Conclusion
We wanted to add a value element to our DDR3-1333 comparison and waited months for enough modules to reach the market so that we could get a complete collection of prices. Unfortunately, several of the modules we tested still do not appear on any of our favourite price- search engines, but we can at least consider the prices of those modules we did find. Yet, before we consider pricing, let’s take a look at the performances the devices were able to provide.
We’ve said it before and we have no problem repeating that the best reason to buy DDR3 now is to remove any CPU overclocking limitations imposed by slower RAM. Anyone considering insanely-priced DDR2-1200 or faster modules will find better value in several DDR3-1333 devices.
With overclocking our primary consideration, OCZ’s Platinum Edition PC3-10666 wins hands down by beating its own elaborately-cooled ReaperX modules as well as the rest of the field. While many OCZ fans will simply accept this win as par for the course, it’s the first time OCZ has actually won any overclocking competition that this author has been involved with. It’s great to see the company finally earning a bit of the good reputation it had formerly purchased through clever marketing.
Buyers who are shooting for an overclock to around a 1600-MHz data rate might instead prefer Super Talent’s PC3-10600, and buyers looking at stealth might go for the mundane-appearing Kingston ValueRAM.
This was the first time we’ve included Aeneon modules in a broad comparison, and we’re pleased to see the former Infineon memory division alive and well. These might not be winning any awards just yet, but the company might still compete against mid-performance models on price.
Wintec AMPX PC3-10600 took second place in overclocking, and though we’ve yet to find any available in the market, we know the company plans to undercut OCZ on price. Once again, buyers should weigh any loss in overclocking capability against a potentially lower price.
Latest Memory News
Latest Memory reviews
- 27/12 – Four High-End Quad-Channel DDR3 Memory Kits For X79, Reviewed
- 05/09 – Seven 8 GB DDR3 Memory Kits For Your AMD A75 Motherboard
- 18/04 – Eight 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Memory Kits For P67 Express, Rounded Up
- 23/11 – Memory Upgrade: Is It Time To Add More RAM?
- 05/08 – A Tour Of The Kingston Memory Factory In Taiwan
One part on page 3 is a bit confusing to me:
"Because cycle time is the inverse of clock speed (1/2 of DDR data rates), the DDR-333 reference clock cycled every six nanoseconds, DDR2-667 every three nanoseconds and DDR3-1333 every 1.5 nanoseconds. Latency is measured in clock cycles, and two 6ns cycles occur in the same time as four 3ns cycles or eight 1.5ns cycles. If you still have your doubts, do the math!"
If I am reading this right, cycle time is the inverse of (1/2)*(DDR Data Rate or 333 for example). So 1/((1/2)*333)=.006006006 which rounds to 6 milli-seconds, not 6 nano-seconds.
Sorry for my confusion, but could someone please clarify for me?
I can not clarify...this is a good article, but im still anoyed at the spelling and punctuation in the articles...Im not one for utmost spelling and punction in informall chatting messaging etc (like this) but i am when its a published article, you wouldnt find a harry potter novel with spelling mistakes in it....
"and DDR3-1600 is called PC2-12800." Its surposed to say, PC3-12800 not...PC2-12800
On the first page mid way down ^^^
Therlian you got it wrong. Generally, period (cycle time) it's the inverse of frequency (clock speed). But as DDR stands for Dual Data Rate, its real frequency is 1/2 of the specified clock speed. What you did wrong it's that you didn't take in account that DDR-333 means a data rate of 333 MEGA-hertz. Because a hertz is the inverse of a second you get: 1/((1/2)*333 MHz)=.006 micro- seconds, which is equal to 6 nano-seconds. Hope I made it clear for you.
I see now danmari. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know why I didn't think about the 333 being MHz as opposed to Hz.
"I can not clarify...this is a good article, but im still anoyed at the spelling and punctuation in the articles...Im not one for utmost spelling and punction in informall chatting messaging etc (like this) but i am when its a published article, you wouldnt find a harry potter novel with spelling mistakes in it...."
Sorry but when you make THAT many mistakes in your own post, you have no right to talk about spelling mistakes. The mistake you mention is a typo (hitting a wrong key) not a spelling error.
You however manage to spell "annoyed", "informal", and "supposed" wrongly. You also managed to spell "punctuation" wrongly (the second time.. not sure how you can spell it right the first time and wrong the second..)
If you don't know how to spell, then don't flame others for it.
anyone with notes PC2100,PC3200,PC4200,PC5300?
"Intel’s current fastest Front Side Bus (FSB) uses a 1333-MHz data rate"
No, that's not right!
It's 1600MHz (native) for a Socket 775 CPU and socket 771, and if you didn't notice, some people overclock, big time!
Although DDR3 is touted as using 1.50V, several modules use more!
The same is true of DDR2. In this article DDR2 is described as being 1.8V. In my experience most of the modules are 1.9V and some are higher.