Conclusion

When we first received DDR2 for testing, we really thought this would be a simple review. Only Corsair and OCZ were talking about DDR2 667 and we assumed that those 2 memories would top everything, if we could find a 925X board to support DDR2 667. The rest would be behind in the pack. OCZ then told us that they planned to devote more time to EB programming of the SPD on their upcoming 667, so our review looked even simpler - Corsair 667 followed by everyone else. That is the problem with assumptions. Test results often turn everything that you expect to find upside down.

The most amazing test results came from all the new DDR2 memories that we tested. Amazing, in that even the cheapest value DDR2 ran with complete stability at DDR2 667, which is the next major speed in the DDR2 highway. In addition, every one of the eight memories that we tested in this roundup ran with complete stability at the highest FSB which we could support on any current 925X motherboard - DDR2 686. Most of the tested DDR2 even accomplished this overclocking feat with much better than standard 4-4-4-10 timings and a modest voltage increase to 1.9V from the default 1.8V.

After this roundup, the message about DDR2 is very clear. As it exists today, DDR2 is much better than we expected it to be. Intel could easily move to DDR2 667 timings tomorrow and there would be a whole range of memories available to support that speed.

Perhaps the other half of the message is that this may well be the reason why Intel implemented a 10% overclock lock on the 925X/915 chipsets. No one likes to give away anything for free, and if we were Intel, we might also not want to give customers DDR2 667 performance for free. We can only applaud Abit, Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, and other creative motherboard manufacturers who found ways to bypass the 10% overclock lock. Without this engineering feat, we might never have known that DDR2 667 was already very much a reality.

The new Intel architecture was just launched 2 weeks ago, which makes the incredible performance of the DDR2 memory even more amazing. It is still early, and there will be even more performance DDR2 introduced by the memory companies that cater to Enthusiasts. Over time, you will likely find even higher overclocks at even more aggressive memory timings. For now, we just hope to find a 925X motherboard soon that will allow us to determine what the fastest speed really is for all the DDR2 tested in this roundup.

Right now, Micron memory chips have proved to be the top performers, and these were found in Crucial, Micron, Kingmax, and Corsair memory. The Kingmax may well be the equal of the other 3, but the performance was hampered by our 256MB DIMMs, so we cannot state that with confidence. The Corsair 667, Crucial 533, and Micron 533 were all at the top in every benchmark, so clearly, these 3 are the top performers. While we applaud Corsair for being the first to bring DDR2 667 to market, the reality is that the 667 performed no better than Crucial or Micron 533 in our tests, at any speed that we could reach. Given the fact that the Corsair 667 will likely cost more, we see no reason (with our current test results) to spend more for DDR2 when Crucial/Micron PC2-4300U matches the top performance in every way.

We are pleased to award our Editors Choice for the top DDR2 memory to Crucial PC2-4300U. It is a top performer and the best retail value in this DDR2 roundup. It is exciting when a product rated at DDR2 533 performs at DDR2 667 and DDR2 686 with ease, but every DDR2 memory that we tested accomplished this feat. However, the Crucial PC2-4300U did this with the widest bandwidth and tighest timings found with any memory that we tested. This same Editors Choice applies to Micron PC2-4300U, which is the same memory for the OEM market. Micron and Crucial are to be congratulated for providing the best performance and best value currently available in DDR2 memory.

Since Corsair XMS2 5300 appears to be based on the same Micron chips, you can expect similar performance. This may also apply to Kingmax DDR2-533; though, we could not verify performance results using 256MB DIMMs.

Please keep in mind that DDR2 686 was the highest memory speed that we could test with our current 925X test bed. We may well find that the Corsair 667 and upcoming OCZ 667 will easily leave the Crucial and Micron in the dust with memory speeds well beyond DDR2 686. If they do, we will revisit our DDR2 test results. For now, however, it is difficult to complain about DDR2 533 that consistently performs at DDR2 667 and beyond with every DDR2 memory that we have tested.

DDR2 686 Performance
Comments Locked

20 Comments

View All Comments

  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    #9 - Actually the first number was copied incorrectly and has now been fixed. The tRas 11 line on p.3 now reads 5303-2344-7647.
  • FlameDeer - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    Hi Wesley, nice article. :)

    Something to change:
    At page 3, Micron PC2-4300U Table, Row tRAS 11,
    Aida 32 Total should be "7697".
  • MIDIman - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    > When can we expect DDR2 for A64?

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
  • mczak - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    Nice article, a real pity though there are no performance numbers for overclocked FSB only (i.e. FSB 258 / DDR2-"516"). There are some reasons to believe memory performance would also be quite a bit higher than with FSB200/DDR2-533...
  • Bozo Galora - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    Another clear concise mem article by Prometheus.
  • KillaKilla - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    When can we expect DDR2 for A64? Even thouthe they aren't so affected by lack of memory bandwidth...
  • rjm55 - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    I am not usually that much into memory articles, but this is one of the best reviews I have seen on the new Intel architecture. It was surprising that even the budget DDR2 did 667. When will Intel be launching 667 as an "official" DDR2 speed?
  • Anemone - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    VERY nice article - and informative on the limits that no one else is authoritatively reviewing. Thankyou and keep them coming!

    :)
  • skiboysteve - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    or... im blind..
  • skiboysteve - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    you should mention in the benchmarks which modules are DS and SS, so people dont go ape shit over poor performance of say... GEIL..

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now