Digital Storm Core i7-965

Introduction

Digital Storm was a new name to us when they first called to offer a gaming system for review. They carry a number of different systems, and pride themselves on "performance, support, and value". Today we're looking at a no-holds-barred, top of the line system: an overclocked Core i7-965 with water-cooling and triple-SLI NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 GPUs. First, we'll look at the company, the website and ordering process, and the system and components; then we'll jump into our performance review of the Core i7-965 system.

Digital Storm - Overview

We didn't know much about Digital Storm's history, so we asked them for a brief PR blurb, excerpted in part below.

Digital Storm was founded in San Jose, CA in 2001 and has been in the computer gaming industry for nearly 9 years. In that time we have come to be regarded as a system integrator that builds bleeding-edge: fast, stable, and highly customized gaming systems backed up with a passionate staff that stands behind their product. We are also the only computer gaming company with an "A+" rating from the BBB. This rating reflects our company's dedication to taking care of our customers. Our company has adopted a simple theory: put yourself in the customers shoes. Every decision we make reflects this anthem.

Also, as previously stated, their "About Us" page claims they operate by providing performance, support, and value. We'll look at each claim in turn and examine how they rate.

Gigabyte GM-M8000 Mouse - A GHOST Story

We had a very interesting package show up at the front door a couple of weeks ago. No, it was not our new supply order from ShamWoW or even that P55/Lynnfield box we recently reviewed. It was a mouse designed and built by a motherboard company. Specifically, it was from Gigabyte and included a keyboard we will discuss later. Of course, there were a couple of motherboards and video cards in the box but our attention was naturally drawn to the new shiny trinket in the tricked out package.

Normally a mouse would not elicit such excitement but since I change mice about as often the US elects a Democratic president one could easily forgive me for being a bit too eager to give this product a through thrashing. Honestly, I had no idea that Gigabyte even offered mice but after checking out their PC peripheral page, I was impressed with the range of products offered. In fact, Gigabyte offers a total of nine mice ranging from an entry level wireless optical mouse to several gaming mice including our GM-M8000sample.

The GM-M8000 is part of Gigabyte’s new GHOST gaming series of products. This particular mouse features the AVAGO 6090 Laser sensor featuring adjustable sensitivity from 400 dpi to 4000 dpi, Gigabyte’s GHOST Engine featuring 8KB of onboard memory, GHOST software suite, 16-bit wide data path, five independently programmable buttons, four level on-the-fly DPI adjustment, USB report rate tuning, and an adjustable weight system with 38 grams of metal weights.

It all sounds impressive; the key is if this mouse actually works as advertised. So, let’s find out if this GHOST is the real thing or just another Casper wannabe.

Mushkin XP2 PC2-5300 DDR2 – Xtreme Performance Memory

Mushkin XP2 PC2-5300 DDR2

Has the time come for DDR2 memory? Is now the time for enthusiasts to finally embrace DDR2 technology with better performance on Intel based platforms, and the promised Holy Grail of AMD's new AM2 socket with DDR2 support and built-in memory controllers?

Socket AM2, the 940 pin DDR2-ready Athlon 64 socket, will be unleashed upon consumers some time this summer, most likely by the end of July. AMD is expected to have working samples in place by the time of Computex 2006, which will be held from June 6 th to June 10 th in Taipei.

After DDR2 was first introduced for Intel, Micron D fat body chips gained enthusiast's attention in a big way, due to the lower latency timings and the ability to push performance to much higher memory speeds. Unfortunately, the Micron fat body D DDR2 memory chips are now history.

Perhaps Mushkin has discovered an alternative to the famed Fat Body IC's. While 3-3-3 at DDR2-667 is not quite as fast as the 3-2-2 timings seen with the best Micron chips, it is still among the fastest specifications that you will find for DDR2-667 memory modules. It is also worth mentioning that the older, and now discontinued, Micron Fat Body D chips were never specified as performing at 3-2-2- timings, so perhaps these new Mushkin Elpida modules will do even better than their rated timings.

With that in mind, the goal in testing was to see exactly what the new Mushkin XP2 memory could do in our memory test suite. How do the new Mushkin DDR2 with Elpida chips compare to the top Micron DDR2 memory? Is this new Mushkin DDR2 memory a worthy choice for current Intel and future AM2 enthusiasts?

Product Specifications and Information

Mushkin confirmed the use of Elpida IC's for the Extreme Performance Black Series (XP) memory modules.

Brain Power confirmed that the B62URCE PCB used in the new Mushkin XP2 PC-5300 is manufactured by them. Brain Power manufactures custom PCB modifications for their customers. They can also supply stock memory boards.

Elpida provided a data sheet for these integrated circuits, which are being utilized by Mushkin in this XP series memory.

PC2-5300 667MHz DDR2	CL 3-3-3 (CAS-TRCD-TRP)
2GB (1024MB x 2)	Unbuffered
Improved Black Heat Spreader with new thermal tape	Lifetime Warranty
2.1 - 2.3 Volts	240 Pin DIMM
Elpida IC: E5108AG-6E-E	Brain Power PCB: MLL E186014 B62URCE

In a screen capture from the Elpida data sheet, you can see how to decode the information from the actual IC part number. We are examining the EDE5108AGSE-6E-E part. The "A" in the part number is indicative of voltage (i.e. this is normally specified as a 1.8 volt part).

The XP2 PC2-5300 DDR2 memory uses the new Mushkin heat spreader, recently designed to improve Mushkin heat spreader performance. One feature of the new design is the use of better thermal tape.

On July 28, 2005, Mushkin announced their new heat spreader for their high performance memory modules. Mushkin claimed that the new heat spreaders provided 58% more surface area than their previous designs.

Below is a photograph of the sample heat sink design, which Mushkin sent back in July 2005 for feedback.

Consumers and enthusiasts should note that the XP2 PC2-5300 DDR2 memory kits are available in either a 1 GB or 2 GB matched pair. With memory intensive games and applications such as Adobe Photoshop, the advantage of having two gigabytes of memory will be quite apparent.

FAST 2GB DDR Kits - Part 2

Part 1 of the 2GB DDR Kit Roundup took a close look at 3 memories based on Infineon memory chips. Since that review in October, a number of 2GB DDR kits have appeared in the market with most based on Infineon C or B die memory chips. There are, however, a few brands that have taken a different approach to memory chips for 1GB DIMMs, and we have included those in this roundup, along with the latest Infineon-based memories.

1GB DDR DIMMs began appearing in the market over a year ago, but it wasn't until mid-2005 that 1GB DIMMs with reasonably fast timings became widely available. These faster 1GB DIMMs finally made the choice of 2GB memory kits to be a reasonable choice in a market that had been dominated by fast DDR 512MB DIMMs.

There are many reasons to choose a 2GB kit over a 1GB kit or 4 512MB DIMMs. Two 1GB DIMMs on the AMD Athlon 64 can still run at 1T Command rate, instead of the 2T required by the 4x512MB DIMMs needed for 2GB with 512MB DIMMs - a definite advantage for the 1GB DIMMs. On the other hand, until recently, the available 1GB DIMMs were generally much slower than the fast 2-2-2 DIMMs that were commonly available in 512MB DIMMs. We normally saw 3-3-3 or 3-4-4 or slower timings for 1GB DIMMs. These poorer timings for 1GB DIMMs took away most of the advantage for the 1GB 1T Command Rate.

