OCZ 256MB PC-3500 Dual Channel EL-DDR question

https://www.ramstore.ca/showproduct.php?id=132&PHPSESSID=a465d50f63f2ffc597d73645eaaf2506

feedback on this ram please, dual channel worth the cost, and do not freak out price is canadian about 108 US

cisco kid

Hope this review helps you.

anyone notice that a plethora of postive reviews for OCZ, are on sites with similar names (OCPrices, OCAddiction, etc.)? Just thought I'd throw that one out there...also, plz note the OCZ ADVERTISMENT on the linked page. OCZ might be the best ram in the world, but that review is certainly too biased to be worth anything. Again, my opinion...

malon said:

Hope this review helps you.

Click to expand...

THANKS THAT IS A GREAT REVIEW

Cisco KId

conscript said:

anyone notice that a plethora of postive reviews for OCZ, are on sites with similar names (OCPrices, OCAddiction, etc.)? Just thought I'd throw that one out there...also, plz note the OCZ ADVERTISMENT on the linked page. OCZ might be the best ram in the world, but that review is certainly too biased to be worth anything. Again, my opinion...

Click to expand...

OK I just read that review on the OCZ and im impressed, plus the reviewer stated he got it from a regular retailer which only means it can legitimately hit those speeds for everyone. Or am I being naive? The reviewer only really gave special attention to OCZ for the blazing speeds it ramped up to. I would to.

malon said:

Hope this review helps you.

Click to expand...

There's something very fishy about this review. First off, the picture at the beginning of the article shows 2 sticks of Geil (OCZ incognito?) and 2 sticks of OCZ. Why does this site feel the need to include a total of 4 sticks of OCZ RAM in a picture of 8 RAM sticks in a shootout on RAM? Also, the site includes a screenshot of the Sandra memory bandwidth test only for the OCZ stick and neglects to include screenies for any of the other sticks of RAM. Finally, this site has 2 tables measuring the differences and max overclocks of both Geil and OCZ RAM but only has 1 table for the other sticks. As a matter of fact, the page lengths for the non OCZ RAM sticks are roughly HALF as long.

Very strange indeed.

method().man said:

There's something very fishy about this review. First off, the picture at the beginning of the article shows 2 sticks of Geil (OCZ incognito?) and 2 sticks of OCZ. Why does this site feel the need to include a total of 4 sticks of OCZ RAM in a picture of 8 RAM sticks in a shootout on RAM? Also, the site includes a screenshot of the Sandra memory bandwidth test only for the OCZ stick and neglects to include screenies for any of the other sticks of RAM. Finally, this site has 2 tables measuring the differences and max overclocks of both Geil and OCZ RAM but only has 1 table for the other sticks. As a matter of fact, the page lengths for the non OCZ RAM sticks are roughly HALF as long.

Very strange indeed.

Click to expand...

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! 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! Give me evidence before stating that OCZ is Geil and vice versa. I give much credit to the OCZ for producing such a stick of memory. To use a cliche. Don't hate, congratulate.

double post

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.

LOL... Ok, but you have to believe a company can learn from past indiscretions and put out a good product. Im a believer in giving people in this case a company a chance to prove themselves and not write them off because of a shady start.

http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158999 read my post

Another thing that bothers me about this review is that for all the sticks, they jump from 450 to 480 MHz without hitting the clock speeds in between. This gives the appearance that the OCZ RAM whoops the competition by at least 40 MHz (since none of the other sticks could reach even 480). How do we know that the Mushkin or Samsung wasn't able to hit 475? Or eve 479? It may be that the sticks' overclockability is much closer than would appear on the review.

Thats a good assumption, but then we will have to wait on other sites to hopefully review these sticks more thoroughly then to really see how well each one performs. But I don't think it was the case that they left out the in betweens on OCZ's account but were clocking in a set amount of intervals for each stick seeing who could pass. They did include the highest clock of the stick if it didn't pass the next speed grade.

But they aslo clearly stated in reference to your Samsung comment that it was the least capable of anything out of its set timings by manufacture.

Oh, I just pulled Samsung out of my *** as an example .

give OCZ a chance? I would never buy from them regardless if there products meet specs or not.

This company has no respect for it's customers and has no buisness ethics. They've screwed over countless people and are still doing so. Also, i would never buy something based on a published review. Reviews for me are to let me know of features and stats on a board. In terms of OCing and stability I read the boards and see what people find out. I'd rather listen to 1 person who paid money for a board then 10 who got it for free early and just want to please the manufacturer.

Your own ethics should stop you from buying from OCZ, but that's just my opinion.

ajrettke said:

give OCZ a chance? I would never buy from them regardless if there products meet specs or not.

This company has no respect for it's customers and has no buisness ethics. They've screwed over countless people and are still doing so.

Click to expand...

That's gospel man, I feel the same way.

ajrettke said:

give OCZ a chance? I would never buy from them regardless if there products meet specs or not.

This company has no respect for it's customers and has no buisness ethics. They've screwed over countless people and are still doing so. Also, i would never buy something based on a published review. Reviews for me are to let me know of features and stats on a board. In terms of OCing and stability I read the boards and see what people find out. I'd rather listen to 1 person who paid money for a board then 10 who got it for free early and just want to please the manufacturer.

Your own ethics should stop you from buying from OCZ, but that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Im really not up to date on the negative things OCZ has done in the past so I really can't pass judgement on the business pratices they may have applied when dealing with there customers. Thats why I can freely say what i've said, because im truly naive on the relationships they may have taken advantage of on the account of the consumer, being us. So my moral sense, and ethics are freely based on the present and not the past.

I agree with method man on this one since I bought a geforce2 MX card remade by OCZ to have better performing DDR ram and a higher clock and ram speed and soon afterwards they dissappeared and I couldn't get my card RMA'ed because of it.. The card was sweet for overclocking postimg high 7 to 8000's for a MX and a Athlon 750 in 2000 that was killer but it didn't last very long as the ram ended up failing, They even sent the software package w/coolbits already made in for the OC. I don't know about them bein Geil though! And Muskin is getting to come out with a ultra low latency very fast stick of DDR soon using only matched winbond chips and its not goin to be considered special since for muskin quality means something and thats what a pc3700 should only use...

Oh yah! And it just so happens that Samsung Owns winbond as a chip maker so they do know quality...

pctuner@amd said:

And Muskin is getting to come out with a ultra low latency very fast stick of DDR soon using only matched winbond chips and its not goin to be considered special since for muskin quality means something and thats what a pc3700 should only use...

Oh yah! And it just so happens that Samsung Owns winbond as a chip maker so they do know quality...

Click to expand...

I will be looking out for it when it comes out and see how well there stick performs. I don't doubt customer service nor Corsairs for which none of my statements was based on, it was current performance of each representive memory in the review.

Samsung, who owns winbond as you have brought to my attention then they aren't using the resoures in house to manufacture a stick of memory. But, could be just that module, and they are producing some high quality sticks, for a diffrent market while that stick caters to a lower end. Just haven't seen them.