Conclusion

The pace of innovation in the computer market is sometimes astounding. Just four days ago we posted a performance review of the new Intel P35 chipset that introduced DDR3 memory. Our DDR3 test DIMMs for the launch were rated DDR3-1066 7-7-7-21. They would overclock to the new DDR3-1333 speed at 9-9-9-25 timings. We expected the quick introduction of DDR3-1333 modules at 9-9-9 timings, since that is one of the reasons for owning a P35 board. However, we did not expect true lower latency DDR3 for several weeks or months.

Kingston has certainly surprised us with the launch of low-latency DDR3 rated at DDR3-1375 even before the P35 boards officially launch at Computex on June 4th. Not only is this Kingston rated at the higher 1375 speed, but it has rated timings at 1333 that equal the best timings available at 1066 with our launch DDR3 memory. That is certainly rapid development, but it is easy to understand when put in perspective. At the high launch prices only early adopters will be tempted by DDR3. This is particularly true when you consider that fast, cheap DDR2 in the P35 motherboards actually performs better in the overlap speeds than the launch DDR3.

Memory makers introduce new products to sell them, and they are keenly aware that potential buyers need a real reason to buy DDR3, and that reason has to be more than just getting a new technology. The reasons people upgrade are faster speeds and better performance than any available on DDR2, and lower latency that allows performance just as good as or better than DDR2 in areas where speeds overlap.

Kingston has hit a home run in both areas, and Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2 achieves timings as low as 5-4-3-10 at DDR3-800 and 6-5-5-12 at 1066 - both at a very modest 1.7V to 1.75V. Performance at these overlap speeds is now roughly on par with the fastest DDR2 running in a new P35 board supporting DDR2. The P965 running the same low latency DDR2 is outperformed by any of the new Intel P35 chipsets running DDR2 or DDR3 memory. At the upper end the new Kingston can reach DDR3-1520 with stability and a magic DDR3-1500 at the tight timings (considering the speed) of 7-7-7.

This low-latency memory manages timings close to the theoretical limits of 5-3-3 at DDR3-800, and it is clear from the performance of this early low-latency DDR3 that buyers will not have to give up any performance in their migration to DDR3. Timings at other speeds are also the best seen to date with DDR3, but there will undoubtedly be even lower latency DDR2-1066 and DDR2-1333 in the future.

Kingston's DDR3-1333 with lower latency timings has given early adopters who will buy new and future technology at any price a reason to buy Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2. Lower latency and higher speeds are required for DDR3 to stand out, and Kingston delivers both.The caveat, of course, is "at any price". However, DDR3 won't really take hold in the market until prices for DDR3 are no longer a 2 to 3 times DDR2 premium. Until they drop to near parity with DDR2 there is no reason to buy a DDR3 P35 motherboard when you can buy a DDR2 P35 motherboard that performs just as well and memory that costs significantly less.

Intel themselves have created this dilemma by supporting both DDR3 or/and DDR2 on the P35 chipset. The P35 is faster than the current P965 and 975X and buyers would move to it for that reason. However, the ability to keep current fast DDR2 which will perform very well on the P35 gives reason to carefully consider whether to buy a P35 with DDR2 support or a P35 supporting DDR3. If that option were not available you might buy DDR3 for the higher P35 performance as well as the future memory technology.

It's refreshing, though, to have Intel consider the pricing and desirability of DDR3 on the new P35, if that is indeed what happened. We suspect though that a market driven by OEMs demanded DDR2 support for price, with DDR3 support ready for a switchover when the prices drop. Whatever the reason the dual support has the advantage of choice for best value or best future-proofing. Unfortunately there is also the downside of higher chipset power consumption since both DDR3 and DDR2 memory interfaces are active whether they are used or not. Hopefully Intel and manufacturers can find ways to correct this undesirable side effect with something as simple and universal as a future BIOS update.

Kingston deserves congratulations for being the first to market with low-latency high speed DDR3. Kingston KHX11000D3LLK2 does exactly what it promises and then some. It gives buyers not so concerned about price the DDR3 performance and higher speeds to choose DDR3 for the future. However, most buyers will wait a while for DDR3 prices to drop, as they surely will. Kingston is the first low-latency high-speed DDR3, but it is certainly not the last. It is good, however, to be first to market with a quality DDR3 product.

Gaming
Comments Locked

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    The Asus P5K3 Deluxe motherboard allows DDR3 to be adjusted to 2.2V in .05V increments from the stock voltage of 1.5V. We ran voltages as high as 1.8V in this review, as Kingston specifies the memory at 1.7V. We gained nothing at voltages higher than 1.8V so we did not use them for testing.

    You seem to forget that enthusiast memory makers often specify higher than stock voltage for modules and they warrant the memory running at those higher specified voltages.

    We do agree you should be careful with higher voltages on memory, but when manufacturers warrant products at higher voltage we are a bit less concerned.
  • TA152H - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Wesley,

    You can warrant something all you want, but that doesn't mean running over spec doesn't shorten the lifespan of a product. It will, without a doubt. The only question is, will it lower it significantly enough to matter, meaning during the useful lifespan of the product. Probably not, if they warrant it, but it depends on how long you keep it. Since only the kiddies will buy this junk, and they will replace the machine when the next alien invasion comes from Zargon, in higher resolution, it's probably OK. I doubt any serious machines like servers will have this sub-standard memory.