There was an additional "gotcha" with the 1GB DIMMs that many enthusiasts quickly discovered. With a starting point of 3-3-3 or 3-4-4 at DDR400, the 1GB parts did not overclock nearly as far as the 512MB parts. For all of these reasons, we generally recommended that most users were better off with 512MB DIMMs - at least until memory timings improved on the 1GB DIMMs.

The time for faster 1GB DIMMs has finally come in the past 6 months, and they are now available from almost every memory manufacturer. In Part 1, we looked at three 2GB kits from Corsair, Gigaram, and OCZ. In this part 2, we put six additional fast 2GB kits through our test bench, with some interesting results. We also updated some parts of our memory test bench, which required retesting of the original three 2GB kits.

Our memory tests differentiate memory in two ways. First, AnandTech has always been an advocate of real world performance measurements, and we've shunned using just synthetic benchmarks in our testing of every type of component, including memory. This is not because synthetic benchmarks are not useful - they are often very revealing of component differences - but rather, it is because running just synthetic benchmarks can severely distort the picture of performance with real applications and real games. That is why we always use games and the pure number-crunching Super Pi in our memory tests. It is also the reason why we test using both Buffered (Standard) and Unbuffered synthetic benchmarks. We have found in much of our testing that the less commonly used Unbuffered benchmarks mirror more closely how games really respond to memory differences.

Second, we moved to testing different memory speeds at the same CPU clock speed in our Athlon 64 memory tests. The AMD CPU, with unlocked multipliers, allowed us to finally remove the CPU speed differences from our memory tests. This allows you to finally see the true impact of memory speed increases and memory timings on performance. As you have seen in past reviews, those performance differences are very real, although they are much smaller than what many memory manufacturers might want you to believe. On the other hand, faster memory speeds and faster memory timings do improve performance, no matter what some nay-sayers are determined to prove.

Crucial Ballistix DDR2: The New DDR2 Standard?

The DDR2 market enjoyed some incredible DDR2 performance early in its life with a Micron DDR2 chip that we have since come to know as Fat Body D9. Everyone who made DDR2 used these chips because the performance was so outstanding, and when Micron decided to discontinue them last year, memory makers began scrambling for a replacement. Thus far, they haven't found a new DDR2 chip with the same low latency and high frequency capabilities of the now legendary Micron chips.

Two months ago, a new buzz began that Micron and their Crucial direct sales arm would be introducing a new and even better DDR2 memory chip. Every enthusiast memory maker with whom we talked about DDR2 was saying to wait until March when we have new high performance chips. Those chips, of course, are to be based on these new Micron DDR2 memory chips. When Crucial offered to send us their newest and top-performing DDR2 memory in early February, we couldn't wait to take a closer look. Were these the new Micron wonder DDR2?

In this review of two of the new Crucial Ballistix DDR2 kits, the biggest question on everyone's mind is: how will it compare to the legendary Fat Body D9 chips? Does it maintain tight timings at higher clock speeds? Is it still responsive to increased voltage like prior iterations of the Fat Body D9 made by Micron?

Crucial Technology's PC2-6400 has memory timings specified at 4-4-4-12 at speeds of DDR2-800. The other memory kit that Crucial sent along for testing was their PC2-5300, rated at DDR2-667 speeds with lower latency timings of 3-3-3-12.

What lies under the copper-colored, aluminum heat spreaders? Crucial Technology continues to use their trademark black PCB.

After careful removal of the heat spreader, we scanned the PCB itself below:

Click to enlarge.

This depicts the PCB lurking underneath the Crucial Technology PC2-5300 DDR2 memory kit that we tested recently.

Closer examination of the IC's showed some distinctive markings, which can be used to help identify the integrated circuits that were used in construction of this particular memory module.

On the top row, beneath the Ballistix stamping on the IC, the first row is marked 5KAH.

The 2^nd row shows markings of D9DQT. Please note that the D9 is indicative of Micron's Fat Body integrated circuit. At the very bottom of the IC, there is a -3F marking, which is usually used for speed grading.

By entering the FBGA code into Micron's Part Marking Decoder, the search output was rather inconclusive. This part appears not to be in the Micron database yet. The restamping and lack of information from Micron keeps us wondering about the real speed of the new DDR2 Chips. Does this new die revision of the D9 IC's still contain 3.7ns chips as we saw with past D9?

With limited specifications and no memory ID that tells us anything, memory benchmarking is the only way to find out if the new memory from Crucial Technology can produce the widely anticipated results?

Click to enlarge.

With the advent of the new 975X chipsets available on the market, this was a prime opportunity to test some new DDR2 modules from Crucial on this Intel based platform. AnandTech utilized the quite stable ASUS P5WD2-Premium motherboard, in conjunction with an Intel Pentium 955 Extreme Edition CPU, which sported a 1066MHz FSB dual core solution, containing a whopping 2MB of L2 cache onboard, as part of our testing platform. You can read our full Asus P5WD2-E Premium review here.

Asus advertises this particular motherboard in their February 2006 product information spreadsheet, claiming it as their flagship 975X motherboard with native DDR2 800 support. The chart below shows the myriad of memory options at different front side bus speeds available with this particular mainboard. The asterisks indicate settings provided for overclocking purposes only.

FSB	Memory Configuration Options/ASUS P5WD2-E Premium Motherboard
	Auto	DDR2-400	DDR2-533	DDR2-667	DDR2-711*	DDR2-800*	DDR2-889*	DDR2-1067*
FSB 1066	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
FSB 800	*	*	*	*	-	*	-	-
FSB 533	*	*	*	-	-	-	-	-

Click to enlarge.

Super Talent & TEAM Join the Fast DDR2 Club With both AMD and Intel solidly in the DDR2 camp memory makers have pulled out all the stops in creating

Well here's one story that managed to slip behind our desk for a few days: Samsung has finally begun mass production of their 900MHz(1.1ns) GDDR3 chips. As the primary high-end memory supplier in the video industry, ATI and NVIDIA effectively live and die by what and how soon Samsung can offer bigger and faster memory chips, so the ramifications of this are going to be pretty straightforward.

The timing on this is fairly consistent with what little information we know about ATI and NVIDIA's winter-refresh products due some time in Q1 2006, so mass production of the necessary memory a couple of months ahead of time is fairly normal. These are all 32bit-wide 512Mb chips, so the sweet spot for any cards using them will need to be at least 512MB, since 8 chips are necessary to achieve a proper 256bit memory bus (so those of you looking for a 7900 GTX 256 may be out of luck). For those users worried about the power consumption of the latest video cards, don't look for things to get any better with these memory modules; it's no fluke that the 7800GTX 512 and X1800XT ran hotter than previous cards, as these are 2.0V chips, so if there's a drop in power usage with the refresh cards, it won't be due to the memory.

The more interesting factor at this point in time however is what this means for NVIDIA's oft-lauded and hard to find GeForce 7800GTX 512. It's no secret that while NVIDIA managed keep with their press-favorable policy of hard-launching the card with the announcement, they haven't been able to keep the card in any regular supply (much to the chagrin of eVGA owners in the step-up queue), and its rumored that the supply of this memory had a great deal of involvement in this problem. While NVIDIA certainly is not apt to talk about the problem, given that this memory only entered mass production a month after the GTX 512 launched, we're inclined to believe that this is indeed the case.

