Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2

by Wesley Fink on 8/26/2003 11:11 PM EST
Comments Locked

77 Comments

Back to Article

  • dshodson - Friday, September 5, 2003 - link

    So what is the best memory to put in my new dell server coming in a week which has the 875 chip. I heard u cant really overclock this system although i havent received mine yet.
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 2, 2003 - link

    Sorry about the typos ( its 11:36 PM here )

    Thanks
    OCZGUY
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 2, 2003 - link

    Uberclocker ,

    If your having a problem with a OCZ part , email me directly , Most problems are related it simple setup issues , and your problem is verry likely fixed in a few simple steps , or with a bios update

    My email is oczguy@ocztechnology.com
    I will not like answer your email until tomorow ( tuesday ) as today is a holiday and I am not in the office today

    Thanks
    OCZGUY
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 1, 2003 - link

    Hello, I have followd your recommendation and bought an OCZ 4000 in Germany, this weekend. Unfortunately it has not performed to its specification. Can you tell me if there is a special part number I should look for to get their special 'reviewers golden sample' ?

    UberClocker
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, August 30, 2003 - link

    I think if you have a cpu that will do 250 FSB and you purchase memory based on this article and you get within 98% of the results posted in this article, you owe Wesley $10.00. If 20% of the people with favorable results donated, there would be no more need to advertise. Now for the people who did not purchase ram based on this article and are bitching about it being bias, what are you bitching for?. This article has not cost you a cent.

    Thanks Wesley, you saved me a $100 on ram. I almost got caught up in all the hype about 4000 and 4200.

    Fossil
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, August 30, 2003 - link

    This article goes part way to answering the question of what memory configuration is fastest but I was disappointed that there was no variation in ratio.

    I would like to see a review that tests agressive timings against high frequency to see what produces the best results.

    Also a test of all P4C chips running @ 3.6Ghz to see whether there's any benefit in buying the fastest chip.

    With most motherboards easily hitting 1Ghz are we likely to be seeing a P4D which supports a 1066Mhz FSB?
  • Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link

    I think the way to do these reviews is to tell the manufacturer you'd like to include them in a review, purchase the memory from a store you trust, and then get re-imbursed by the manufacturer. That way, there'd be no selected modules and you would know what you were going to put into the review (4 ss vs 2 ds).

    So, when do we get that part 2 of the 865/875 mobo roundup ?
  • retrospooty - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link

    Wesley,

    I have run these tests myself on an IC7G at 200 , 230 250 and 280 FSB and found that 5:4 2-2-2 always beats 1:1 at 2.5-4-4, even 2.5 4-3 ... However SOME motherboards arent as efficient at 5:4 with some types of ram as others... If you try the same test on several different mobo's I think you will find that 5:4 2-2-2 is quite a bit faster in non-synthetic mem test benchmarks.

    Oldfart # 64, you are right about the reviewers and using the synthetic tests to boost sales. good point.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link

    If your not going to overclock, get low latency pc 3200 or 3500, the PC4000 wont help you at all

    even IF you ARE going to overclock, the PC4000 will not likely get you better performance.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link

    #67 I'm not an expert by any means but here is how I understand this discussion:
    If you are planning to use one of the faster processors such as the 3.0C you won't be able to achieve a big overclock because the multiplier for that processor is 15. If you want to use a higher speed processor such as the 2.8C or the 3.0c, you really dont need to spend the money on faster memory such as the PC4000 because you probably won't be able to overclock to a point that you will be able to reach a front side bus speed of 250mhz which is the lowest rated speed (x2=ddr500) of the memory module. So as the article has explained,you would be better off with
    slower ram that has faster timings. However, if you have a slower processor such as the 2.4C or the 2.6C, you should be able to achieve a higher overclock because these processors have lower multipliers. In this case you would need faster ram such as the PC4000, because with these processors many have been able to set their front side bus up to and beyond 250mhz. In most scenarios with fast processors/slower ram vs slower processors/faster ram, IMHO, the performance difference may be fairly equal. What is really happening is a cost/benefit consideration. As always be careful!!! Overclocking can damage your system...you do it at your own risk!
  • Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link

    This is quite confusing for a noob like myself, but I want to make the right purchasing decision, as I've never dabbled in overclocking, but hope to begin with this new setup.

