Final Words

Many seem confused as to whether it is best to use the fast 512MB DDR DIMMs or the rapidly appearing 1GB DIMMs in their Athlon 64 system. Until recently, we advised buyers to go for the fast 512MB DIMMs, since those 2-2-2 timings on the low-latency A64 on-CPU memory controller usually more than made up for the 2T performance hit of the 4 DIMMs required for 2GB of memory. These three fast 1GB DIMMs are changing the rules.

All three 2GB kits sporting a pair of 1GB DIMMs performed very well and with complete stability at fast 2-3-2 DDR400 timings. If your needs are fast performance at DDR400 to DDR480, then the Corsair, Gigaram, or OCZ will each do a great job for you. You can make the selection based on price. This should not come as a surprise to anyone since all three 1GB memories are based on Infineon memory chips.

Beyond DDR480 to 500, the choices narrow to the Gigaram and OCZ, and while performance is similar, the system requirements are not. If you can provide up to about 3.1V for memory on your board, then choose between the OCZ and Gigaram based on price and the value to you of the Customer service you might appreciate or need. Either will do the job well, and the performance difference is small.

If you want a wide range of overclocking to DDR550, fast performance at DDR400, and voltages that never need to be higher than 2.7V, then the OCZ PC4000 1024MB EB Platinum is your best choice of the three memories that we tested. It provides fast 2-3-2 performance to around DDR440, which is not quite as good as the Corsair going to DDR456 at 2-3-2 timings. However, the Corsair tops out at DDR492 while the OCZ is still performing strong all the way to DDR550 at only 2.7V.

The three 2GB kits that we tested are all winners, but the OCZ PC4000 EB Platinum Edition stood out from the crowd. The OCZ performed at fast 2-3-2 memory timings at DDR400 to 3-3-2 at DDR550 and never required more than 2.7V to maintain complete stability in our memory testing. It is rare to find a memory with this wide range of performance that is perfectly happy with voltages available on most any motherboard that you can buy. In fact, the OCZ 1 GB modules do not seem to really like voltages beyond about 2.8V.

While we were happy with the performance of all three 1GB DIMMs, we would strongly recommend that those who plan high overclocks with 1GB DIMMs use a CPU with a recent Rev. E or better memory controller. 1 GB DIMMs are demanding and the more recent on-chip controllers handle the demands of 1GB memory modules better than older Clawhammer controllers.

Last, we will try to answer the question again about whether two 1GB or four 512MB DIMMs are the better choice for Athlon 64 DDR memory. If you plan to install 4GB of memory or upgrade to 4GB in the near future, then 1GB DIMMs are your only choice and we recommend the faster DIMMs like the 3 tested here - they cost about the same as slower 1GB DIMMs. If your choice in memory is flexible, there's no doubt that fast 1GB DIMMs like the three tested here remove the complaint that 1GB DIMMs are slower and will compromise performance compared to fast 512MB DIMMs. The 1GB DIMMs are, however, a bit more costly - though the prices have been dropping rapidly. If the 2GB kits fit your budget, then by all means, go for one of the fast 2GB kits like these from Corsair, Gigaram, and OCZ. If the price is a big concern, then carefully compare prices of some of four fast 512MB modules to two 1GB DIMMs and buy what fits your budget.

Highest Memory Performance
Comments Locked

40 Comments

View All Comments

  • Slaimus - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Does 4 single sided 512MB sticks behave the same as 2 double sided 1GB sticks?
  • eastvillager - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Why would you buy these when the 2-3-2-5 sticks are readily available?
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    If you read the review you will see that ALL THREE of the 1GB dimms ran at 2-3-2 at DDR400 to DDR440 or so. They will all run 2-3-2-5, but we have shown in previous tests the the nForce 4 is fastest running a tRAS of 6 or 7. We ran 2-3-2-7 because it is faster than 2-3-2-5 on the nForce4. Try it for yourslef with memtest86 and differnet tRAS.
  • Sunrise089 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Possible minor typos aside, this article is a great change of pace from some of the recent technical write-ups here on Anandtech(cough:R520:cough). The quality of writing as well as the attempt to put the parts in perspective and give the big picture is much appreciated. With so many sites out there, I can go anywhere for simple RAM benchmarks, but for me it is much harder to find informed discussions about why the part being reviewed is a good idea/choice or not. I really felt this side of the story was lacking in the X1800 reviews and am glad to see it here.
  • Houdani - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Page 3:
    quote:

    our overclocking clock frequency went up to DDR500 - 30 points higher.

    I think you meant DDR550.

    Page 4:
    In your table of memory, you list the 3 new sticks as 2x512. I think you meant 2x1024.
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Corrected. Thanks for bringing these to us. It's funny that they looked just fine at 3AM :-)
  • Doormat - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Whether its worth it or not to invest heavily (these pieces arent cheap) in DDR1 tech if you've already got a pair of fast running 2x512MB sticks. You'll just have to buy DDR2 sticks in a year if you want the fastest stuff (an A64 M2-socket based chip).
  • emilyek - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Lame. Why not a big review on the many available 2 and 2.5 cas DDR 400 sticks? The Geil, Patriot, OCZ, Gskill, and Corsair already top out at about 1k FSB when loosed up, and the timings on these RAMS sucks anyway.
  • DrMrLordX - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    They've said it before, and I'll say it again: you just can't add every available DIMM variety to RAM tests. There's too much on the market, and many of the budget RAM types have wildly variable quality and performance.
  • RockSolid - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    The RamGuy link on Page 5 is incorrect.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now