Now if NVIDIA and its partners intend to use some of these mass produced parts to pick up GTX 512 production or horde it all for the winter refresh remains to be seen, although it is more likely they'll horde it given the difficulties and amount of stock required to hard launch a high-end video card. So consumers still looking for a GTX 512 may be out of luck and better off waiting for the winter refresh. We can't say we would disagree with the decision to use the current stock of memory to build up the refresh if this is the case, though it doesn't excuse our disappointment in NVIDIA for being unable to regularly supply the GTX 512. Certainly some initial exhaustions of stock are expected for a new card, but a hard launch is only as good as the card supply, and this is a case where NVIDIA has failed.

With the mass production of their 900MHz modules, Samsung is nearly done with GDDR3 as their headliner graphics memory. One last refresh is due in 2006, 1GHz modules which Samsung is still working on, after which they will move to GDDR4. Samsung expects to start mass production of GDDR4 in Q2 2006 with speeds of at least 1.25GHz, so everyone can get out their calendars now and start dreaming about what the summer 2006 lineup will look like.

Super Talent & TEAM Join the Fast DDR2 Club

Super Talent & TEAM Join the Fast DDR2 Club

With both AMD and Intel solidly in the DDR2 camp memory makers have pulled out all the stops in creating new and faster DDR2 memory. The latest Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD AM2 platforms both support DDR2-800, and enthusiast memory makers have filled the market with DDR2-800, DDR2-1000, DDR2-1066, and even DDR2-1100 modules. The new DIMMs, mostly based on Micron memory chips, established memory timings of 3-3-3 as the newest standard for Enthusiast memory at DDR2-800. All of these new memories have also reached DDR2-1067 and beyond.

Even Value DDR2 became faster very quickly. Most of the value sticks began using Elpida memory, and while these were usually rated at DDR2-667 or DDR2-533, they managed to run at DDR2-800 at 4-3-3 timings at around 2.2V. None of the DDR2-800, DDR2-667, or DDR2-533 rated modules tested have been able to reach DDR2-1067, which is supported by recent Intel Socket 775 boards, but DDR2-800 at good timings is plenty fast for many users. You will find a recent roundup of Value DDR2 in the Value DDR2 section of theConroe Buying Guide. However, you will need to ignore the prices quoted just two months ago, because memory is in another period of price escalation. Some memory has increased 50% or more in price, and the great value 2GB memory kits for $150 are no where to be found.

From this stew of ever-escalating DDR2 memory prices, two brands have landed on our test bench that may not be familiar to all our readers - particularly at the high-end of memory performance. Super Talent and TEAM have both established a reputation of delivering solid value in memory, but they are not the names that normally come to mind when you think of the best memory available. However, both companies are out to prove their products are more than competitive when it comes to memory aimed at the computer enthusiast.

We were excited to look at both these new DDR2-1000 offerings because top DDR2 memory has become so expensive so fast. Both Super Talent and TEAM seem to have a knack for pricing their products at the value end of whatever speed they ship, and it was time to find out if the value was real, or whether there were performance penalties for the lower prices.

The first glance at the rated performance of both new modules was not particularly encouraging. Super Talent rates their T1000UX2G4 at 4-4-5-15 timings at DDR2-1000 with 2.2V . The important rating here is the 5 which represents RAS to CAS delay. TEAM is even more conservative than Super Talent, rating their DDR2-1000 at 5-5-5-15 at DDR2-1000 with 2.1V to 2.3V. These rated performance numbers compare to our champion Corsair and OCZ DDR2-1000 modules which both run with complete stability at 4-3-4-11 timings at 2.20V to 2.25V at DDR2-1067 - well above their rated speed. However, we have often seen much more conservative timing and speed ratings than the best memory can actually achieve, and this is particularly true with high-end memory. The proof is in what the memory can actually do in competitive memory benchmarking.

Corsair and OCZ: New Standards in Fast DDR2

The Fastest DDR2 from Corsair and OCZ

DDR2 memory has zoomed to the forefront recently, after several years of benign neglect by the enthusiast community. AMD, which has led the enthusiast market for the last couple of years, moved from DDR to DDR2 in late May. Intel Core 2 Duo was recently introduced and finally gave enthusiasts a reason to want to own Intel processors again. Suddenly, no matter what platform you wanted to buy, you found it was fueled by DDR2 memory.

As a result of the increased spotlight on DDR2, memory makers pulled out all the stops in creating new and faster DDR2 memory. The two newest platforms support DDR2-800, and enthusiast memory makers quickly brought DDR2-800, DDR2-1000, and DDR2-1066 modules to market. The new DIMMs, mostly based on Micron memory chips, established memory timings of 3-3-3 as the newest standard for enthusiast memory at DDR2-800. All of these new memories also reached DDR2-1067 and beyond. You can read more about high-performance DDR2 in our Conroe Buyers Guide.

Even value DDR2 became faster very quickly. Most of the value sticks are now using Elpida memory. These were rated at DDR2-667 or DDR2-533, but most managed to run at DDR2-800 at 4-3-3 timings at around 2.2V. None of the value RAM tested could reach DDR2-1067, but DDR2-800 at good timings is plenty fast for the majority of users. You will find a recent roundup of value DDR2 in the Value DDR2 section of the Conroe Buying Guide.

The enthusiast, by definition, is always looking for more - more speed, more power, more performance. The quest is for the best - performance so good and speeds so fast that no one can touch their results. You may even consider the enthusiast an elitist, but that is no different than the car enthusiast, a photography enthusiast, or any technology area where hobbyists can be found.

Corsair has a long and illustrious history as an innovator in the memory market. For many years the only recognizable brand of enthusiast memory was Corsair. OCZ has firmly established itself in recent years as one of the most creative makers of enthusiast memory with innovations like Extended Latency memory and high-voltage VX DIMMs for extreme overclockers. It was no surprise then, given the history of these two companies, to be contacted for a look at their newest and fastest DDR2 memory.

Both memory companies consider the modules tested here the best DDR2 they currently offer on the market. It is surprising then to see Corsair rate their DDR2 at DDR2-800 with specified 3-4-3 timings. OCZ rates the new Titanium Alpha at DDR2-1000 at 4-4-4 timings. As seen in the past, both OCZ and Corsair are often quite conservative in their ratings of their best memories. We were curious to see what these "best-of-the-best" could really do in our new Core 2 Extreme memory test bed.

Intel P965: DDR2-667 Memory Performance

We had a very interesting response to part one of our P965 Roundup. There was the central fact that we still have part two and three to deliver over the coming week. Yes, before anyone sends another message, both parts will be published by next Friday. However, there was one recurring theme in the hundreds of emails and private messages we received about the first article. This theme revolved around our choice of memory. We felt like dropping down to performance oriented DDR2-800 would be a better choice for this market in regards to price while it would still allow our P965 motherboards to overclock to their limits.