    I'm waiting for the new Abit IC7-G Max III mobo to be released shortly. I'm targeting a P4 3.0C processor, and had been looking at Geil PC4000 platinum, though I suppose I should also now consider OCZ.

    What processor and RAM combination on that motherboard will provide the best total results after overclocking? What part does the timing play in it? Will a 3.0C P4 not achieve as fast a bus speed as say, a 2.8C, meaning that a 2.8 would render ultimately the highest performance?

    Any help is appreciated.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link

    One thing I found odd was that there was no mention of cost. I picked up 1GB of Geil PC4000 Plat for $305 shipped which is considerably less than the RAM from all the other manufacturers. Given the results, that's a pretty sweet deal.
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, August 29, 2003 - link

    #63 -
    Please read the review. Not everyone had DS modules available at the time. We asked manufacturers for, at the minimum, 2 double-sided modules or 4 single-sided modules. This is because it would be unfair to compare performance of 2 SS modules to 2 DS modules.

    Kingston was the only manufacturer who chose to supply 4 SS modules. We compare 4SS modules to 2DS in our review which IS fair. Results with 2SS modules were used to illustrate why you should use FOUR modules for best performance if they are SS.
  • oldfart - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link

    Wesley, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say 5:4 is "better" than 1:1. Why would it be?

    Not too long ago there were people who were adamant that unless you ran 1:1 ratio, you had a "crippled system". Another myth that was spread around was memory timings didn't matter on a DC DDR system (where the heck did that come from?).

    People sold their PC3200 and got PC3700, ran 1:1 and got no performance increase or even a performance decrease and wondered why.

    Websites were doing reviews that consisted of nothing but synthetic mem benches that showed 10x - 30x the performance gain that real world benches showed. These same sites are sponsored by memory manufactures selling that ram.

    I guess I just got tired of all the misinformation being put out on the net.

    Truth is right now, 5:4 low latency vs. 1:1 high latency produces ~ the same results. The actual difference is nothing you would ever notice in real usage. 1% one way or the other means nothing.

    Once you can have high speed and low latency, things will change.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link

    Why are they benching 256MB Kingston modules against 512MB double-sided modules from all the other vendors? The tests clearly show 4 DS configuration is fastest. Why didn't they test 512MB Kingston DS modules? They are comparing apples to oranges at Kingston's expense.
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link

    It seems that those proposing 5:4 is just as good or better always want to compare the WORST DDR500 timings to the BEST DDR400 timings. 2-2-2-5 is no more a typical DDR400 timing setup than 3-4-4-8 is at DDR500. Look at the timings that actually WORKED with DDR500. In fact, IF you can find DDR400 that can do 2-2-2-5 you will pay quite a premium for it - just like you do for DDR500.

    Also the DDR550 we achieved with the best DDR500 would need to be compared to 5:4 at DDR440 running at 2-2-2-6 or so, and the 300FSB some achieve with the 2.4C would need DDR480 - just to run 5:4. With a CPU that achieves high FSB, the DDR500 may be the best choice EVEN at 5:4.

    I do think it is a mistake to overlook how very good 5:4 can perform with FAST timings memory, but I also think it is a mistake to pretend 1:1 doesn't matter in performance - because it does. It is ONE of the things that matters, but by no means the only thing.

    I am looking right now at some DDR533 Engineering Samples that run 2.5-2-3-6 at DDR533. When these and other faster timing DDR500+ are released, this argument will disappear. BOTH speed and timings matter - and neither is the complete picture.

    This review goes into great detail to point out that DDR500 is NOT needed by everyone, and in fact requires a setup that can actually RUN at 250 (1000 FSB) to get ANY benefit. We also pointed out that for most with a 2.8 to 3.2 CPU that a slower memory with faster timings would be a much better choice for performance.
  • oldfart - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link

    I didn't compare all the results, but looked at the Q3 numbers compared to other reviews that have done the same testing. I'll use the Corsair 4000 numbers:

    Your review
    XMS4000 DDR500 1:1 400.2 FPS
    PC 3500 DDR400 5:4 393.7 FPS

    This test:
    http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2003/ddr400_roun...

    XMS4000 DDR500 1:1 3-4-4-8 340.8 FPS
    XMS3200 DDR400 5:4 2-3-2-6 338.9 FPS
    Numbers are very close. 2-2-2-5 would have been faster if run that way.

