TCC5 Does NOT Suck, so stop crying thread.

[{PMS}fishy]

http://pmsfishy.zerobrains.com/TCC5.jpg

Thats on an Intel. 2.9v. On 3200.

Figure an AMD is good for another 10mhz on top of that.

TCC5 is every bit as good as TCCD and its cheaper.

You guys should be happy. Not mad.

Will swap out for some PC5000 and see what the MB can do 1:1 and then go back to this 3200 and see what she has in her.

[deathstar13]

you knew it was gonna be asked im sure but what about 2.0-2-2-4?
highest htt with max voltage you feel comfy with and 200htt with lowest passing voltage.
ive never had worrys it would be worse, but just if it was better? as i know ocz isnt gonna throw crap in thier sticks and be so comfident about doing so.
is this the cheapest ocz tcc5 btw?

[{PMS}fishy]

you knew it was gonna be asked im sure but what about 2.0-2-2-4?
highest htt with max voltage you feel comfy with and 200htt with lowest passing voltage.
ive never had worrys it would be worse, but just if it was better? as i know ocz isnt gonna throw crap in thier sticks and be so comfident about doing so.
is this the cheapest ocz tcc5 btw?

HTT?

Thats on an Intel ;)

Ill pop it back it. I was going to see what I could do with the 4800EL.

It is the OCZ 3200EL Rev 2 v1.1

[ziggo0]

Thats the stuff I'm going to (might be anyways) buy. Its at NewEgg for 185$

[{PMS}fishy]

Thats the stuff I'm going to (might be anyways) buy. Its at NewEgg for 185$

Thats the same set that I have up for sale.

Figured Id test it before it went to its new home.

Let the future buyer see what it can do.

Im impressed so far.

[deathstar13]

htt,fsb what ever! lol just raise that thing that makes my pc go zooooo00MM!

$185 aint bad for decent sticks even tho its more than i like to pay as im cheap.

[deathstar13]

well i gotta admit it did make me check you FS thread :)
just have to see how my financial outlook is when i get paid on the 3rd :( i hate being paid once a month!

[huey]

The older 88 dollar tcc5 g.skill la's do 245 easy, and the reason i have not gone further is because of the motherboard i own.

[Sucka]

I had a set of OCZ Plat's and they rocked. Haven't tested them enough to draw conclusions, but if the OCZ5000 is based on this stuff, you know it is capable of over 300HTT...

[{PMS}fishy]

you knew it was gonna be asked im sure but what about 2.0-2-2-4?


220 is the best that it will do. 3.0v 2-2-2-5.

Nothing special. Nothing horrible.

This is in my AI7. Didn't feel like swapping RAM back and forth.

[wannaoc]

I was wondering when a thread like this would come around. All I see is people starting threads complaining about companies switching to TCC5 yet all I see as replies are people confirming they run damn nice speeds with good timings. Go figure. :shrug:

Nice OC btw.

[{PMS}fishy]

Nice OC btw.

They have more in them.

Me on the other hand, Im done.

[deathstar13]

220 is the best that it will do. 3.0v 2-2-2-5.

Nothing special. Nothing horrible.

This is in my AI7. Didn't feel like swapping RAM back and forth.sounds about same as tccd from the testing on the stick i did.i didnt do much but was on par tho.

[{PMS}fishy]

sounds about same as tccd from the testing on the stick i did.i didnt do much but was on par tho.

Yea, if you want 2-2-2-5, you don't want TCCD/TCC5.

Only reason Im such a huge fan of the 3200, is its the only TCCD that was rated at 2-2-2-5. To me that means that its the best of the best, and can scale very well. In fact that was very true. I have yet to get a set that didn't run 270+. Which to me is a great average for 3200.

[dumo]

Yea, if you want 2-2-2-5, you don't want TCCD/TCC5.Some tccd (especially 440) can ran 240/2-2-2-5 with 3.1V

[Sucka]

Some tccd (especially 440) can ran 240/2-2-2-5 with 3.1V

I've got some 440, i'm gonna test that, thanks :p

[SteveOCZ]

I <3 Tcc5 :d

[{PMS}fishy]

I <3 Tcc5 :d

I heart anything that works.