    But, do they warrant it against additional power use? Do they pay for the electricity it takes? I don't think so. Do they warrant your motherboard against the additional heat? Do they give you additional fans to cool them? Do they pay for the electricity for those fans? Heat and electricity is a big problem, and even if they warranty their part, it stresses other parts too. And just because they'll warranty something doesn't really help that much if it breaks; the big loss isn't the part, but the down time. Do you really think they KNOW how long this part will last anyway? It's not like they can test it for 5 years and say it lasted that long. It's a best guess. The only certainty is they are shortening the life span.

    So, a warranty doesn't cover everything, and there is always a price for running overspec, but that's not even my real point. I remember buying some memory from Kingston, and they had specs listed on it. It was for a mini-ITX, and it didn't have the crazy voltages available (why would it, the whole point was to save power and noise?). Of course, I see 2-2-2-5 and assume, naturally, that this is the timing for it will run at, at spec. Except the voltage you need for this is higher, and it's entirely misleading. I returned it of course, after yelling at them, and am still annoyed that these companies help make a standard, and then disregard it. I mean, if you want to run memory at 2.2 or 2.3 volts, put that into the standard. And it's not like you can say they find out quite a bit later that the standard wasn't realistic. Kingston is breaking it right after it's been made! So why didn't they say in the meeting, let's create the spec for 1.7 volts? Or, create a range. It's absurd they create a spec and the first memory out breaks it. Of course, the other memory makers will do this too, but one of the points of the memory was low power use, so it's a bit conflicting. Also, as they go to PC-1600, and it naturally sucks more juice, how high can you really go with the voltage without creating an enormous amount of heat that can't be ignored? Naturally, they'll be going beyond PC-1600 at some point even though that's the spec, and it'll just get worse. So, being able to make memory with proper voltages will become more and more important.
  • bldckstark - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Ummm.. HyperX memory is not marketed to businesses. It is marketed to enthusiasts. Businesses keep using the standard parts, and enthusiasts keep using high performance parts. This would be the same reason that companies don't buy Corvettes for their salesmen to drive. It is not a reasonable business decision for several reasons, some of those being initial cost, maintenance costs, and normal usage costs like gas.

    How come you don't buy servers from Alienware for your company? Do you buy EE processors for your companies desktops? Your argument is similar to that of not having a space program, because we can't use rocket engines on jets.
  • TA152H - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

    I was saying the same thing. I guess most people are too simple to realize that even though, in a general sense, you are against something, you can make a point for why it exists. I pointed out that only kiddies will buy this memory, and it won't be used for servers, so it's not that bad. You couldn't understand that?

    But the main thing is, why make a standard when you're going to break it.

    Your remark about rocket engines on jets is purely idiotic. It's a terrible analogy, and makes no point at all. But, just so you know, there were in fact rocket propelled airplanes (German ME-163), but jets are a competing technology, you have one or the other. But again, you missed my point, because you naturally assumed everything I was saying was against this over-voltaged memory, but I was giving both sides. I still don't like it though. They should have made the spec 1.7volts, or whatever, if they fully intended to make it at that voltage, which clearly they did.
  • menting - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    "But the main thing is, why make a standard when you're going to break it. "
    is same as why set a speed limit when people are going to speed.

    standards are there just for a standard. It doesn't say if they are prohibited from doing more. If they sell memory and say it conforms to JEDEC standards, then it means they can run at specced speeds at the specced voltages. They could go faster at higher voltages if they want. If they dont even say they conform to JEDEC standards, they can spec whatever they want and it's up to the user to decide if they want to buy memory that runs at the manufacturer's settings.
  • TA152H - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Another bad analogy.

    You can get a ticket for going over the speed limit and get fined. It's proscribed. You do it at your own risk and it's illegal. That's good?

    If they intended to go at higher voltages, why not spec it at that? Or create a range? Why create a spec if everyone breaks it? My big problem is how it's advertised, it's not so clear that the timings are for grossly inflated voltages. You have to look, and unless you know to and not make an assumption that memory is made according the specification, you can be fooled. You don't make a standard to break it, that's just plain asinine. You make a standard for conformity, that's the point of standards.
  • rjm55 - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    You seem obsessed that Kingston sold you some memory sticks in the past that were rated at higher than JEDEC voltage. You learned that pretty much everyone in the memory industry does this and most people think nothing of it. You really need to get on with your life or seek professional help.
  • PrinceGaz - Sunday, May 27, 2007 - link

    He may perhaps have a point in that the DDR3 standard has only just arrived, and already modules are arriving which are intended to be used well above the rated voltage.

    I run my memory above voltage like most of us, but when a new standard arrives and the recommended voltage has already been exceeded by over 13% almost immediately, it makes a mockery of it.
  • yyrkoon - Friday, May 25, 2007 - link

    Well, I kind of agree both ways here, but would err on the side of staying with the specification. Just like companies like Asrock releasing a motherboard with supposed SATAII ports, but they do not support NCQ, which is part of the SATAII spec!

    Granted this situation here is a bit different, they added to the spec, but not only did they add voltage capability, they added potetnial heat/overvoltage as well. This has impact on more than just the memory, this could adversely effect a motherbaord as well, and possibly even a PSU(over time).
  • bobsmith1492 - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Why did you not put up some numbers at this speed for comparison? Granted the CPU may be running 35MHz slower, but might the RAM be enough to make up for it? At the very least, the bandwidth numbers would be impressive... assuming the latency affects the bandwidth?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now