Geil PC3200 Ultra X: High Speed & Record Bandwidth
by Wesley Fink on August 20, 2004 12:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
Performance Comparisons
Performance of the Geil DDR400 2-2-2 Ultra X was compared to all of the memory recently tested on the Intel 875 memory test bed in
=F-A-S-T= DDR Memory: 2-2-2 Roars on the Scene
Buffalo FireStix: Red Hot Name for a New High-End Memory
New DDR Highs: Shikatronics, OCZ, and the Fastest Memory Yet
The Return of 2-2-2: Corsair 3200XL & Samsung PC4000
OCZ 3700EB: Making Hay with Athlon 64
OCZ 3500EB: The Importance of Balanced Memory Timings
Mushkin PC3200 2-2-2 Special: Last of a Legend
PMI DDR533: A New Name in High-Performance Memory
Samsung PC3700: DDR466 Memory for the Masses
Kingmax Hardcore Memory: Tiny BGA Reaches For Top Speed
New Memory Highs: Corsair and OCZ Introduce DDR550
OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev. 2: The Universal Soldier
OCZ 4200EL: Tops in Memory Performance
Mushkin PC4000 High Performance: DDR500 PLUS
Corsair TwinX1024-4000 PRO: Improving DDR500 Performance
Mushkin & Adata: 2 for the Fast-Timings Lane
Searching for the Memory Holy Grail - Part 2
Memory performance was compared at DDR400, DDR433, DDR466, DDR500, DDR533 (where possible), and the highest stable overclock we could achieve that would run Quake 3, UT2003, and Super PI to 2MM places.
All discontinued products have been removed from benchmark comparisons.
Results are compared for Quake 3, Sandra UNBufferred Memory Test, and Super PI. SiSoft Sandra 2004 reports 2 results for each memory test - an Integer value and a Float value. Results reported in our charts are the result of AVERAGING the INT and FLOAT scores, which are normally close in value. In other words INT and FLOAT scores were added and divided by 2 for our reported score.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
View All Comments
qquizz - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
excellent read thanks Anandtech for the useful infoAvalon - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
Forgot to mention it was tested on an A64 rig. If you've got an AXP rig, lower latency might mean more. I should go test it out...Anyway, great article Wes! It's good to see Geil come out near the top. They make some great memory and are very under-recognized sometimes.
Avalon - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
I forget where I saw it, but I did see latency compared in a Doom 3 article. Low CAS 2 latency benefitted over CAS 2.5 by giving you roughly 2-3% more framerates. Which added up to about 1 frame. Since I can't quite remember where I found it, take this with a large boulder of salt :Pciwell - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
I am wondering the same thing as #5. It would be very interesting to see a comparison between the Value RAMs and these.Anyways, great article.
Visual - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
This isn't really in the goals of this article, but I'm wondering, is the extra-low latency worth it at DDR400?Could you include a slow(Value RAM) memory from Kingston, Corsair or other, running at CAS 2.5 and 3 for comparison?
I really wanna know if the extra $100 or so for a low-latency ram would give me noticeable difference.
pookie69 - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
Mr Fink!!!! Another GREAT READ!!!! I so LOVE these memory articles of yours. SO informative and give much food for thought.Thanks and keep up the gd work! ;)
Wesley Fink - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
#1 - Corrected. We are missing our Web Editor who is taking a well-deserved vacation.#2 - You make an interesting point. I was leaning toward Samsung TCCD chips, particularly based on the poorer overclocks on Athlon 64, but I agree there are some timings at certain speeds that don't really fit. Hynix also exhibits poorer A64 overclocks compared to Intel, so it is a possibility.
Zebo - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
Nice work Wes. To bad we don't know what chips they have...I'm leaning twards hand picked Hynix that can do 2-2-2 @ 200 by the way it mirrors it's brothers at higher bandwidth...in addtion to it's bandwidth.KingofCamelot - Friday, August 20, 2004 - link
Just a couple of things you might want to fix, on the bottom of page 2 it has the title "OCZ PC3200 Platinum Revision 2 Specifications" which should be "Geil PC3200 Ultra X Memory Specifications". Also on page 4 at 557DDR speed the Quake3 fps is missing a decimal and is listed as 43486 instead of 434.86 fps. Other than that great review, awesome looking ram man!