So you guys switched from TCCD to TCC5. Added some super fine print saying v1.1. And dropped the price a lot.

It was a little deceiving, especially the size of the "v1.1" it almost feels like you are trying to pull the wool over customers eyes.

I guess you covered you own hides by never saying that TCCD chips were used. Im not going to lie, at first I felt cheated, and I wanted to go on a rampage and cry and scream, lay on my back and kick my feet up in the air. Then I decided to test it. To me it seems to respond better to voltage than TCCD. It is also some pretty fast stuff. Granted I have had some 3200 that ran 290mhz but I attribute that to the luck of the draw, not what chips are on it.

Because, remember folks, you are paying for 200 2-2-2-5. Nothing else.

[SteveOCZ]

I have no clue why the rev 1.1 is as small as it is, but that's out of my hands anyways. TCC5 is TCCD just not speed binned to DDR500. Since we do our own speed binning its a moot point if we use TCCD or TCC5. Sure you guys would like us to tell you that we changed IC's , but as long as the ram does what it used to what is the point?

[deathstar13]

I have no clue why the rev 1.1 is as small as it is, but that's out of my hands anyways. TCC5 is TCCD just not speed binned to DDR500. Since we do our own speed binning its a moot point if we use TCCD or TCC5. Sure you guys would like us to tell you that we changed IC's , but as long as the ram does what it used to what is the point?
the point is we use it for other things besides what its rated for.and as you know all ic's have differant charatcteristics and many are purchased just for that reason.plus we also resale our sticks we no longer use and like to be as accurate in descriptions as possible as it does affect resale value.

now saying that i dont think its a companies job to say outright whats on the sticks.but keeping revision numbers legable and keeping customers informed as to what revisions contain what ic's do help.

i feel people are willing to pay more for certain brands due to uniform stick labling and mostly non mixing of ic's in a line.

i feel ocz keeps customers informed enough and is doing things right in keeping ocers happy without a bunch of trial and error in purchases.

[ed.howell]

Thanks for starting this thread. I am tired of all the crying about how OCZ changed from TCCD to TCC5 and didn't tell anyone :rolleyes: LOL!!!

People try to save a couple bucks hoping to get PC4200+ performance out of PC3200 ram and cry when they don't. Spend a couple more bucks and buy ram that is guaranteed to do the clocks you want :shrug: Not rocket science, right!!

[Clerisy]

People try to save a couple bucks hoping to get PC4200+ performance out of PC3200 ram and cry when they don't. Spend a couple more bucks and buy ram that is guaranteed to do the clocks you want :shrug: Not rocket science, right!!

You DO realize you're posting that on an OC forum right? Why on earth would you OC if you weren't trying to get better performance out of a cheaper product? And don't say bragging rights, because no one would care if you bragged about winning a contest with no prize.

[{PMS}fishy]

http://pmsfishy.zerobrains.com/290.jpg

Thats all shes got.

Not bad for 3200.

[ed.howell]

You DO realize you're posting that on an OC forum right? Why on earth would you OC if you weren't trying to get better performance out of a cheaper product? And don't say bragging rights, because no one would care if you bragged about winning a contest with no prize.

Umm... Yes I understand that this is an OC forum :rolleyes:

I am sure that PMSfishy started this thread because ofthis (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=63447) one at XS. Don't know if you read it or not.

The point of my statement was that don't buy PC3200 ram, expect to get 270+ FSB out of it and if you don't start a stupid thread about how "x" company has crappy ram and is trying to rip people off. If you do get ton's of overclock out of it cool, but don't complain if you don't. That's all I was saying.

[{PMS}fishy]

I started the thread to try and get all the knuckle heads out there to shut up and wise up.

I didn't see many results of the TCC5 so I figured Id post some myself.

It just gets me that people are all upset over nothing.

