed.

The lower latency does give us better scores, but again the higher speed gives us lower results… We see better results with the HyperX than the Value Ram, but not as much as I expected..

The next test is an entire system test, Crystalmark. The idea here was to see how much of a difference the ram and settings make on the entire system.

Here we see a fairly big jump when running the HyperX at the faster speeds and lower latency.

Here’s the individual results of the tests showing all of the scores for each test:

Now I’ve got something different here, a new test that I came across for testing the encoding abilities of your system.

It’s called the X264 HD Benchmark 3.0 and it’s from TechARP. Link HERE.

What is it:

Simply put, it is a reproducible measure of fast your machine can encode a short HD-quality video clip into a high quality x264 video file. It’s nice because everyone running it will use the same video clip and software. The video encoder (x264.exe) reports a fairly accurate internal benchmark (in frames per second) for each pass of the video encode and it also uses multi-core processors very efficiently. All these factors make this an ideal benchmark to compare different processors and systems to each other.

There’s not pretty graphs for these results, just test for your to read and compare.

First up is the Kingston Value Ram at 1333Mhz:

encoded 1442 frames, 63.64 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.67 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.07 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 63.98 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.67 fps, 3971.81 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.76 fps, 3971.25 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.61 fps, 3972.15 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.53 fps, 3970.28 kb/s

Next is the HyperX at 1600Mhz:

encoded 1442 frames, 67.14 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 66.60 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 66.66 fps, 3900.96 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 67.11 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.30 fps, 3971.50 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.66 fps, 3970.45 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.72 fps, 3960.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.57 fps, 3970.79 kb/s

Next is the HyperX at 1600MHz with Cas7 latency:

encoded 1442 frames, 68.53 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 68.37 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 67.93 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 68.28 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.63 fps, 3971.15 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.50 fps, 3970.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.66 fps, 3971.91 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.61 fps, 3971.78 kb/s

and finally the HyperX running at 1926Mhz:

encoded 1442 frames, 67.92 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 67.73 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 67.86 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 67.71 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.74 fps, 3970.54 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.76 fps, 3965.77 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.55 fps, 3973.05 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.54 fps, 3971.78 kb/s

As you can see the lower latency did make a slight difference in the encoding speeds of the HD video file, but running at the higher speed produced similar results to running at the stock 1600Mhz. Really though all three of the HyperX encoding results are very close, I don’t think you’d notice any difference in the real world.

To finish off the testing I’ve got several tests from SiSoft Sandra 2010 Portable Edition, these are not only memory tests but CPU ones as well to see how much of a difference there is when running the ram at the different timings and speeds.

Processor Cache and Memory

Benchmark the processors’ caches and memory access (transfer speed).

Results Interpretation:
Cache/Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Speed Factor (MB/s) – lower results are better, i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.

Here we start to see where the faster memory can change the results a bit, we see higher scores with the HyperX running at the faster 1926Mhz, but the results are lower when running with at Cas7.

Processor Arithmetic

Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units. Shows how your processors handle arithmetic and floating point instructions

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Here we see very similar results with the HyperX no matter what the settings are. The tiny differences will never be noticed in the real world, but only at the system level.

Processor Multi-Media

Benchmark the (W)MMX(2), SSE(2/3/4), AVX processor units. Shows how your processors handle multi-media instructions and data

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Here again we see very similar results with the HyperX, but again we actually see a slight drop in performance when running at the faster speed, and really no difference when the latency was lowered.

Memory Bandwidth

Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

He we see a rather large jump in the results when the HyperX is running at the faster speed, and not much at all different when running at the lower latency.

and we have on final test:

Memory Latency

Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory

Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

With the lower Cas7 and the the higher speeds we see better performance than just running at the stock settings.

So what have we learned from all of this?

Well we learned that faster isn’t always better, it just depends what you’re doing. We’ve also learned that running at a lower latency can most of the time yield a benefit but not all of the time. We also learned that this set of HyperX can give us a decent overclock, and that can mean a better overclock for your CPU as well.

You have to remember once thing though, not every set of ram is the same, so results will vary between the same line of ram.

Conclusion:
This Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz DDR3 set is a decent set of ram especially if you’re looking to overlook your CPU. You should easily be able to get 300Mhz more out of this ram without changing the voltage or timings. The ability to run at the lower Cas 7 latency might be attractive to some people out there as well.

Overall this is a very good set of ram, I think anyone will be happy with the performance and overclock that you can achieve with it.

