The difference between TCC5 rev E and F - Results!

NinjaZX6R · Jun 15, 2005

Hi guys,

Reefa_Madness and myself have been very curious to see if the older, and much less expensive revision E TCC5 ram can compare to the new “TCCD Replacement” revision F ram. In this review I will be comparing modules with the Samsung TCC5 chips. One set of modules is equipped with the TCC5 revision “E” chips and the other has the TCC5 with revision “F” chips. The revision “E” is considerably older, as well as less expensive. If this performs on par with the latest and greatest revision “F” TCC5, we may have discovered the next “Budget” overclocking ram!

The Modules:

The Geil Ultra PC3200 ram is equipped with Samsung TCC5 revision “E” chips. Here is an image of these module.

The OCZ PC3200 Platinum rev. 2 is equipped with Samsung TCC5 revision “F” chips. Here is an images of these module.

The Geil modules are rated at 200mhz at 2-3-3-6.
The OCZ modules are rated at 200mhz at 2-2-2-5.

NinjaZX6R · Jun 15, 2005

OK, next I will post the results of the HIGHEST STABLE speed with 2-2-2-5 timings.

Highest frequency with 2-2-2-5 timings:

Geil

OCZ

As we can see here, the Revision F chips leave the E's in the dust. This right here is worth a significant amount of consideration. It is worth noting that if you get the TCC5 E revision, you won't be running 2-2-2-5 at DDR400.

NinjaZX6R · Jun 15, 2005

Next we have the HIGHEST STABLE frequency with timings of 2.5-3-3-8

Highest frequency with 2.5-3-3-8 timings:

Geil

OCZ

Interesting here....The OCZ went right up to my Processor's maximum frequency at these timings. Unfortunately, the multi is locked and I cannot try a higher fsb!

NinjaZX6R · Jun 15, 2005

Now I will post the HIGHEST STABLE overclock regardless of timings. The OCZ is at the same frequency because I cannot test it any higher!

Highest stable overclock (regardless of timings):

Geil

OCZ

As we can see, the Geil still does not come close to the OCZ in this test. I think it is somewhat obvious that there is a huge difference in performance of the Revision E and F chips.

NinjaZX6R · Jun 15, 2005

Conclusion? The results speak for themselves. 2.8 volts was used for all tests. More or less voltage did not help any. That is somewhat surprising, and it made the comparison rather easy. Honestly, I really hoped the Revision E would compare to the F's, but it simply does not. I guess we will still be stuck paying for the F revision. Hope this helps for those who were wondering the difference!

I guess I should also mention the test setup. I was using a 530J with an AS8 board for the entirety of this test. Also, all timings except for the "big 4" were left to auto, including command rate. I could have tested at 1t, but this could have provided a chipset limitation before the ram, so I left it on auto. Thanks for reading.

-Collin-

jcw122 · Jun 15, 2005

Wow very interesting results, and what a gap too! Great job Ninja

CCUABIDExORxDIE · Jun 15, 2005

very nice job, i vote sticky.

deathstar13 · Jun 15, 2005

good stuff guys!
i like my ocz rev2 tcc5 but got differant results than many do.
254 3v 2.5-3-3-7
235 3.1v 2.0-2-2-5 and didnt go further even tho they begged for it.
kinda odd i think they didnt go as high with loose as they liked tight and voltage.

i do think im getting a little one sided thinking the tcc5 wont run the high fsb like tccd does.but i havent seen many tccd run tight timings like my tcc5 does.

{PMS}fishy · Jun 15, 2005

OCZ is the best, Geil is just, well eh.

Even if the ICs were the same revision, Id put money on the OCZ being faster. Their stuff always seems to be.

JoT · Jun 15, 2005

{PMS}fishy said:
OCZ is the best, Geil is just, well eh.

Even if the ICs were the same revision, Id put money on the OCZ being faster. Their stuff always seems to be.

The comparison is fair to me, the Geil TCC5F is on a different PCB, and there is no OCZ TCC5E. It's typical to what people would be buying if they were looking for one or the other.