If its that big of a deal, don't buy it.

[ed.howell]

I started the thread to try and get all the knuckle heads out there to shut up and wise up.

I didn't see many results of the TCC5 so I figured Id post some myself.

It just gets me that people are all upset over nothing.

If its that big of a deal, don't buy it.

:clap: I couldn't agree more

[crimedog]

gotta back up ed and fishy here...

if you want the best possible overclocks you have to get the best possible products

[OnDborder]

But based on the bazillion reviews and the non-declaration by OCZ, we owners of rev2 v 1.1 expected to have tccd.. I know I bought these sticks because, based on the bazillion reviews, of the tccd chips, not an expectation of a 300 mhz oc.

pmsfishy, would you mind telling me how much you paid for your rev2's.. I feel for the "saps" that did pay 250 or above for this ram.

Some of these tech sites ought to do a test and article on the comparison of the 2 different chips.

[xTrEmEoVrClOcKr]

Max I got my cheap PC3200 was 250mhz ... BEARLY stable ... haha. That was Kingston ValueRam. (3-4-4-8)

[SteveOCZ]

But based on the bazillion reviews and the non-declaration by OCZ, we owners of rev2 v 1.1 expected to have tccd.. I know I bought these sticks because, based on the bazillion reviews, of the tccd chips, not an expectation of a 300 mhz oc.


TCCD=TCC5

The ONLY difference we know of is that TCCD is binned to DDR500 by Samsung and TCC5 is binned to DDR466. If a company uses chips straight from Samsung with no binning themselves then yes you could see a performance difference, but those of us who speed bin will have the exact same results now as we did before.

I've been told that we have been using TCC5 for some time now and the fact that we haven't seen a pile of posts in the last few months saying TCC5 sucks should be more than enough proof that all is well in the land of TCCx :santa:

[darkknight187]

*EDIT* Steve beat me to it by a few seconds...... anyways i really don't get the huge fuss....i would say if there were major IC differences you would have been informed, hence TCCD=TCC5

[{PMS}fishy]

But based on the bazillion reviews and the non-declaration by OCZ, we owners of rev2 v 1.1 expected to have tccd.. I know I bought these sticks because, based on the bazillion reviews, of the tccd chips, not an expectation of a 300 mhz oc.

pmsfishy, would you mind telling me how much you paid for your rev2's.. I feel for the "saps" that did pay 250 or above for this ram.

Some of these tech sites ought to do a test and article on the comparison of the 2 different chips.

I didn't pay $250. I don't think anyone that paid $250 got TCC5.

I think the price reduction was due to the different ICs being used, but that is pure speculation.

[Restorer]

So in other words,

TCCD is to TCC5
as
Spicy Crispy Chicken Sandwich is to Jack's Spicy Chicken

:D

[deathstar13]

So in other words,

TCCD is to TCC5
as
Spicy Crispy Chicken Sandwich is to Jack's Spicy Chicken

:Dfrom everything ive seen yup it is.
but people still claim they prefer miricle-whip and not mayo on them.

but you cant please everyone.
and from what i see all the BS hollering over this at other places is close to unintellagent ramblings.

[Audioaficionado]

Ok it seems the TCCD vs TCC5 argument isn't going to be settled any time soon. TCC5 will still go way past my i875P MCH based Xeon duallie's limit of ~250.

SteveOCZ, are there any 1Gb sticks with TCC5/TCCD?

[jcw122]

question...what is TCC5?

[{PMS}fishy]

question...what is TCC5?

Same die as TCCD just binned by Samsung to 466 as opposed to 500.

Only difference that I know of.

[Reefa_Madness]

Read Steve's post on page 1...in a nutshell...it is the same chips as the TCCD except that Samsung no longer tests them to DDR500, only to DDR466, like they did to begin with. Back about 14 months ago there was an article/review by Anandtech on the new Samsung DDR466 chips (Rev E) testing them when they first came out. Later when Rev F came out, Samsung realized that they were better than the Rev E and started testing and rating them to DDR500 speeds and these that passed their testing were labeled TCCD.