I also like the fact that this ram is small, many times you’ll get fast ram that comes with very large heatspreaders making it not able to be installed with some CPU coolers.

Pros:
+Decent overclock
+Can run at lower latency
+Small profile should fit with any CPU cooler

Cons:
-Faster doesn’t always mean better

Grades:
Overall
Design
Performance

This product was given to TestFreaks for review by the company for review purposes only, and is not considered by us as payment for the review, we do not, and never will, accept payment from companies to review their products. To learn more about our review policy please visit this page HERE.

Kingston HyperX DDR3 4gig Memory Kit 1600Mhz KHX1600C8D3K2/4GX 1.65V is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog

When Intel introduced the Core i7 processor they raised the memory stakes by implementing triple channel memory capability. Instead of two matched pairs of memory sticks, the new x58 motherboards can use matched memory sticks in sets of three. Kingston, known for their acclaimed HyperX memory line have released the Kingston HyperX DDR3 2GHz triple channel memory kit to provide performance memory for the Intel Core i7 platform.

One of the performance requirements for the Core i7 machines is that system memory should not run higher than 1.65v to prevent possible damage to the CPU. The kit we will be looking at today is the one of fastest models available and runs at 2GHz / PC3-16000. The Kingston HyperX PC3-16000 kit runs at a 1.5v default and set at 1.65v these sticks easily run at CL9-9-9-27 timings.

Some x58 motherboards feature Intel Extreme Memory Profiles (XMP) which is a high-performance DDR3 memory overclocking tool. Users can take advantage of this memory overclocking tool but making simple adjustments in the BIOS. Even the novice overclockers can take their Core i7 to the next level in no time with Kingston HyperX PC3-16000 kit and an XMP supported motherboard.

If you have purchased Kingston memory in the past, then the Kingston HyperX PC3-16000 kit packaging will be very familiar. The memory sticks are nestled in a clamshell package with the modules sitting in three separate slots and covered by a plastic cover. Sealing the package is a Kingston sticker which lists the model number, memory size, timings and speed.

Kingston recently changed the design of the HyperX heatspreaders and this kit features the new design. The memory sticks are protected by purplish blue heat spreaders with a chrome “swoop” accent. The heatspreaders are low profile and should fit any motherboard with plenty of clearance room. Kingston’s HyperX memory sticks are known for their performance and with the new heatspreader design, they look pretty stylish while doing their job.

On each module is a label with the model and serial numbers. Inside the package we find the installation guide and warranty information. Like other HyperX kits, this one includes a lifetime warranty.

Specifications:

Kingston HyperX DDR3 3GB 2GHz Memory Kit

Kingston’s KHX16000D3K3/3GX is a triple-channel kit of three 128M x 64-bit 1GB (1024MB) DDR3-2000 CL9 SDRAM (Synchronous DRAM) memory modules, based on eight 128M x 8-bit DDR3 FBGA components per module. Each module kit supports Intel XMP (Extreme Memory Profiles). Each module kit has been tested to run at DDR3-2000MHz at a latency timing of 9-9-9 at 1.65V. The SPDs are programmed to JEDEC standard latency DDR3-1333Mhz timing of 9-9-9 at 1.5V. Each 240-pin DIMM uses gold contact fingers and requires +1.5V. The JEDEC standard electrical and mechanical specifications are as follows:

FEATURES:
-JEDEC standard 1.5V ± 0.075V Power Supply
-VDDQ = 1.5V ± 0.075V
-667MHz fCK for 1333Mb/sec/pin
-8 independent internal bank
-Programmable CAS Latency: 6,7,8,9
-Posted CAS
-Programmable Additive Latency: 0, CL – 2, or CL – 1 clock
-Programmable CAS Write Latency(CWL) = 9(DDR3-1333)
-8-bit pre-fetch
-Burst Length: 8 (Interleave without any limit, sequential with starting address “000” only), 4 with tCCD = 4 which does not allow seamless read or write [either on the fly using A12 or MRS]
-Bi-directional Differential Data Strobe
-Internal (self) calibration : Internal self calibration through ZQ pin (RZQ : 240 ohm ± 1%)
-On Die Termination using ODT pin
-Average Refresh Period 7.8us at lower then TCASE 85°C, 3.9us at 85°C < TCASE . 95°C
-Asynchronous Reset
-PCB : Height 1.180” (30.00mm), single sided component