    ***********************
    This test:
    http://www.ocprices.com/index.php?action=reviews&a...

    XMS4000 DDR500 1:1 3-8-4-4 320 FPS
    XMS4000 DDR500 1:1 2.5-7-4-4 338 FPS
    XMS3200 DDR400 5:4 2-5-2-2 340.5 FPS
    In this test, the PC3200 low latency is a bit faster than the PC4000 with medium timings, quite a bit faster than the slowest timings.

    In all of these tests, the difference is very small when it comes down to it. A tie is more accurate.

    My points:
    1)the people who think they are "crippling" their P4 rig by running a mem ratio are mistaken. You can get the same performance if you set it up right

    2) SiSoft mem benches do not represent real world performance. They show an inaccurate view of system performance gains.

    3) Certain site push PC3700/4000 too hard and neglect to show that equal performance can be had with less expensive ram.

    4) I hate posting this here!! Bring back the AT articles forum!
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link

    #35, #38, #44, #49, #50, #52, #55, #57 -

    To answer your question, we ran 1000FSB (500) at 5:4 with Mushkin PC3500 Level II at CAS 2-2-2-5. This Mushkin is about the only memory left that can REALLY do 2-2-2-5 at DDR400, and a review will be up soon. The testbed and ALL hardware and settings were the same as this review. Results are:

    Sandra UNBuffered - 2964/2959 or avg. 2962
    Sandra Buffered (Standard) – 5470/5468 or avg. 5469
    Quake 3 – 393.7fps
    UT2003 – Flyby: 241.84
    Botmatch: 87.66
    SuperPI (2M places) – 105s

    Write these numbers down and compare them to Page 14 (500FSB/DDR500) charts. You will see that 5:4 2-2-2-5 is very close to the performance of the poorer DDR500 in our tests, but it does NOT beat the DDR500.

    We are comparing the fastest memory I have tested at DDR400, at it’s fastest 5:4 timings, to DDR500 at much poorer timings. Of course the DDR400 goes even higher than DDR500 and performs even better.

    BOTH timings and FSB speed matter, and the answers are not as simple as some have stated.
  • vailr - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link

    Please consider adding TwinMos 3700 to your updated review.
    http://www.showtimecomputer.com/cpumem/ddr.asp

    quote: "
    512 MB PC3700 400 (DDR/CL2.5 Twinmos Chip $119.00
    512 MB PC3700 400 (DDR/CL2.5 Winbond Chip $125.00
    TwinMOS stays one step ahead of the technology curve by launching one of the first PC3700 Unbuffered DIMM Modules. Featuring speeds up to 466Mhz, PC3700 DDR 466 delivers enhanced bandwidth up to 3728MB per second.
    Check it Out: WWW.TwinMOS .COM "
  • Slappy00 - Thursday, August 28, 2003 - link

    Ill say one thing about OCZ, wheather or not the review is bias in any way, ocz has come a long way to prove that they have a good product and stand by it. I have read countless posts where OCZ would gladly RMA some user's memory and give them pretested memory as a replacement. I for one bought GEiL pc4200 (really pc4000 with looser timings) and wish I had the kind of support offered by OCZ.

    In the end I would only use results based on reviews as a guide not a reference.

    For example:

    I have an Abit IS7 (BIOS 16) and my board will not do anything faster than 260 1:1 (520DDR) without memory errors (via memtest86), but I can run the timings more aggreesively (2.5-8-4-4) at 260 for some reason. I cant use any dividers (5:4 3:2) and I cant use GAT or I get the dreaded long beep at boot-up.

    just goes to show you that just because its printed doesn't mean it's right for you.
  • 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 see

    250 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.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Interesting review....I've been waiting for this one. As for the criticism, I would say don't just look at this one review. There seem to be plenty of reviews from other sites listed in the memory news section here. Why not check out what other sites have to say about the memory listed in this review...unless you think they are all shills for a particular product. IMO I think Wesley and AT are on the level...but if you have doubts there are other reviews out there. I'm still dissapointed tho...It seems that most of the 500mhz modules are just overclocked 400mhz modules with poor timings...I wonder if there are going to be true 500mhz modules with better timings in the works or is this the last stop before we see DDR2.
  • artifex - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Ok, I stopped being lazy. It's me!
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    hey 43/44, you must be a stringer for Mushkin, because you're cheering at the end (Mush! Mush!)

