The only reason I can see Geil and OCZ both being on the cover with two sticks is that they both had two types of memory being represented under the same brand. Obviously if you read the article!
Yes, my mistake. I completely missed that. I thought they were only reviewing one stick per company.
The performance of the OCZ memory was superior to the the competition and they only showed a graph of the EL DDR memory clocking a 490FSB! Whooping on everything that was being compared to. How dare they show such results!
I never mentioned that there's a problem with showing results. I was going on the belief that each company was representing only one given stick of memory so, given my short, cursory glance at this article, it appeared odd that I was seeing more stats for a given product. Also, what the graphs show is that their
particular stick of OCZ memory performed better than the competition. There are many other sites who have had much better luck with Corsair XMS 3500 RAM. In fact, one site was able to reach around 485 MHz. Now, granted, that still doesn't match the OCZ overclock that this site got, but the point is clear: overclockability of a product is much a gambling proccess (which will lead to my last point).
Give me evidence before stating that OCZ is Geil and vice versa.
Notice the question mark I put at the end of my insinuation? That means that I suspect such a thing is true but concede that I have no proof. Read closer
.
The Last Point:
I give much credit to the OCZ for producing such a stick of memory. To use a cliche. Don't hate, congratulate.
Credit should be given where deserved. Yes, it appears that OCZ EL RAM is a pretty high performing product, but given their shady history; their deplorable showing on resellerratings.com; and their past record of changing company names in order to escape bad press, I find giving respect, let alone trust, to such a company nigh impossible. And to use another cliche: buyer beware.