PERFORMANCE:
-CL(IDD): 9 cycles
-Row Cycle Time (tRCmin):  49.5ns (min.)
-Refresh to Active/Refresh Command Time (tRFCmin):  110ns
-Row Active Time (tRASmin):  36ns (min.)
-Power: 1.296 W (operating per module)
-UL Rating: 94 V

For testing the following setup was used running outside of a case:

System:
Motherboard: Asus P6T Deluxe
CPU: Intel Core i7 920
Memory: Kingston KHX16000D3K3/3GX – 3GB
Video Card: MSI n260GTX
Hard Drive: Seagate 200 GB 7200RPM
PSU: Ultra X-Finity 800 Watt Power Supply
OS: Windows XP Professional SP2/ Windows Vista 64 Ultimate Ed
Thermal Interface: OCZ Freeze Thermal Extreme Conductivity Compound
Cooler: Noctua NH-U12P SE1366

The ASUS instructions recommend using the orange slots for initial memory installation, so all three memory stick were placed accordingly.

Next I went into the Asus P6T Deluxe BIOS and activated the XMP feature under the Ai Overclock Tuner. Here two Profiles are found – #1 which runs the memory sticks at 2000MHz-9-9-9-27-1N-1.65V-1.65V and #2 which runs 1866MHz-9-9-9-27-1N-1.65V-1.50V.

Running Profile #1 sets the memory voltage to 1.66v and QPI/DRAM to 1.65v. This setting brings the clock speed up from 2.67 to 2.72, which is not a major gain until you notice the QPI (QuickPath Interconnect) speed has been throttled up. Overall the BCLK (base clock) will be bumped up and the multiplier brought down. You should notice a nice increase in system responsiveness with this set up. The one caveat to this Profile is that the uncore will run at a higher voltage, thus producing more heat, so make sure your cooling is up to the task. Profile #2 sets the memory voltage to 1.66 and the QPI/DRAM to 1.5 while keeping the BCLK and multiplier at there baseline levels. With this selection the HyperX will run at 1866MHz.

For memory testing the following software was used: SiSoft Sandra 2009, CineBench10 64Bit, Everest v4.60.1500 and CrystalMark 2004 R3.

Unfortunately I did not have another set of 3 GB Triple Channel memory to pit against the Kingston HyperX PC3-16000, so I ran the tests using three speed settings for the Kingston memory.

XMP Profile #1 (2000 MHz (9-9-9-27), CPU speed of 2.72 (143×19)

XMP Profile #2 (1866MHz (9-9-9-27), CPU speed of 2.66 (133×20)

Manually setting the memory at 1600 MHz (7-7-7-20) and a CPU speed of 2.66 (133×20).

Initially when using the XMP profiles with CPU-Z version 1.48, the CL value was identified as 10 even though it was set correctly in the BIOS. Once I upgraded to version 1.50 on CPU-Z, then the correct memory clock speeds were identified.

So without further ado, here are the results:

In CineBench R10 we see a 4 percent gain in multithreading capacity running the memory at 2000 MHz.

With Sandra Professional 2009, we see 18 percent increase in Memory Bandwidth over 1600MHz with the XMP Profile #1 running 2000 MHz.

Next up is the Everest Ultimate Memory Read and Latency values.

Finally we have the Crystal Mark 2004 results.

We can see some nice performance gains with just a two second adjustment in the BIOS using Intel’s XMP. Since the overclock is handled by this protocol, all the necessary speed adjustments are made for the user. Overclocking has never been simpler. With Intel’s new architecture involving integrated memory control, quality memory will be paramount in providing top of the line performance and the Kingston HyperX PC3-16000 kit seems to deliver.

Conclusion:

Kingston once again delivers superb performance with their HyperX line of memory. The Kingston KHX16000D3K3/3GX package is one of the fastest DDR3 kits on the market and allows the user to get high end performance from their Core i7 machines. Even neophyte overclockers will get impressive gains’ using the memory’s built in Intel XMP support. If your motherboard features XMP then performance gains are achieved through simple profile adjustments.

Moving to a Core i7 system is not cheap as the motherboard and processor alone will cost $500 or more, adding in the cost of DDR3 memory and the price may be difficult to swallow especially in these economic times. With that being said, if you are going to build a Core i7 rig, then you might as well go with the best memory around. With the ability to run at 2000Mhz at 1.65V, you will easily get performance increases without running any risk to your CPU.

Currently Kingston offers triple channel memory kits in 3GB (3 x 1GB) and 6GB (3 x 2GB) configurations. If you are on a 64-bit OS such as Vista or soon Windows 7, then the 6 GB kit is something you may want to explore. Fortunately for those such as myself who can’t totally part with their 32-bit Windows XP OS, the 3GB kit is ideal. For now I will dual boot XP and Vista64 Ultimate.