It turns out our choice of memory for the article is now priced higher than a lot of us make in a week. This was not our intention when we started the P965 roundup but over the course of the last eight weeks our GEIL DDR2-800 memory has witnessed an almost 60% increase in price. We have seen increases on average of 45% across the board since the beginning of summer in the general DDR2 market. The majority of higher end memory is experiencing even larger price increases along with very limited supply.

While we are finishing testing on two recently received P965 motherboards for the value sector roundup we decided to see how our new "value" performance memory would fair on the Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 motherboard. Of course, this new value range is now DDR2-667 memory with typical timings of 4-4-4-12 and prices hovering around $220 for a 2GB kit. We decided to test 2GB memory kits from five different manufacturers to see how well they would perform with optimized timings at DDR2-667, DDR2-800, and however far we could overclock them before they went up in flames. Actually, there were no flames and we promise none of our modules were hurt during testing. Before we get to the results, let's take a quick look at our testbed.

Test System: Benchmark Setup

Performance Test Bed Configuration
Processor:	Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz, 2MB Unified Cache)
RAM:	Various
Hard Drive:	Seagate 320GB 7200RPM SATA2 16MB Buffer
System Platform Drivers:	Intel - 8.1.1.1001
Video Cards:	1 x MSI X1950XTX
Video Drivers:	MSI/ATI Catalyst 6.10
CPU Cooling:	Scythe Infinity
Power Supply:	OCZ GameXstream 700W
Optical Drive:	Sony 18X AW-Q170A-B2
Case:	Cooler Master CM Stacker 830
Motherboards:	Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 (Intel P965 C2) - BIOS F7
Operating System:	Windows XP Professional SP2
.

We are utilizing our standard benchmark testbed from our P965 Roundup article. We chose several different DDR2-667 memory modules that were previously tested in our Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 motherboard for compatibility. Our memory choices represent an excellent blend of performance at today's inflated prices, although we are finally starting to see some price stabilization in the DDR2 market.

A 2GB memory configuration is now standard in the AnandTech testbed as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory. We highly recommend 2GB based upon the pending arrival of Microsoft Windows Vista, newly released games, and video encoding requirements at this time with H.264 standards. We are utilizing the MSI X1950XTX video card to ensure our 1280x1024 resolutions are not completely GPU bound for our memory test results. Our video tests are run at 1280x1024 resolution for this article at standard settings. Let's see how well our five choices faired and if the overclocking results reveal any surprises.

Conroe vs. AM2: Memory & Performance

Core 2 Duo (Conroe) launched about twelve days ago with a lot of fanfare. With the largest boost in real performance the industry has seen in almost a decade it is easy to understand the big splash Core 2 Duo has made in a very short time. AnandTech delivered an in-depth analysis of CPU performance in Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back. With so much new and exciting information about Conroe's performance, it is easy to assume that since Core 2 Duo uses DDR2, just like NetBurst, then memory performance must therefore be very similar to the DDR2-based Intel NetBurst architecture.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. While the chipsets still include 975X and the new P965 and the CPU is still Socket T, the shorter pipes, 4 MB unified cache, intelligent look-ahead, and more work per clock cycle all contribute to Conroe exhibiting very different DDR2 memory behavior. It would be easy to say that Core 2 Duo is more like the AMD AM2, launched May 23^rd, which now supports DDR2 memory as well. That would be a stretch, however, since AM2 uses an efficient on-processor memory controller, and the launch review found Core 2 Duo faster at the same clock speed than the current AM2. This is another way of saying Conroe is capable of doing more work per cycle - something we had been saying for several years about Athlon64 compared to NetBurst,

The move by AMD from Socket 939 to Socket AM2 is pretty straightforward. The new AM2 processors will continue to be built using the same 90nm manufacturing process currently used for Athlon 64 processors until some time in early to mid-2007. AMD will then slowly roll-out their 65nm process from the bottom of the line to the top according to AMD road-maps. This could include memory controller enhancements and possibly more. Performance of AM2 only changed very slightly with the move to DDR2, generally in the range of 0% to 5%. The only substantive difference with AM2 is the move from DDR memory to official AMD DDR2 memory support.

Our AM2 launch reviews and the article First Look: AM2 DDR2 vs. 939 DDR Performance found that AM2 with DDR2-533 memory performed roughly the same as the older Socket 939 with fast DDR400 memory. Memory faster than DDR2-533, namely DDR2-667 and DDR2-800, brought slightly higher memory performance to AM2.

The Core 2 Duo introduction is quite different. Clock speed moved down and performance moved up. The top Core 2 Duo, the X6800, is almost 1GHz slower than the older top NetBurst chip and performs 35% to 45% faster. With the huge efficiency and performance increases comes different behavior with DDR2 memory.

With the world now united behind DDR2, it is time to take a closer look at how DDR2 behaves on both the new Intel Core 2 Duo and the AMD AM2 platforms. The performance of both new DDR2 platforms will also be compared to NetBurst DDR2 performance, since the DDR2 NetBurst Architecture has been around for a couple of years and is familiar. We specifically want to know the measured latency of each new platform, how they compare in memory bandwidth, and the scaling of both Core 2 Duo and AM2 as we increase memory speed to DDR2-1067 and beyond. With this information and tests of the same memory on each platform, we hope to be able to answer whether memory test results on Conroe, for instance, will tell us how the memory will perform on AM2.

In addition we have an apples-apples comparison of AM2 and Core 2 Duo running at 2.93GHz (11x266) using the same memory at the same timings and voltages with the same GPU, hard drive, and PSU. This allows a direct memory comparison at 2.93GHz at DDR2-1067. It also provides some very revealing performance results for Core 2 Duo and AM2 at the exact same speeds in the same configurations.

Mid-Range DDR2-800 from G.Skill

Mid-Range DDR2-800 from G.Skill

Many readers have been looking for DDR2-800 as memory prices sky-rocketed over the last couple of months. Now that memory prices are dropping, there is less pressure to save money with DDR2-800 instead of top-line DDR2-1000 or DDR2-1066. However, the question still remains whether a step down to DDR2-800 will save a few bucks while delivering performance about as good as the top DDR2 memory.

Almost every major memory manufacturer has DDR2-800 parts, but the ones of greatest interest to hobbyists are those from well-known high-end memory makers. G.Skill seemed to come out of nowhere a couple of years ago to establish themselves as a manufacturer of enthusiast memory. They got exposure and won credibility with Forum targeting and a sharply focused advertising campaign. G.Skill distributes a full line of desktop and notebook memory products, and the line includes a 2GB DDR2-800 4-4-4 kit at a mid-level price in the $300 range.

G.Skill DDR2-800 Specifications

Since it has only recently appeared on the US and European scene, it was a little surprising to find that G.Skill has been producing memory products since 1989. Manufacturing is based in Taipei, Taiwan and G.Skill serves memory markets in most of the world. The G.Skill website provides English, German, Chinese, and Korean versions - typical of the Taiwanese websites that cater to world markets.

As you will see on the website G.Skill targets the computer enthusiast, with a strong emphasis on overclocking and extreme performance. The DDR2 product line includes kits rated from DDR2-533 to DDR2-1067. DDR2-800 kits include both 1GB (2x512MB) and 2GB (2x1GB) kits rated at 5-5-5-15, 4-4-4-12, and 3-4-3-8.