    Just kidding. I usually post as "artifex" but am too lazy to find my password right now. You'll see I've mentioned them before. Also comments about Anandtech being the site (along with SharkyExtreme) that I rely on heavily...

    I bought my first ever Asus mobo (a7n8x deluxe) a couple months ago because of the reviews here (my first and last Soyo had just died from some bad capacitors, I won't trust them again) so what I want now is to see a shootout of the best memory for dual-channel nforce2 boards (especially mine :) )

    Speaking of, I'm running one of the new weird 333FSB 2600+ XPs that's still a Tbred B, and I'm wondering, would I really benefit from memory that's pc3200 (probably not) or even pc2700, or are my current 2 512mb sticks of 2-3-3 pc2100 memory fine?

    p.s. ironically, I also bought the Soyo based on reviews, but reviews don't make up for long-term experience with hardware (when cheap components fail). It'd be cool to see a follow up article or two, even just anecdotal, from the reviewers about how their own personal systems are working a year or so after they assemble them... and see if that changes their views about the vendors.
  • retrospooty - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Cool, Muskin rocks...

    I would REALLY like to see some Mushkin PC3500 at 5:4 2-2-2 against all those other PC4000 at 1:1 3-4-4-8... I know the PC3500 would win, I would just like to see it in print. !
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Good points #42. I should have included similar in my last comment as I feel exactly the same. A quick explanation (by name) of which major manufacturers did not make the deadline or will be reviewed later would satisfy my curiousity on why large manufacturers weren't present. I cannot wait to see what the Mushkin stuff rates at and THEN I will choose between them, OCZ, Geil, and Corsair. Just in case I did not make it clear before, I do feel that when AnandTech does put out new articles they are often very good. The basis of the general readers scrutiny comes from how things look overall with the manufacturers listed on the same page as their reviews. Since the use of META data has become so prevailent in page content, it is easy to believe that all advertisements for memory would show up on a memory review. One would think that was a good idea, right?! As to the integrity of AnandTech, I still think you guys are unbiased and professional. Just remember to foster that perception in bold stroke so the goobs who cannot fathom the idea that any one company can be in it's prime and actually BE producing the best product on several reviews. That said, I still want you guys to make more content and faster. Come on! Get to work! Make it 60... No. 80 hours a week each!! Mush! Mush!

    Cheers,
    Wiley
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    cool. thanks for saying that about Mushkin.
    I hadn't seen much of them in Anandtech reviews or advertising on the site lately, so I was wondering.

    I used to be a big Crucial.com fan until they started slipping (recommending wrong types and amounts of memory, customer service, etc), and then went with Mushkin when the chance presented itself, based entirely on seeing their name associated with good things here in the past. My first set of sticks from them actually gave errors about a year into use, and I had bought them at Fry's (stupid, I know), but Mushkin overnighted me replacements anyway, so I'm definitely loyal to them now (the cost of overnight probably ate the marginal extra I paid over Corsair, which I also considered).

    I know this is long winded, and probably sounds like astroturfing, but I want the editors to remember that we really do buy stuff based on what you say, and when it looks like "favorite" brands are disappearing without any comment, it makes us wonder. Hey, even if you guys get into a fight with a vendor and they stop lending you review stuff, that's a legitimate reason... just tell us.
  • KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Tom Duong from Mushkin had contacted AnandTech several weeks before this review to let us know that their memory sample would not make to us in time for the review. We do have some other articles with Mushkin coming up.