NinjaZX6R · Jun 15, 2005

{PMS}fishy said:
OCZ is the best, Geil is just, well eh.

Even if the ICs were the same revision, Id put money on the OCZ being faster. Their stuff always seems to be.

Good point actually. The OCZ is on the BP B6U808 pcb, which has proven to perform better. It is POSSIBLE that the results could be attributed to this, but I don't think that makes up for everything. I believe this is still accurate of the performance of E vs F tcc5.

-Collin-

Sucka · Jun 15, 2005

I would rather see this done on an A64 platform myself, but good info none-the-less.

ziggo0 · Jun 15, 2005

Interesting results...I got a friend with the same memroy as me, both TCC5, i'll have to post some results. Basicly I can say now is 250fsb with 2.5-3-3-6 timings with 2.6vdimm is prime stable.

NinjaZX6R · Jun 15, 2005

Sucka said:
I would rather see this done on an A64 platform myself, but good info none-the-less.

I know I know

I bought my A64 stuff a day after I did this review, and the Geil is back to its owner now. For what it's worth, this OCZ maxes out at 272fsb with no errors in memtest.

-Collin-

Reefa_Madness · Jun 16, 2005

I have to admit, when you first told me you were doing this comparison I sure thought the "E" would put up a better fight. I based that on the original TCC5 "E" review done by Anandtech. I can only conclude that once again, they got super lucky and received a grest set (by "E" standards) of sticks for their review.

Isn't it amazing how they always get lucky that way?

The results are what they are and the clear choice is the "F" die.

I'll join the other guys in complimenting you for doing this comparison for the benefit of everyone. Good job!

NinjaZX6R · Jun 16, 2005

Reefa_Madness said:
I have to admit, when you first told me you were doing this comparison I sure thought the "E" would put up a better fight. I based that on the original TCC5 "E" review done by Anandtech. I can only conclude that once again, they got super lucky and received a grest set (by "E" standards) of sticks for their review.

Isn't it amazing how they always get lucky that way?

The results are what they are and the clear choice is the "F" die.

I'll join the other guys in complimenting you for doing this comparison for the benefit of everyone. Good job!

I guess I am a bit disappointed. But, it saves anyone time who was considering the E die. To be honest, it performed about like Hynix D43. Nothing exciting here. Luckily, I was able to "borrow" this ram to do the testing.

-Collin-

rseven · Jun 16, 2005

NinjaZX6R said:
I guess I am a bit disappointed. But, it saves anyone time who was considering the E die. To be honest, it performed about like Hynix D43. Nothing exciting here. Luckily, I was able to "borrow" this ram to do the testing.

-Collin-

Wow, Collin finally found some ram he didn't want to buy!

As always, nice job Collin. Welcome back from the dark side. I'm sure Darth Vader is disappointed.
Rich

Reefa_Madness · Jun 16, 2005

rseven said:
Wow, Collin finally found some ram he didn't want to buy!

Rich

Now if only I could find some....

HousERaT · Jun 16, 2005

I'm not at all surprised about this..... Everything I've seen on the subject the Revision F is the choice of champions. Since SteveOCZ has stated that they use the Revision F for their TCC5, that is the direction I'd go in. Thanks for the review Ninja, this gives even more credability to the theory that Revision F is the way to go with TCC5 memory.

NinjaZX6R · Jun 16, 2005

Thanks for the kind words guys. Really, I just have nothing better do to. I'm off to go plot another comparison!

-Collin-

The difference between TCC5 rev E and F - Results!

RAM Junkie

RAM Junkie

RAM Junkie

RAM Junkie

RAM Junkie

Member

Member

FSB FRIEK

Senior Member

You can't fire me, I have

RAM Junkie

Member

Member

RAM Junkie

DRAM Guru Senior

RAM Junkie

Member

DRAM Guru Senior

Senior Air Extraordinaire

RAM Junkie

Similar threads