Competitive with other high-end memory makers, G.Skill provides a Lifetime Warranty with their memory products. The RMA form can be accessed at the web site. Technical support and a Users Forum are also available at the website.

To satisfy readers' requests for a mainstream DDR2-800 memory product we selected the DDR2-800 2GB kit rated at 4-4-4-12. You can also buy cheaper DDR2-800 G.Skill kits at e-tailers like www.newegg.com. A 2GB G.Skill 5-5-5-15 kit sells for $210 to $260, some $40 to $90 less than the faster 4-4-4-12.

The G.Skill F2-6400PHU2-2GBHZ 2GB kit is supplied with attractive gloss black heatspreaders with a G.Skill logo in brushed metal. Many G.Skill DIMMs do not even have heat-spreaders, and G.Skill seems to reserve the heatspreaders for their top memory.

G.Skill builds their DIMMs with Micron D9 memory chips - the same chips we have described as top performers in every recent high-end memory review. However, the binning for these chips is a bit different. G.Skill uses Micron D9GMH chips rated at 333, 3ns in this 4-4-4-12 DDR2-800 kit. Most top-end DIMMs use D9GKX chips which are binned for higher specs. Still, with Micron D9 chips, we expect excellent overclocking with these G.Skill DIMMs.

G.Skill F2-6400PHU2-2GBHZ Memory Specifications
Number of DIMMs & Banks	2 DS
DIMM Size	1GB
Total Memory	2 GB
Rated Timings	4-4-4-12 at DDR2-800
Rated Voltage	2.0V to 2.1V

While top-end Micron memory chips have easily delivered 3-3-3 timings at DDR2-800, G.Skill rates this memory kit at slower 4-4-4 timings. The good news, however, is the more modest 2.0V-2.1V specification for memory voltage. This is much lower than the 2.2V-2.3V that is normally required for DDR2-800 at 3-3-3 timings. It also represents memory voltages that are normally available even on more basic Core 2 Duo and AM2 motherboards.

The memory chips are slower bins from the best chips available. Timings are a bit slower and voltage specs are more reasonable. The question remains whether the G.Skill DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 kits are a top-of-the-line memory in disguise, or whether there are compromises to top performance? Does the cost/performance of these DDR2-800 modules represent real value to buyers?

Corsair Dominator PC2-10000: Fastest DDR2

Corsair seems determined to hold the record for the highest memory speed in production memory. We recently reviewed the highest speed memory available at the time in Corsair Dominator DDR2-1111 (PC2-8888). Several other memory makers tried to match or surpass the Corsair speed record and Corsair responded with PC2-10000 (DDR2-1250) which was first demonstrated at CES earlier this month. A few short weeks after CES we have production PC2-10000 fresh from Corsair for testing.

To put memory speed in perspective, consider a few facts. Core 2 Duo provides synchronous support for DDR2-533, which is the DDR (double data rate) match to the base Core 2 Duo bus of 266. The 266 is quad pumped so the "real" processor bus speed is 1067. Intel Core 2 Duo chipsets support faster memory speeds as well - DDR2-667, DDR2-800, and DDR2-1066. AM2 also supports memory speeds to DDR2-800, but the AM2 controller does not support DDR2-1066 at this time.

In a world where you rarely find DDR2 memory rated at even DDR2-1067, Corsair Dominator DDR2-1250 is a very fast speed rating. Considering that many of our readers are searching for good value DDR2-800 when building a new system, the PC2-10000 sounds like it is worlds ahead of anything available. In some ways it is, but it should also be asked what compromises were made to reach this new speed rating?

Where the Corsair PC2-8888 is rated at 4-4-4 timings at DDR2-1111, Dominator 1250 is rated at a higher 5-5-5 latency at its specified 1250 speed. In addition, Corsair was very clear that this PC2-10000 performed best on the NVIDIA 680i chipset. Boards based on the 680i, like the EVGA 680i SLI and the ASUS P5N32-E SLI Plus, certainly have the headroom to support DDR2-1250, but they are also very expensive motherboards. Corsair also told us, just before publishing the review, that new P965 boards designed for massive overclocking, like the ASUS Commando, have been reported to support PC2-10000 at the rated speed.

Corsair PC2-10000 is the new top dog in the Dominator series - a name used for the highest speed memories produced by Corsair. As you can see from the chart below, the Dominator family has grown rapidly, and now includes six high-performance kits.

Cosair XMS2 Dominator Modules
PART NUMBER	SPEED	SIZE	LATENCY	KIT	FAN
TWIN2X2048-10000C5DF	XMS2-10000	2048MB	5-5-5-18	2X240DIMM	Yes
TWIN2X2048-9136C5D	XMS2-9136	2048MB	5-5-5-15	2X240DIMM	No
TWIN2X2048-8888C4DF	XMS2-8888	2048MB	4-4-4-12	2X240DIMM	Yes
TWIN2X2048-8500C5D	XMS2-8500	2048MB	5-5-5-15	2X240DIMM	No
TWIN2X2048-6400C3DF	XMS2-6400	2048MB	3-4-3-9	2X240DIMM	Yes
TWIN2X2048-6400C4D	XMS2-6400	2048MB	4-4-4-12	2X240DIMM	No

Some of the kits, including the DDR2-1250 being tested, come standard with a Corsair designed cooling fan. The memory cooling fan attaches to the locking clips of the memory slots.

For Dominator kits without the fan, the Dominator Airflow fan kit is available for about $20. The Corsair fan kit also works well with any high-performance memory you choose to install. It is highly recommended for cooling any memory you choose to use in your system.

OCZ Flex 9200 and Corsair Dominator 8800 both approached high performance with an eye to lower latency as well as speed. Dominator 10000 appears to aim for the highest speed with relaxed latencies. Which approach works best? Is the new Dominator 10000 the fastest memory tested so far? Where does the DDR2-1250 Dominator fit in the high performance memory arena? These are questions we will try to answer in benchmarking Corsair Dominator XMS2-10000.

As·sump·tion - an assuming that something is true; a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted. A very power

The memory market has been rather routine lately. After the introductions of AMD AM2 and Intel Core 2 Duo memory was a unified solution again - with both camps supporting DDR2. Micron had the best chips, as they have almost since the first DDR2 DIMMs became available, and the top of the memory heap could do DDR2-1067 to DDR2 1100 at spectacular 4-4-3 timings and the more mainstream DDR2-800 at 3-3-3 timings. The best memory was expensive, at about $400 to $500 for a 2GB kit, and the mid and value performed almost as well, but at about half the price.

Buyers have shopped for a value/mid memory solution if cost was a big concern. With memory bandwidth not making a huge difference in performance on either the C2D or AM2 solutions, many were not willing to invest in the best memory available. Those who did want the best could choose from Corsair, OCZ, Mushkin, Patriot, Team, G.Skill, Kingston, Geil, and Super Talent but there was very little to distinguish between the top performers. Perhaps a company might have done a better job of binning chips for the high-end, but the real differences were small and they mostly looked the same - different-colored heatspreaders combined with some variations on how to build a heat-spreader that stood out from the crowd.

Enter OCZ with a new idea - memory with built-in water blocks. OCZ Flex XLC is built for record-setting performance in regular air cooling, with the option to cool with water when you want even more. It is sold with the heatsinks and nipples to connect water-tubing and it is aggressively binned to provide unheard of performance levels in overclocking - on either air or water.