    Cheers,

    Kristopher
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Personally, I would just like some parity for these reviews. Every time I read these I wodner why Mushkin is never listed. I realize that teh manufacturer needs to provide product for testing and by a deadline. However, it just seems silly that a company the rates its DDR400 memory at Cas2-2-2 (Black Level II) has not been listed here. Can't AnandTech sport for the 400 bucks to GET memory when a reviewer cannot send it or does not do so in a timely manner. I always had the impression that sites like this were produced with the best interest of the end reader in mind. Anytime a single manufacturer is lauded repeatedly for their product and that product happens to be promoted profusely in advertising on the reviewers site, there will be questions regarding favoritism. I'm not saying you fudge your numbers to keep people at OCZ happy, there is too much data to support your conclusions regarding the quality of OCZ memory. But it does make you wonder. The lask of Mushkin in the original DDR400 porion of your latest memory benchmarks on this site being a perfect example. Who is to say that the Mushkin stuff was not left out just to leave a better window of opportunity for somone like OCZ to succeed i your tests? I hope that is not the case but again, I have to wonder why I never see them here. Get on them and get some of their product to test too! I have to agree with many here that teh content at AnandTech is slipping. The updates are way to far apart, there are few articles when an update DOES occur, and the content is subject to scrutiny for bias. In all fairness, any of the ideas I have posited could be true or false. However, with this sites reputation being the MAIN provider of it's marketability, AD sales potential, and reader support, don't you think that making sure there is NEVER a question of integrity would be a good business practice? And update the site more often! I used to read this site everyday. Now I just come here once a week tops.

    Cheers,
    Wiley
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Mushkin did not have PC4000 ready in time for the review.Im sure Wes will review it as soon as he recieves samples.

    Wesley has got to be the most unbiased reviewer i know.He upset a few at abxzone and im sure he will do the same here.
    Just because OCZ has been doing well is NOT because they paid for a good review....its because the modules are the best at the moment..nothing more.

    OCZ have worked hard these past 12 months or more,they are gaining market share and more sites are starting to use their ram for board reviews etc..the only people this will upset is Corsair who have had a strong hold on review sites for a long while.

    So all you "employee's" coming here to bash OCZ--- please give it a rest.If you have an issue with OCZ product contact me. oczguy2@ocztechnology.com

    Please remember this thread is about Wes's review after all, not bashing OCZ so please lets all get back on topic.

    Thanks.
    bigtoe
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    The differece is small on synthetic tests like Sandra mem tests, but large on real stuff like games,and 3dmark real apps.

    the same thory hold true at any speed, try it at 250, 230 or even 200

    5:4 at 2-2-2 is faster than 1:1 at 3-4-4 period

    Try it.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #37
    Point well taken, But remember depending which bencmarks you use ,The diference you see could be less than you expect for example look at buffered vs unbuffered sandra scores.
    Half the motherboards I have played with wont run 5/4 above 280 anyway.


  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Let the ignorance run wiiiilllldddd!!!!

    For sponsored links, I also see it at the bottom of tomshardware and the bottom of extremetech.com. I figure a company is selling those spots on multiple review sites so whoever wants a spot can grab it and have a text link on those sites.

    I see big banners for corsair and googlegear on the front page of anand, which I assume would cost at least 10x more than a text link, so why didn't corsair win? They obviously pay more for advertising! Gee Kingston has full color banners too. Why didn't they win? Maybe because their modules didn't test as high, oooh, what a thought, the ram that performs the best wins, i can't believe it!!!! /sarcasm
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    What this (and most other) article fails to mention is that you get better performance a high FSB with a 5:4 ram divider at low latency...

    In other words,

    275FSB at 5:4 2-2-2-5 is WAY faster than
    275FSB at 1:1 2.5-4-4-7

    If you have ram taht can run at 2-2-2, test it for yourself.

    In short, last years low latency PC3200 and 3500 2-2-2-6 ram is faster and cheaper than todays PC4000 with rediculously horrid timings like 3-4-4-8
  • Radelon - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    The simple fact in the matter is anybody can take the same sets of ram from all different brands and will see approximately the same results. In all my tests, OCZ is the leader, sometimes less than others but fact is, it's still on top. I've done these tests on 4 different canterwood/springdale motherboards and OCZ has always come out the best for me. "Don't knock it until you try it" That seems to be the statement of the year. The people that do knock it before they try it, are only hurting themselves and the others they influence.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I've been in the hardware website business before. People don't know that they will get more hardware from a company if the give them their props. The posters who bitch about OCZ have a valid claim.

    You have to look at the whole picture and not just what they are doing today. I'm sorry to say that OCZ, even if they have "good" products still wouldn't be a choice by me or even recommending it.

    I've heard some bad rumors with OCZ and other websites it's not even funny. 3DGameMan I heard used to give raging reviews because of getting more hardware. Overclockers something used to be in the same ballpark.

    It's hard to judge reviews these days. To recommend a brand over another brand just because of the results you received is flat out ignorant at best. So many variables play into account. Corsair and Mushkin will always get my money. Even if it's more money. Their products have been around for awhile and have proven to be noteworthy.