Besides Kingston’s quality and performance, they also provide a lifetime warranty.

Pros:
Stable
Excellent Performance
One of the first 2000Mhz kits
Lifetime Warranty

Cons:
Expensive

Grades:
Overall
Design
Performance

Kingston HyperX DDR3 3GB 2GHz Memory Kit KHX16000D3K3/3GX is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog

DDR2 is fading rapidly, especially with the introduction of the Core i7 architecture, there’s now more reason than ever to make the upgrade to a DDR3 board. With the introduction of the Core i7, this likely means that DDR3 prices will start to fall as the ram becomes more common and in the mainstream and in use in more systems.

Today I’ve got a set of DDR3 ram from Corsair, it’s the XMS3 DHX PC3-12800 Ram or 1600Mhz ram. The DHX stand for Dual-path Heat Exchange that the ram features in the form of essentially a three piece heatspreader, one of each side over the ram ship and one between that actually helps keep the PCB cool as well. I ran the set through my battery of tests and it fully dominated all of them, it even easily runs at a lower latency of Cas8 which netted me a nice performance gain as well. So read on…

No unboxing video for ram, there’s not much to look at really.. but we’ve got box shots etc for you. The Corsair PC3-12800 comes in a common clamshell package with a cardboard insert with specs and features listed

This is is DHX ram, Dual Path Exchange which means it has extra large heatsinks and a dedicated PCB heatsink as well to make sure everything remains cool. The DHX heatspreaders do add quite a bit to the height of the ram, so it might not work well is all cases where it’s cramped or a large CPU cooler is involved.

Specifications:


CORSAIR XMS3 DHX 4GB DDR3 PC3-12800 1600Mhz Ram TW3X4G1600C9DHXNV
The TW3X2G1600C9DHXNV is a 4096MByte kit of DDR3 SDRAM DIMMs based upon Corsair’s high performance XMS3 DHX family of memory which is certified as SLI–Ready Memory. 
NVIDIA EPP2.0 SLI-Ready system memory certification ensures compatibility and system stability with the rest of the SLI ecosystem components including NVIDIA nForce SLI motherboards, NVIDIA GeForce GPUs, and SLI-Ready  power supplies.   
Specifically,when these memorymodules are paired with NVIDIA nForce SLI-based motherboards,advanced performance memory settings are enabled.   
Built  using  Corsair’s  Dual-path  Heat  Xchange  (DHX)  technology,  this  part  delivers outstanding performance with NVIDIA-based DDR3 motherboards and has been tested extensively to ensure compatibility and performance at its rated speed. This memory has been verified to operate at 1600MHz at latencies of 9-9-9-24 at 1.8V VDIMM

Dual-path Heat Xchange
-Optimized fins to maximize ambient airflow through the module array
-Extruded aluminum heat sinks to maximize convective heat dissipation
-Dedicated PCB heat sink

Features:
-4096 Megabytes of DDR3 memory
-Two matched CM3X2G1600C9DHXNV modules
-DHX technology provides maximum cooling
-Certified as SLI-Ready Memory
-100% tested at 1600MHz in NVIDIA-based motherboards
-Lifetime warranty

Test Specs:
-Each module pair is tested together at 1600MHz
-Packaged together immediately following system test
-Tested together at 1600MHz, Vdimm = 1.8V, at latency settings of 9-9-9-24 on NVIDIA
nForce 790i Ultra SLI motherboards
SPD programmed at:
-EPP2.0 9-9-9-24 values at 1600MHz
-JEDEC standard 9-9-9-24 values at 1333MHz

I’m using a Gigabyte P35C-DS3R Motherboard, with an Intel C2D6420 CPU, EVGA 8600GTS video card and using Windows Vista Ultimate X64 edition for testing.

I’ve recently tested a set of Kingston DDR3 HyperX, so that’s included in there along with a set of DDR2 for comparison. I did find that I could easily run the Corsair set of ram at lower timings of 8-8-8-20 as opposed to the stock of 9-9-9-24, so that’s included in the testing graphs as well.

First up for testing is Cinebench10 64bit:

As you can see running the Corsair at lower timings nets a nice increase in performance overall, especially in OpenGL and Rendering with 2 CPUs.

Next up we’ve got Crystalmark, it’s a nice whole system benchmarking suite.