The new OCZ solution certainly looks impressive, but AnandTech readers are used to pretty packages. The real question is whether OCZ Flex XLC delivers the performance it promises. Does OCZ's bold new approach deliver the record-setting performance it promises?

Lab Update - Patriot Memory Viper Series DDR3-1333

As·sump·tion - an assuming that something is true; a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted. A very powerful word if we might say so and one that can generally get us in trouble while reviewing hardware. During the course of testing for our upcoming DDR3 roundup, we assumed a few items to be true about the memory we were reviewing. Turns out, our assumptions were off the mark, but for good reason.

Our first assumption is that we should concentrate on the DDR3-1600 kits as they provided a wide range of flexibility for most users. Most of the performance oriented kits would easily hit DDR3-1800+ at decent timings and voltages, satisfying the overclocking needs of all but the hardcore enthusiasts while at the same time allowing very tight timings at lower clock speeds for applications that responded best to a combination of bandwidth and low latencies.

The reason for choosing DDR3-1600 first is that the initial DDR3-1066 and DDR3-1333 6GB kits we received generally clocked about 100MHz~200MHz above their rated speeds and latency improvements required voltages above 1.65V in most cases on our i7 platform. In addition, pricing was not that much less on a per Gigabyte basis, which certainly justified our higher performing selections at the time. By chance, we were looking at 6GB kit prices on Newegg and NCIX last month and noticed a couple of DDR3-1333 6GB kits had dropped below the $100 mark (a virtual flood of 6GB kits are now hitting the $100 mark).

These kits were not available when we started collecting review samples a few weeks ago so we ordered a new Patriot Viper DDR3-1333 (PVT36G1333ELK) 6GB kit for a very reasonable price of $93.99 plus free shipping. Our reason was simple, we just wanted to see how well the latest “budget” DDR3 product on the market clocked and if our assumptions were still correct about the first 1066/1333 kits we received. Considering our test results with the Patriot kit, we checked the credit line and ordered several “budget” 6GB kits from GSkill, Mushkin, Crucial, OCZ, Corsair, and others to feature in our roundup.

We based our second assumption on test results with our DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2000 kits providing the best possible performance on the i7 platform, especially for those overclocking the 920 processors. Our reasoning for sticking with the higher end kits was sound until recent events. The i7 platform was an expensive proposition for most users who wanted to upgrade with decent motherboards costing $300, the “budget” 920 processor going for nearly $300, and 6GB low voltage DDR3 kits costing a good $225 or higher for products that could keep up with the 920 overclocks. This resulted in a very niche market condition and one that if you had to ask the price then you probably were not going to be able to afford it.

A few weeks later, we have X58 motherboards selling for $170 with rebates, a new i7 processor stepping (D0) coming from Intel that promises a little extra headroom in clock rates, and 6GB DDR3 kits selling for around $90. The entry cost to get into an i7 platform has dropped about 34% in the last six weeks if you are pinching pennies like most of us. Guess what, the performance difference in platform selections then and now is less than 2% at best. Only those who plan on serious overclocking need to worry about spending more, but that is always the case.

Another factor in dropping prices is the rise from ashes act that AMD has accomplished with the Phenom II product line. True, it is not in the same performance category as the i7 when it comes to crunching numbers or heavy manipulation of digital content, but the Phenom II is extremely competitive on a price/performance basis when looking at the big picture. Pairing up the current Phenom II X3 720BE with either a DDR2/DDR3 based 790FX/GX motherboard results in some of the best bang for the buck performance you are likely to experience this year, at least until the new X4 95x series comes out.

Of course, Intel has the P55 platform launching later this year and we mention that because DDR3 will soon become the memory of choice for anyone upgrading to a new platform. The Phenom II platform lets you retain your current DDR2 based AM2+ setup until you decide to make the switch and we will soon see that is not a bad option from an everyday performance or cost viewpoint. However, those who need the absolute best performance from the Phenom II should go the DDR3 route at this point.

All that said, we are here today to take a first look at the Patriot Viper Series (PVT36G1333ELK) DDR3-1333 CAS9 6GB memory kit. Heresy, one might claim looking at the specs but this kit delivers the flexibility we have been seeking, only at a lower price point. Until we finish testing our recent "budget" arrivals, we thought it prudent to provide a quick look at how well this particular memory kit clocks and if it higher memory speeds actually matter at stock processor speeds or mild overclocks.

Corsair Dominator DDR2-1111: Dual-Path Cooling Pushes Performance

It is really good to see the kind of innovation that is going on in the memory market right now. In recent reviews there were many comments about "cookie-cutter" sameness in DDR2 memory products. Then OCZ introduced their innovative Flex XLC memory with the option of water cooling that we covered in OCZ Flex XLC: PC2-9200 Pushes the Envelope. That memory shook up notions of what represented an enthusiast memory product.

Even before Flex XLC was introduced Corsair was shaking up the high-end memory market with their new Corsair Dominator memory. We had first used Dominator modules in our review of the NVIDIA 680i motherboard. The Dominator memory was a big contributor to the record-setting memory performance we achieved on that board. That experience meant we needed to follow up the Flex XLC review with a review of another memory to break out of the ordinary - Corsair Dominator.

Our samples tested with the 680i were DDR2-1142, which actually topped by a few MHz the incredible DDR2-1300 we achieved with the OCZ. The Corsair Dominator 1142 pioneered a unique taller PCB board with integrated fin cooling and an optional top cooling fan.

The look and functionality of the DDR2-1142 Dominator memory, fully decked out, certainly gets your attention. However, when we approached Corsair about reviewing the 1142 Dominator they suggested we look at their latest super high speed product, which is Corsair Dominator DDR2-1111 (PC2-8888). We were told that while the 1111 is rated a bit slower the performance rating is at CAS 4 instead of CAS 5 like the 1142. That meant the 1111 was actually a faster memory with the promise of lower latency.

Corsair remains one of the most innovative companies in the memory market. If there is a something new in the memory market, you can count on the fact that either Corsair introduced it or they have a very similar product. It is no surprise then to see such an innovative new memory product from Corsair. The dual-path cooling and extremely high speed ratings are pretty exciting. The question, of course, is how the Corsair Dominator DDR2-1111 4-4-4 actually performs in our tests systems. Is it the equal of the other top RAM in the market, or does it set new performance standards for DDR2 memory? We will find answers to those questions in our Memory Test beds.

DDR3 vs. DDR2

About three years ago DDR2 memory first appeared on the desktop PC scene. It would be impossible to say it burst on the scene since it was introduced with the unimpressive Intel NetBurst processors. In that market DDR2 was more like a trickle since it was mainly a curiosity for a processor that was running a distant second place to the leading AMD Athlon chips, which were still powered by DDR memory.

DDR2 finally became the universal standard last May/June when AMD switched to DDR2 on their new AM2 platform and Intel introduced Core 2 Duo, the new CPU performance leader. Core 2 Duo resided on socket 775, which also was fed by DDR2. While it sometimes seems like centuries ago, it is worth remembering that Intel Core 2 Duo regained the CPU performance crown less than a year ago, and the two years prior to that all the fastest systems used AMD Athlon 64/X2/FX processors.