    GeIL is another company that raises an eyebrow. The owner of GeIL is the owner of an online store. All he does is buy and overclock memory and then sells it at a premium. It helps to do research on these companies.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    What about Mushkin? They didn't even get entered into the test, and it used to be that Anand was always touting them, right?

    Hmmmmmmmmm. Anand should explain what happened to wipe Mushkin from his list totally...
  • AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I found the link, here it is:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=...

    Look down the page for Anand's post, kind of long, but it explains it! :)

    I hope someone appreciates that link, hehe, it actually took about 15 minutes to find, not that long, but its not the most fun thing to do, but I had to since its for AT...
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Sadly, it is clear that people still don't trust OCZ, and will go as far as to say that a positive review automatically means the web site in question (Anandtech in this case) has sold out. What's illogical about this argument is that Mushkin, Corsair, and Crucial ALL advertise on Anandtech as well, and have been advertising on Anandtech for MUCH longer than OCZ. Hopefully anyone who has read all these comments now realizes that their argument is completely invalidated by this fact. Not only that, but the writer of this particular Anandtech article even says that he has no affiliation with any of the ads that get displayed in a review, and another Anandtech editor says that OCZ isn’t even a direct advertiser. If people would learn the facts we would haven’t so many ignorant comments such as #11, #15, #16/#17, and #23.

    Secondly, you'd have to be blind not to see that OCZ memory is clearly one of the best solutions out there today. Anandtech is NOT the only web site that has found OCZ memory to be of the highest quality. Please search Google if you are not aware of this fact. Any review in the last 9 months will prove my point.
  • AgaBooga - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Hey guys, go through and look through some old posts in the archive section that Anand Lal Shimpi has talked in. One of them discussed advertising. It may be outdated, but atleast its something to look at, and if this is mentioned already, sorry, I haven't read through all the responses yet.

    Anyway, Anand clearly stated that the advertising portion is done by another group of people and that they do not talk directly with him or any of the article writers... hope that helps, I'll try searching around for the link...
  • pastorjay - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I am appalled that anyone would think that Wesley would do anything to compromise the integrity of his reviews. I have read many, many reviews at many other sites, and they have come to a similiar conclusion. OCZ has got several good products on their hands at the moment. THey are doing a spectacular job of producing quality products NOW. THey also happen to have the best Customer support in the industry, whether it would be Ryan or Sean or Bo... whoever I have dealt with, they have all been a terrific help in solving problems, and making sure I am happy. Now, I am no OCZ fanboy. I will use what i feel is the best on the market at the time... and to me... OCZ is it right now.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    As an OCZ employee, it is hard for me to understand why somebody would blatantly trash us when they have nothing to gain from it. I spend countless hours doing my best to make sure our customers are happy. If you have had a problem with OCZ, as my colleague stated, OCZ will gladly take care of it.

    Our product and service speak for themselves. Try our memory, I am sure that you will enjoy your experience with OCZ.

    -Sean Sinha
    Marketing Specialist
    OCZ Technology
    Sean@OCZTechnology.com
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I cant find any BBB complaints
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I would like to add a note to the folks who are complaining ,I have added this before and will continue to repeat it ,

    If you have or have had in the past a problem with an OCZ product , take a minute to email me about it , It is certainly worth your while

    oczguy@ocztechnology.com

    If you have not , stop the bashing or at least bash with your real name. I have a strong feeling anyone saying anything negative , has never had a bad expirence with an ocz product or service.

    Thanks
    OCZGuy
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Anandtech does not get paid directly for the those links to OCZ , a company named Industry Brains I beleive sells those pay per click links on a number of sites to OCZ , they are the same links that show up on toms hardware as well as numerous other sites and are purchased in bulk by OCZ who does not control where the links show up.

    In addition those links have been here for quite a while and I have just begun seeing positive ocz reviews here while I have been seeing positive feedback about ocz on several other sites for several months.