Now they have just quit testing them and have returned to using only the TCC5 label. It is still the same chip...heck these are really nothing but Samsung UTT instead of Winbond UTT!

[OnDborder]

I don't think anyone that paid $250 got TCC5.


That's one of my points of disgust with this whole thing.. I believe people did pay that and higher.
They didn't notice the "v 1.1", which I was one.

I didn't notice the "price drop" , on the rev.2's, until a little before Mother's Day. That's when I snagged mine.

What date did OCZ start selling the tcc5's and not the tccd's needs to be answered.

[OnDborder]

I didn't pay $250.

When did you buy? I notice that you had a post referring to your tccd back in January, for one. http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=361053
Did you happen to notice the v.1.1 on the sticker?
This post might be a good indication that it was tcc5, notice the voltage..http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=360410 The real tccd's did not like voltage...

At the first of the year there was no "price drop".
My suspicion is that we have been way overcharged.

[SteveOCZ]

What date did OCZ start selling the tcc5's and not the tccd's needs to be answered.

When the PC4800 and 5000 were first started...so a few months

[darkknight187]

The real tccd's did not like voltage...


I just don't think the liking of voltage has anything to do with the lower speed binning of this RAM as long as their the same die a different binning isnt going to change how they liked voltage....

and back to the binning thing, that means there really isnt "real" tccd in this case as the "D" only indacates the speed it was binned to and not an actual difference in die, which is what one would expect..

Now you can have some right to be a tad bit peeved about your purchase, but to take it out on different speed binning seems rash.

[Sentential]

ONLY F die TCC5 is *ok*. E die is pretty shoddy.

[calcal]

im not bad that i have tcc5 im mad that i paid 245 for tcc5

[deception``]

Just wanted to back up Fishy here in saying that there's nothing wrong with TCC5. Ran with some OCZ PC 4800 v 1.1 and the 5/10-1 bios:

http://img293.echo.cx/img293/1814/tcc5screenshot7ii.jpg

http://img293.echo.cx/img293/1784/300mhztimings5tg.jpg

Clearly we see here that there's nothing wrong with TCC5, especially if it has been binned properly. Mind you, these modules are rated for 300 Mhz @ 2.5-4-4-8 2T. To this date, I am able to achieve the following:

290 2.5-3-3-7 2.8v

305 2.5-4-3-7 2.9v

310+ 2.5-4-4-8 or 3-4-4-10 (depending on the bios)

Add to that the fact that TCC5 is much cheaper, and it makes for a very good buy.

deception``

[OnDborder]

Are you sure it's tcc5?
Take notice to the v 1.1 on the sticker.
http://www.insanetek.com/reviews/memory/OCZ%20Platinum%20PC4800%201GB%20DC%20Kit/images/Picture%20007.jpg

http://www.insanetek.com/index.php?page=oczplatinumpc4800_1

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=876483&postcount=90

Seems like they might have had a little "mix-up". Hmm..

[deception``]

Are you sure it's tcc5?
Take notice to the v 1.1 on the sticker.
http://www.insanetek.com/reviews/memory/OCZ%20Platinum%20PC4800%201GB%20DC%20Kit/images/Picture%20007.jpg

http://www.insanetek.com/index.php?page=oczplatinumpc4800_1

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=876483&postcount=90

Seems like they might have had a little "mix-up". Hmm..

Sounds interesting.......perhaps I'll take a peek in a bit :-/

deception``

[xTrEmEoVrClOcKr]

Some nice clocks, this might be my big break for Intel ram ... *Slaps Kingmax*

[Eldonko]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with TCC5, you just get what you pay for now where as with TCCD OCing overhead had the potential to be better. I have 4200EL TCC5, it peaks at 284 Mhz at 2.5-3-3 and 289 at 2.5-4-3, thus a 25 or so Mhz OC over spec. The same RAM when it was TCCD was capable of >300Mhz.