Test Results: Kingston HyperX PC3200 Low-Latency

To be considered stable for test purposes, Quake3 benchmark, UT2003 Demo, Super PI, Aquamark 3, and Comanche 4 had to complete without incident. Any of these, and in particular Super PI, will crash a less-than stable memory configuration. Return to Castle Wolfenstein - Enemy Territory is proving to be a sensitive benchmark for memory testing. We have included results for RCW-ET using the Radar benchmark.

Kingston HyperX PC3200 LL (DDR400) - 2 x 512Mb Double-Bank
Speed Memory Timings & Voltage Quake3 fps Sandra UNBuffered Sandra Standard Buffered Super PI 2M places
(time in sec)
Wolfenstein - Radar - Enemy Territory
fps
400DDR
800FSB
2-2-2-5
2.5V
330.5 INT 2876
FLT 2929
INT 4552
FLT 4515
129 70.5
433DDR
866FSB
2-2-2-5
2.75V
358.0 INT 3159
FLT 3179
INT 4904
FLT 4917
119 76.7
466DDR
933FSB
2-3-3-6
2.75V
374.5 INT 3158
FLT 3197
INT 5193
FLT 5188
113 81.0
500DDR
1000FSB
2.5-3-36
2.75V
400.2 INT 3359
FLT 3363
INT 5545
FLT 5549
106 86.8
508DDR
1028FSB
3-3-4-7
2.85V
397.2 INT 3323
FLT 3310
INT 5649
FLT 5554
107 86.0

Kingston HyperX certainly lived up to its name in our tests of 2-2-2 DDR400. Performance was very comparable across the board to all of the top DDR400 based on the same Samsung chips. If Kingston were the only memory that we were testing, we could easily conclude it is one of the fastest DDR400 memories that we have tested, with incredible headroom to DDR508. It is clearly the equal of the Corsair 3200XL that we tested, which is certainly not faint praise.

The four DDR400 memories based on Samsung chips were almost the same in performance except for the OCZ, which showed remarkable headroom compared to the others. In the range from DDR400 to DDR500, all of the Samsung DDR400 modules perform very similarly.

Test Results: Crucial Ballistix PC3200 Test Results: Mushkin PC3200 Level II V2
Comments Locked

47 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anemone - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    Would love to see OCZ do further expansion on the EL or EB area of DDR2. I'm sure it's at lower limits (the timings of DDR2 stink really), but if anyone could push them as low as possible I'd expect OCZ to do it.
  • Anemone - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    Yeah OCZ seems to have their stuff where it counts.

    I'll note this highlights an issue that's caught my eye, and that is in the furor over the AMD64 chips, its less visible just sometimes how much "special stuff", ie choice memory modules, it takes to keep the AMD platforms running at top speed. On the Intel side of the fence you can plug just about anything in and get some speed, but in many cases that's still a guessing game for the AMD stuff. Given how that plays out a year or two down the line when you want to buy just an upgrade part or two, I'm kind of a fan of the "just buy the latest Superbytes mem module XXX and plug and go" kind of usefulness, which I see 'more' on the Intel side of things, and I do mean 'more' not 'only'.

    Also want to mention that lately tending to see more enthusiasts aiming for as much as 2gb of memory, and when you get there, the AMD controllers seem to not fly as much as with lower amounts, losing as much as 10% of their performance.

    Blah, no easy choices here imo.

  • ceefka - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    Great review. For those of us who want to build a 939, we'd love to see the next article. We apparently have a lot of RAM to choose from.

    Now on the theoretical side: How would the best DDR2 perform? What would the differences be? Can these results justify AMD's choice to ignore DDR2?
  • Bozo Galora - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    Another very timely review.
    You are now answering questions for me in advance - lol.

    Color changes for reviewed items better, but as a nitpick, it might be cool to continue colors to the names of mem also, not just the bar??? Dark green needs to be a lighter color - like pink. 2 greens not friendly.

    Anyway thanx fella.
  • cnq - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    Wesley,

    Can you comment on the 2.5-2-2 timings past DDR500 of the Crucial? It seems slightly fishy, considering that you used their PC3200, which is lower-binned than their PC4000...and even the 4000 is only rated at 2.5-3-3 at DDR500.
    Is it possible that Crucial sent you a cherry-picked sample for review?
    Anyone else out there own a set of the Ballistix care to comment?
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    catchy title

    =F-A-S-T=

    A bit unprofessional maybe, but catchy :)
  • shady06 - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    OCZ = smokin

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now