    Maybe you all can consider the possibility that OCZ is doing something better that other people , Its not as if the win here was not nessarily a landslide , I beleive geil was only slightly trailing.


    thanks

    oczguy@ocztechnology.com
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    No point in complaining anymore. AT has gone down the same toilet as Tom's. Both are shining examples of what happens when a person who knows what he's talking about turns over his site to a bunch of people who don't.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #19,

    What do you expect? They obviously think we are stupid people. We do know that OCZ Technology is a sponsor. It's SHOWING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

    This site is tainted. I'm so sick of these OCZ reviews. I'm sick of these biased and tainted reviews just to impress the company.

    Anandtech needs to fire all his staff and hire people that "know something about the industry"...

    Ryan Peterson is STILL with OCZ. He has a criminal record. That company decietfully left Indiana because of the BBB complaints. Can't complain if they are in another state now can ya?

    Now you got to ask yourself. Why would Anandtech take them on a sponsor when other sites won't touch them? Money..... Straight up Money. If I see another fricken OCZ review on this site. Then I know that Anandtech sold himself to the devil.

    It's quite comical. Kyle hates OCZ but yet deals with Anand. I guess it's true about big sites. It's all about the money and they lie straight to your face that it isn't. What a laugher
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #14 -
    With manufacturers supplying the memory, even if they ALL "Cherry-pick", the comparison is still valid. We would be comparing the best of the best.

    In my next review of DDR400 memory performance, a different manufacturer was the fastest DDR400 memory available - because it TESTED the fastest. I report what I find, and if I didn't do that my reviews would not be credible. My integrity, and AnandTech's integrity, matter much more than any favorable review.

    As for ads, our site software is designed to cluster related reviews and ad links around the item being reviewed - to make it easier for YOU - our readers - to find more information on what you are reading. As Editors, we have no idea what ad links will be associated with our reviews.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    sorry for double post
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    QUOTE~
    #11: OCZ is not a paid advertiser. If you pay attention to those links, you'll see its companies like ATACOM, Newegg, and SVC promoting OCZ memory. If you do not feel comfortable with OCZ, then I would suggest not using those merchants.

    Kristopher


    Kris umm where it says Sponsored Links (Get Listed) that link for OCZ memory is directly to there site no ATACOM, or newegg is promoting that site?So why say OCZ is not a paid advertiser??
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #15 are u dumb? There is going to be a module that going to get the high rating and of course if Atacom sees which module from a specific company got the honors they are going to promote it!!! and anyway just because OCZ was shining in the review that did'nt mean there where others modules that were'nt shining as well ex Geil, and Corsair
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #12: You are completely wrong. OCZ IS A PAID ADVERTISER. You should follow your own advice and look more carefully at the sponsored links.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    it has been going downhill for a longtime. fewer updates,less content
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    I totally agree with #14. Anandtech is just going down hill. It's funny how even though you say OCZ isn't any sort of advertiser that it's name is plastered all over the site and you always proclaim it better.

    You are pleasing the people that your advertisers are pimping. Simple economics. Please the folks that are advertising the product because you are giving it such high ratings.

    Only blind people can't see what's going on. Business is business. I bet if you gave Corsair the high honor's then these so called Atacom people would be promoting Corsair.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    "We asked major memory manufacturers to supply DDR500 or the fastest memory that they had available for comparison in our High-Speed memory roundup."

    That is rather disappointing. The incentive for manufacturers to cherry-pick modules for review on a site as influential as Anandtech is simply to great to be ignored.

    Otherwise, a very nicely done review.
  • Icewind - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    Meh, my 3700 Corsair is doing plenty well for me. Rather spend the money on a 5900 Ultra that will make more of a difference in my system
  • KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    #11: OCZ is not a paid advertiser. If you pay attention to those links, you'll see its companies like ATACOM, Newegg, and SVC promoting OCZ memory. If you do not feel comfortable with OCZ, then I would suggest not using those merchants.

    Kristopher
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    What do you know... Another of their "PAID ADVERTISER" wins out again! This site has become nothing but pimping their fricken advertisers. Who believes the spew that has come from this site lately? Ever since the OBVIOUS BS review of the GeForce FX 5900. This site lost all credibility.

    Whoa! What do you know... "Sponsored Links (Get Listed)... And look whose down there. OCZ... Blah! This site is nothing about padding the pockets.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    ^^^ huh?

    Anyway, great review Wes, you rock!
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    oh bleh.. all of a sudden i feel... not cool
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - link

    4 chips per side is single-bank memory. It behaves like single-sided.
  • 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 :-D
  • Anonymous 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now