Discussion Forums > Technology

Is my mobo screwed up?

<< < (4/4)

limefc:
Performance wise, the difference between CLx at 2166 and CLx at 2000 is very little. I'd be surprised if RAM tested at 2000 didn't do 2166 without touching the timings. Not as much if it was Corsair XMS3 I guess, but still. It's like a 0.7ns difference. For comparisons a lot of cheapo RAM will still boot with an overclock of 1.25ns. Some better examples will actually be stable.

My Corsair XMS3 trash just barely booted with a 1.25ns overclock. However, my current Kingston cheap-ass RAM I managed to get to boot with a 2.25ns overclock and with some serious volts I was getting close to stability. 400+mhz overclock without touching timings or voltage? More likely than you think.

I'm digressing. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it comes from the exact same bin as XMS3 so it should be compatible with boards that are tested with XMS3 as working.

nstgc:
The difference would likely be in the QC. The vengeance probably just didn't pass as many tests. Why they put those God awful heat spreaders on them, though, is a mystery.

As for the speed, I was just pointing out a difference. Its been shown that your computers performance with 1333 RAM is not much worse than 1600 and the difference between 1600 and 1833 is miniscule at best. I keep mine at 1833.

limefc:
They are both tested the same way actually. Corsair takes the cream of the crop for their Dominator line of memory, anything that doesn't pass quality requirements for that will be sold as Vengeance, XMS3 and Corsair Value depending on heatsink (and bin).
Don't think they sell XMS3 DHX anymore, but that used to come from same bin as well and that's what I had.

1.8V XMS3 DHX. Sick. Voltage didn't do shit to them though, seriously. I could zap em with 2.1V for nothing or undervolt to 1.5V and still no effect.
Also memory frequency is deceptive.

1333MHz memory can be FASTER than 1600MHz memory. As in benchmark better.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page