We compared performance of DDR2 on the new platforms in July of last year. AM2 provided better bandwidth with DDR2, but the better AM2 bandwidth did not translate into better performance. Since Core 2 Duo was faster at the same timings, it appeared the Intel Core 2 Duo architecture was not particularly bandwidth hungry and that it made very good use of the DDR2 bandwidth that was available with the chipset memory controller.

Since last May/June DDR2 has finally turned the market, and it has made some remarkable transformations along the way. The early 5-5-5 timings at the official DDR2-800 speed have since been replaced by several high performance memories capable of 3-3-3 timings at DDR2-800. The best memory at DDR2-1066 can now operate at 4-4-3 timings, and the fastest DDR2 is now around DDR2-1266 and still getting faster.

Perhaps even more remarkable, in the last year DDR2 memory prices have dropped to half of what they once were (sometimes more), and today DDR2 is often cheaper than the DDR memory it replaced. Compared to the very expensive prices at launch and into the holiday buying season we see DDR2 is now the memory price standard in the desktop computer market.

Fast forward a year and Intel is now launching their first chipsets to support DDR3 memory. In one of the sloppiest NDA launches in recent memory we already have P35 boards for sale since early May. The official chipset introduction is scheduled for May 21^st and boards are "officially" launching into the retail channel on June 4^th.

We can tell you that Intel does not really have an NDA, but they have been very aggressive in holding first tier manufacturers to a May 21^st performance embargo and retail distribution on June 4^th. Despite that, people around the world have been able to buy P35 boards from several retailers. We have retail boards we bought on the open market, which makes the 21^st NDA a moot point in our opinion. Still, we value our relationship with both Intel and the major board makers, so this will not be a full P35 launch review. You will see that coming on May 21^st.

What this review does address is the performance of the new DDR3 memory that is launched with P35. The new Intel P35 chipset, known as Bearlake during development, supports either DDR2 or DDR3 memory. This presented a perfect opportunity to look at the performance of both DDR3 and DDR2 on the new P35 chipset. We were also able to compare performance to a Gold Editors' Choice Intel P965 motherboard. The results of these comparisons provided interesting results about the capabilities of the new P35 memory controller. It also answered the question of whether you should care about DDR3 in any upcoming system purchase.

The memory industry of late has been amazing in its ability to launch impossible memory speeds at impossible timings. At the technology launch of the

The technology launch of Intel's new G35 chipset - the first to support DDR3 - occurred just 3 days ago. At launch most reviewers were intrigued by the potential of DDR3 but less than excited about the high latencies and high prices that were available at launch. As you saw in Intel P35: Intel's Mainstream Chipset Grows Upand Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look our first two samples of DDR3 were rated at DDR3-1066 and 7-7-7-20 timings. These DIMMs would also run at DDR3-1333 with 9-9-9-25 timings. While performance at both speeds was promising, we were left to wonder when lower latency DDR3 might become available.

The higher latency DDR3 at launch certainly gave the top DDR2 a run for the money, but it generally took much higher speeds to match or surpass current DDR2 with low latency timings. It was clear lower latency would bring DDR3 much improved performance and make it even more attractive to buyers, but we assumed it would likely be months until we saw lower latency DDR3 - as it was in the launch of DDR2.

With this scenario, imagine our surprise when Kingston asked us if we would like to review their first low-latency DDR3. Where the competition was 9-9-9 at DDR3-1333 and 7-7-7- at DDR3 1066, Kingston specified their new DDR3 memory at 7-7-7 at 1333 and 6-6-6 at 1066. These were definitely some memory sticks we wanted to review.

If these numbers still seem high to you, you need to back up a bit for a larger perspective. While lower speed DDR2 can have latencies as fast as 3, DDR3 starts at 800 and the boards we have seen only allow CAS latencies as low as 5. The CAS range on better P35 boards is normally 5 to 10. Given this range of available latencies at higher speeds than DDR2, it is clear the new Kingston KHX11000D3llK2/2G has found ways to provide the lowest latencies so far in DDR3.

Keep in mind that the actual latency in nanoseconds is what really matters, so while the number of memory cycles from DDR2-533 CL3 through DD2-667 CL4, DDR2/3-800 CL5, DDR3-1067 CL7, and DDR3-1333 CL9 increases, the actual latency in ns only ranges from 11.25ns (DDR2-533 CL3) to a maximum of 13.5ns (DDR3-1333 CL9). While CL7 may sound like a high latency, achieving that with 1333 MHz memory is actually results in a time latency of 10.5ns, and of course that's with much higher bandwidth than some of the other memory speeds.

We presented detailed comparisons of memory performance on the current P965, DDR2 on the P35, and DDR3 on the P35 just last week. This allowed us to run a full suite of comparison tests using the same configurations used in Intel P35 Memory Performance: A Closer Look. Those wondering whether DDR3 can compete with low-latency DDR2, and when that might happen will get some answers to their questions in this comparison.

Super Talent & TEAM: DDR3-1600 Is Here!

The memory industry of late has been amazing in its ability to launch impossible memory speeds at impossible timings. At the technology launch of the P35 chipset on May 21st all of the DDR3 memory available for testing was rated DDR3-1066. Interestingly all of the DDR3 also ran fine at the next milestone of DDR3-1333, albeit at timings of 9-9-9-25. These timings sound slow to DDR users accustomed to 2-2-2 timings at DDR400 or DDR2 users running at DDR2-800 3-3-3, but in fact at the increased speeds of DDR3 these timings were reasonably fast.

It took less than a week for low-latency DDDR3-1333 to appear with the launch of Kingston's new DDR3-1333 7-7-7 memory. This new memory dropped those 9-9-9 timings to 7-7-7 at 1333 and ran at 1066 at 6-6-6 timings - about as fast as the DDR3 BIOS would allow at that speed. It was interesting to see reader comments to the Kingston LL article, with some proclaiming they would not move to DDR3 until it could hit DDR3-1600. We believed, as did most readers, that DDR3-1600 would appear sometime next year, probably as 9-9-9 parts.

Less than 2 months after the launch of P35, and just a few days after launch of the processors that can officially use the new 1333 bus, we were notified by several vendors that they were ready to launch DDR3-1600! Some rated the new DIMMs at 9-9-9 timings, but others like Super Talent rated their retail DDR3-1600 at 7-7-7 timings at 1.8V.

Almost all memory makers buy raw memory chips available in the market, perform their magic binning or speed-grading, and assemble the finished DIMM using generic or proprietary circuit boards and SPD programming. There are always some variations on performance of different brand DIMMs, but we always see a cluster of memory performance based on the memory chip used in the memory. In the last couple of weeks Micron has finally introduced their new DDR3 memory chip, called Z9, and this memory chip is what is making DDR3-1600 and beyond a reality.

All of the major memory manufacturers have just announced or will soon announce DDR3-1600 parts. Many of the smaller makers have also developed DDR3-1600 parts. Of course you are interested in how these new memory rockets perform, and samples were requested whenever we received a new announcement. The first two kits to appear in our lab are from Super Talent and TEAM. Both kits are 2GB (2x1GB) based on a single-sided DIMM. This certainly means there will potentially be 4GB kits available with these new memory chips down the road, but the timings for a 4GB Z9 kit are still open for speculation. The Super Talent kit is rated DDR3-1600 7-7-7 at 1.8V, and the TEAM is rated DDR3-1600 at 9-9-9 at unspecified (default for DDR3 is 1.5V) voltage.