As you can se yet again Corsair dominates over the other ram, with the lower timings netting a nice performance gain.

Next up I ran Crysis DX9 and DX10 benchmark, 2 passes, 2x AA at a resolution of 1024×768, it’s an 8600GTS so it can’ exactly handle Crysis well, so ignore the actual framerates, it’s just for comparison purposes.

We see a very slight gain but not much at all, nothing spectacular at all, maybe if I used a different card I might have netted better gains.

Now we’ve got several tests from SiSoft Sandra 2009, they’re synthetic tests but they work for a nice comparison.

we’ve got SiSoft Sandra 2009 Results:

SiSoft Sandra Cache and Memory Benchmark

-Cache/memory Bandwidth GB/s – Higher is better

-Speed Factor – Lower is better i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.

Here again we see some nice performance from this set of ram, pretty much dominating the other sets.

Next we’ve got CPU Arithmetic test:

-Higher scores are better

In this test we see pretty equal scores with the Corsair actually falling a bit behind..

Next we’ve got CPU Multimedia Test:

-Higher is better

Pretty much equal all around…

Now we’ve got Memory Bandwidth Test

-Higher is Better

At the lower latency of Cas8, we see the Corsair easily takes the lead, while the Cas9 lags a bit behind. There’s really no reason no to run this set at the lower latency…

and finally we’ve got SiSoft Sandra Memory Latency:

-Lower is better

as expected the Cas8 easily shows the best performance here… Corsair pretty much dominated all of my testing here…

As for overclocking I could hit 1700Mhz with this set of ram but no higher at all, and there wasn’t much of a difference in performance really. I believe the set will go higher, but I’m limited with CPU as it is a 266Mhz FSB CPU, and to hit the 1600Mhz I had to bump the FSB up already to 400Mhz, and even with the CPU multiplier down to 6x it was still overclocking the CPU, and it’s not a very overclockable CPU sadly, and it wasn’t the cooling I was using a TRUE Copper CPU cooler, even with a large voltage bump the CPU wouldn’t budge anymore…

According to Corsair documentation, testing and other reviews I’ve seen, this ram easily hit 1800Mhz and even 2000mhz, apparently I need to get a new DDR3 board and CPU that will overclock better and allow me a more extensive set of settings to change in the BIOS… but from my testing even at the lower settings the Corsair set is a decent set of ram.

Conclusion:
The results pretty much speak for themselves, the Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz kit is something to be reckoned with in terms of performance and even looks.

This kit can easily run at a lower latency of Cas8, with the overall timings of 8-8-8-20 at stock voltages, as at those timings there is a nice performance gain so there is no reason not to run at those timings.

Pros:
Works at lower latency
Overclocks well
Excellent performance
SLI certified
Looks cool

Cons:
Large profile, might not fit with all configurations

Grades:
Overall
Design
Performance

CORSAIR XMS3 DHX 4GB DDR3 PC3-12800 1600Mhz Ram TW3X4G1600C9DHXNV is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog

DDR3 is here to stay, but it doesn’t seem to be making much headway into the market really, it’s been around for a while but yet not as many people have adopted it as they did with DDR2 when it first came out. one of the reasons is that there really isn’t that much of a performance gain, and of course the cost of the ram itself and the new motherboards that support the ram are both fairly high still.

Today I’ve got two gigs of DDR3 for review, it’s a pair of Kingston HyperX, and it runs at 1600MHZ, so it’s pretty fast stuff! I’ve decided to put it up against a kit of fast DDR2 and see how it fairs, and to find out if it’s worth it to upgrade to DDR3 or not.

Continue on…

The Kingston HyperX DDR3 ram comes in a small plastic box with a label on it, not much to see really. Included with the ram is a small user manual as well.

The HyperX is some nice looking ram with its’ bright blue heatspreaders and chrome accents.

Specifications:

Kingston HyperX 2gb DDR3 1600MHZ KHX12800D3K2/2G

HyperX DDR3 Memory is Here!
HyperX DDR3 memory, the next-generation evolution of DDR memory technology. Like all Kingston HyperX products, HyperX DDR3 modules are specifically engineered and designed to meet the rigorous requirements of PC enthusiasts. HyperX DDR3 offers faster speeds, lower latencies, higher data bandwidths and lower power consumption. HyperX is available in single and dual-channel memory kits.

HyperX DDR3* features:

* 1.7 Volts operation
* Memory signal termination inside the memory chip (On-Die Termination) to prevent reflected signal transmission errors
* Operational enhancements to increase memory performance, efficiency and timing margins
* CAS Latencies: 5 (Ultra Low Latency) and 7 (Low Latency)
* Currently available in speeds up to 1.5GHz and capacities up to 2GB kits
* DDR3 memory modules are not backward compatible to DDR2 and DDR based motherboards, due to incompatible module connections (number of pins), voltage and DRAM technology. DDR3 memory modules have a different key or notch than the same-sized DDR and DDR2 modules to prevent their insertion into an incompatible memory socket. HyperX is available in single and dual-channel memory kits.

KHX12800D3K2/2G
Description: 2GB 1600MHz DDR3 Non-ECC CL9 (9-9-9-27) DIMM (Kit of 2)
Detailed Specifications: Standard 128M X 64 Non-ECC 1600MHz 240-pin Unbuffered DIMM (SDRAM-DDR3, 1.9V, CL9, FBGA, Gold)

Pieces/Unit:     2 (Two 1GB modules, totaling 2GB)
Warranty:     Lifetime

Installation is easy, there’s no problem with it fitting as it’s standard sized ram, no big heatspreaders to get in the way.

I installed the HyperX in my Gigabyte P35C-DS3R Motherboard, with an Intel C2D6420 CPU, EVGA 8600GTS video card and using Windows Vista Ultimate X64 edition for testing.

Since I don’t have other DDR3 on hand for comparison I decided to not only compare it to some good DDR2 I have on hand (Crucial Ballistix Tracer 1066Mhz) but also play with the settings on the HyperX a bit to see what it could do. I couldn’t get much in the way of overclocking as to run the ram at the 1600MHZ I had to OC the CPU as well, from 2.1GHZ to 2.4GHZ, I tried a few times but I think it was the ram that just wouldn’t overclock, I’ve had the C2D6420 to 3Ghz before with no problems.

I did find though that I could drop the CAS Latency down to 8 easily, so that’s a good thing there. When I first installed the ram it booted with high timings of 10-11-11-30 for some reason. I didn’t realize it until after my testing when I took the above screenshot, so I figured I might as well include those results in the testing charts as not to waste them. Of course just going into the BIOS and adjusting the timings was all that was requited to fix the issue.

So I ran quite a few tests from SiSoft Sandra 2009, CineBench10 64Bit and CrystalMark as well.

So here’s the graphs with all of the results, first up is Cinebench10 64bit:

Higher scores are better, and we see the DDR3 does have the advantage over the DDR2, but not by too much really. We also see a mixed bag of results here when it comes to the latencies being used by the HyperX, the lower Cas8 actually scored lower…

Next up is CrystalMark, here’s the graph with the main results, and screenshots with the results broken down following:

Here again we see the results seem to be mixed with CAS9 being  the best.

So now we’ve got SiSoft Sandra 2009 Results:

SiSoft Sandra Cache and Memory Benchmark

-Cache/memory Bandwidth GB/s – Higher is better

-Speed Factor – Lower is better

Here we see the Crucial DDR2 running at 5-5-5-15 is clearly the better choice, but we also see the CAS8 for the HyperX being the better latency as well.

Next we’ve got CPU Arithmetic test:

-Higher scores are better

Next we’ve got CPU Multimedia Test:

-Higher is better

The results are very close with all of the latencies really, with the advantage going to the faster DDR3 HyperX.

That was the CPU tests, now we’ve got ram tests:

First up it’s Memory Bandwidth:

-Higher is Better

We see the CAS8 lower latency is the better choice for this test.

and finally we’ve got SiSoft Sandra Memory Latency:

-Lower is better

Here again  the lower CAS8 is the better choice, even the CAS5 of the Crucial is no match..

From these test we can conclude that yes DDR3 is better, but we knew that already. Depending what you’re specifically doing with this ram is where you’ll put the settings or timings and latencies of it.

Of course though you have to remember that not all ram is the same, some from the same batch will work better than others.

Conclusion:

So it is worth it going from DDR2 to DDR3? Yes it is, and the Kingston HyperX performs admirably well.

Of course we like to overclock our ram if possible but I couldn’t get much out of it, but as we know not all ram is the same, so other peoples’ experiences will differ.

The HyperX can run at CAS8 with no problems at all, so that’s bonus there.

Pros:

Runs at low latency

Fast

Looks cool

Cons:

Really no difference between the latencies

Grades:

Overall:

Design:

Performance:

Kingston 2GB HyperX DDR3 1600MHz KHX12800D3K2/2G is a post from: Testfreaks | The Blog