In this review we will take a closer look at the capabilities of these new DDR3-1600 DIMMs based on Micron Z9 memory chips. What are the best timings possible at DDR3-1600? Can these new parts reach DDR3-2000, which will be the next DDR3 speed, or even higher? What timings are possible at slower DDDR3 speeds? Does the faster DDR3 really improve performance compared to DDR2 and DDR?

Cell Shock, Corsair, and Kingston Introduce Ultra Speed DDR3

We're still working on providing detailed results, but one of the interesting aspects of the new Intel X38 chipset is that memory performance improves with X38 - but only with DDR3 memory. Improvements over P35 range from 3 to 5% with DDR3, but there are no real improvements in DDR2 performance compared to P35. It should be clear to enthusiasts at this point that DDR3 appears to offer more potential for high performance than DDR2. This is certainly borne out by the dramatic memory speed increases that have been achieved with DDR3 so quickly after introduction.

There are still early issues with X38 and it will take a while for the market to sort these out, but we do expect BIOS updates and potentially hardware revisions to fix the major issues in the near future. When that happens X38 will fill the position of top performer in the Intel chipset lineup, and DDR3 memory will be the memory of choice for best performance. Looking toward that end, what DDR3 memory is best for X38 and P35 based DDR3 motherboards?

Memory based on the exciting new Micron Z9 memory chips for DDR3 first appeared a few days after the Intel P35 launch in late July. We took a look at these early high-speed DDR3 in Super Talent and TEAM: DDR3-1600 is Here! The Super Talent memory was very memorable in that review as it was the first memory product to ever reach a stable DDR3-2000 speed. OCZ followed with a refinement of the early Micron products and introduced their own higher speed DDR3-1800 a couple of weeks later, which we reviewed inOCZ Introduces DDR3-1800. OCZ extended the performance even further with stable DDR3-2040 performance and the even more remarkable DDR3-1900 at 7-7-7 timings.

It was very clear from these early products that DDR3 was well on its way to becoming the performance memory of choice, and Micron had once again succeeded in producing some of the best high-performance DDR3 chips available to the market. It has taken a couple of months for early issues to sort out and for production of the Micron Z9 chips to reach supply levels. Micron DDR3 chips are finally here in quantity, as should be evident in the new high speed memory kits from Cell Shock, Corsair, and Kingston.

As explained in the past, all memory makers buy raw memory chips available in the open market. They then rate or "bin" the chips to create one or more speed grades from a single chip type. Memory chips are then surface-mounted on generic or proprietary circuit boards with SPD (Serial Presence Detect) chips programmed with generic code or custom SPD programming done by the DIMM maker. This is why the introduction of fast new chips like the Micron Z9 often circulates rapidly through the enthusiast memory market as each manufacturer tries to introduce products based on the new chips with tweaks that outdo the competition.

Some memory makers do not like to talk about the chips used in their DIMMs, as they consider that information proprietary, but this secrecy does not normally last very long. The enthusiast memory market quickly migrates to the best performing chips and you will see the same memory chips used in many top memory kits. However, this does not mean the memory you buy from Super Talent, for example, is exactly the same as memory based on the same chips that you buy from Corsair. Companies pride themselves on the sophistication of their speed-grading technology, their design and/or sourcing of PCBs, and their skill at programming the SPD. Those skills do lead to performance differences among brands - some large and some small.

Despite the real differences in memory performance from different memory makers, memory using the same memory chips tends to cluster in test results. You can usually see a clear pattern of performance from a particular memory chip that tips you off to which memory chip is used in different memory kits.

One of the more interesting results in our tests of the Super Talent DDR3-1600 and OCZ DDR3-1800 was that both memories managed to overclock to DDR3-2000, which is the highest performance we have ever measured for system memory. This memory speed is almost double the top speed for DDR2 and establishes DDR3 as the memory of choice where maximum performance is the main concern. The OCZ RAM, which had a couple of more weeks to refine the binning and SPD, reached slightly further to DDR3-2040 with complete stability.

Will these new DDR3-1800 parts also reach DDR3-2000? With a couple of months more time for refinement is it possible they can do even better than the great results we have already seen with DDR3? Are the performance results for DDR3 on the X38 and P35 so compelling they move the check box to DDR3 despite the price premium that still exists for DDR3? Our review today will help to answer these questions.

In Memory Of The Law: The Memory Industry's Legal Problems

In 1890 the United States government passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law that formed the bedrock of the United States' policy against monopolies and other unfair forms of competition. In the many years since then, further acts have been passed to amend the law, and the Government has in time made the correction of anti-competitive actions one of its more important roles. What started with the breaking up of truly gigantic corporations like Standard Oil and AT&T has moved on to include dealing with cartels that while not of a single corporation, act at times in manners similar that result in anti-competitive actions taking place.

If we were to take a cursory glance at the computing industry as a whole and try to pinpoint the areas where anti-competitive legal issues were likely to occur, we'd look at areas like CPUs and GPUs, where only a couple of serious competitors exist in each, or operating systems, where Microsoft has and continues to have a de facto monopoly. While these areas do in fact have issues, we would be missing an area that has shown some of the worst behavior. It turns out that the memory industry is one of the greatest offenders.

Generally speaking, it's counter-intuitive to see the memory industry as being a hotbed of legal woes due to the highly competitive nature of the market. With the JEDEC association setting very rigorous standards for RAM, products are quite literally perfectly competitive (from a non-overclocker's point of view): a part specified to meet a certain JEDEC RAM standard should be just as good as any other part that adheres to the same specification. As a result, OEMs can and do switch RAM on a regular basis depending on who can supply it at the lowest cost, and as a result we usually see the memory market operate as it is: a highly competitive market in which multiple companies supply the same good.

But didn't we just say that the memory market is one of the greatest antitrust offenders? Yes, for in spite of the memory market being very cutthroat, it's also an industry that is subject to highly volatile demand. It can be extremely profitable as a result when demand is far outstripping supply and it takes years to bring new fabs online to produce additional memory. It's the profitability of these periods that keeps nearly a dozen major companies in the business. With such volatility however, it also opens the window for manipulation of this volatility - if now is not a boom year, why not make it one?

Over just the last decade, the memory industry has been through no less than three major shakeups. The first is the infamous and now settled Rambus patent case, started in 2000 when Rambus asserted that it held patents on technology used in DDR RAM and wanted royalties as such, only to be found guilty of breaking antitrust and deception laws in acquiring these patents and covertly trying to influence the memory market. The second case involves the "Big 10" memory manufacturers colluding to keep RAM prices artificially high between 1998 and 2002, to which they were found guilty. Finally, a new investigation has opened up as of this year into the flash memory market, where the Justice Department is trying to figure out if there is evidence of collusion and price-fixing there too.

Today we'll be taking a look at the latter two actions, one just wrapping up while another begins. What exactly went on in these cases? How are or potentially were consumers hurt by all of this? What has been done to punish the offenders and to correct the market? Let's find out.