larrymoencurly's Discussion of Greater than DDR3-1600 RAM Speeds

[Knufire]

I mean sure, some might be more likely to be bad than others, but in the end you RMA the bad kits and keep the good ones and that's the end of it, irrespective of the brand.

 

[EarthDog]

Good FOR YOU... but your experiences do not define a products failure rate nor give a remotely accurate representation of their it. You are but a drop of water in a large large lake.

@ Crucial memory.. no clue... do you have any facts outside of your experience with them?

The bottom line is that what they are rated for is on the package. If they dont work, they dont work. Anything outside of that fact for 99.9% of users are simply just DOA sticks to RMA. Knowing what you say you know will help almost nobody IMO.

Edit: do you think if you worded thaw posts different our reactions would be different? "In my experience, I find that samsung brand chips have lasted longer"

I think that is a lot more inoccuous than what you go om about and us also harmless to new people as well.

 

[Archer0915]

Good FOR YOU... but your experiences do not define a products failure rate nor give a remotely accurate representation of their it. You are but a drop of water in a large large lake.

@ Crucial memory.. no clue... do you have any facts outside of your experience with them?

The bottom line is that what they are rated for is on the package. If they dont work, they dont work. Anything outside of that fact for 99.9% of users are simply just DOA sticks to RMA. Knowing what you say you know and helps will help almost nobody IMO.

Dog I have some sport versions that run 1866 @ 1.35v and the only 1.65v listed for Crucial on new egg is: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148625

One set! The rest is 1.5 and 1.35.

 

[azanimefan]

wow... this is a thread of sillyness.

larrymoencurly dude, think about what you're writing about man. it's pretty simple

If i buy a AR-15, i expect it to shoot when i pull the trigger. I expect it to shoot the bullets that it claims it will shoot, and in the manner the package suggests, such as a semiautomatic. If i buy a gun that comes with a full auto (m-16) and semi automatic format, but the one i buy is semiautomatic (ar-15), and it works as such it's clearly the product i was expecting. That both weapons come off the same line, have different names and purposes means little to me; nor should it matter to someone buying the AR-15 that it's just a stripped down M-16.

What does it matter if ram which is timed for both 1600 and 1866, comes off the same chip? Who cares? What does it matter? As long as it functions as advertized at the speed advertized, error free, then it shouldn't matter one bit.

 

[Woomack]

Actually Crucial is also using 1866 Micron chips for their 1600 Ballistix LP series. There is at least 6 different D9 IC that are good to use in 1600/1866 kits and all are rated for 1.35/1.50V. All Crucial kits up to 2000 are 1.35 or 1.50V. I don't think that 1.65V are still in production.
I have no idea why Crucial is mentioned so many times in this thread while they have one of the lowest fail rates and really good support.

This thread is really waste of time ...

 

[Operant]

Dog I have some sport versions that run 1866 @ 1.35v and the only 1.65v listed for Crucial on new egg is: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148625

One set! The rest is 1.5 and 1.35.

I also took a peek on their site and they have a whopping total of...wait for it...1 stick listed at 1.65V (there are really two but one of them is a set of the same stick so I'll ignore it here). I can't find any others. I'm not really sure how this whole topic is up for debate. As everyone else has said, if it says on the sticker that a stick is rated for a given speed and timings and a certain voltage, then it will. If it doesn't, you can RMA and get a new one that will. The stick is defective no matter what IC is in it.

Overclocking is not guaranteed by the manufacturer in any way. That is up to the user to find out while risking their sticks. The manufacturers only care that the sticks can run at what they have listed them at.

Again, I'm a bit confused as to what is really being debated. It seems pretty clear cut to me...

 

[EarthDog]

Its clear cut to most... the concern here is with LMC sharing this.... 'information' to people that don't care one bit but more importantly it doesn't matter to in the first place.

 

[Bobnova]

Those > $1M testing machines come in both the wafer-probing versions and versions that test whole packaged chips or even finished memory modules.
But according to you or someone else who's agreed with you, it doesn't matter whether the modules are screened with expensive machines or with machines costing 99.95% less.

Nope, price doesn't matter in the slightest. Only accuracy matters. Why would price matter? We only care about accuracy. Guess what? That's all they care about too.
Fail1.

Actually they do test for max clocks and tightest timings because the only way to bin the chips is by is by running them at the fastest specs and seeing which fail, then take the failures and test them at slower speeds, etc. I suspect module makers do the same, especialy because they use so many chips that are rejects or overclocked and don't know how well those chips can do. It's probably only the final testing of the labelled modules that's done at fixed, preset timings.

Do they? Have you ever personally binned a stack of RAM? Do you actually know how the process works? Have you binned anything?
What fastest specs? I smell a lack of real knowledge here. Got any credentials, at all? Guess what: The people you're arguing with have done rather of a lot of binning and speed testing, of a lot of things.

For the opposite to be true, wouldn't each module have to average fewer than 1 RAM chip?

You make no sense, at all. Binning a stick with 16 chips on it for 1h takes a 16th the time binning each chip individually for 1h takes.
Basic math.
Fail2.

How much of that is because they test more thoroughly than the chip makers do, and how much is due to them using slower testing machines?

Who said anything about machine speed? Did I? (cliffnote: Nope)
I'm guessing more testing time at this stage because it is R&D, R&D takes forever on almost everything. Ever done any R&D? I'm guessing no.
Further, there is a bus limitation when you're testing a module, oh and you have to test the actual module too of course.

Why would they use the highest rating that only most of the test sticks pass, as oppose to 100% of the test sticks? If you're saying different module companies have different standards, which companies have the lowest standards?

Because they can bin them off the production line. If 75% of their samples pass they can breath on things and raise that a bit, then the modules that don't make it to those peak speeds can be sold at lower speeds.
Basic binning again.

Is that better than using chips guaranteed to meet those timings?

Nope. Not worse, either. The end result is identical.
I cite you for attempting to dodge the question.

What about modules that consistently test fine during the first 15 minutes of computer operation but fail later? Some people will replace them, others will just raise the voltage or slow the timings and continue to use that "dead" memory.

What about those? They happen with everything. I've had genuine straight from intel CPUs die that way (actually only made it 5m at 100% stock, wasn't even out of the BIOS).
Some percentage of people will try to work around it, but that percentage isn't going to vary. If we say 20% work around it, does that mean the company doesn't care whether it's a 10% failure rate or a 25% failure rate? (Hint, they still care. A higher failure rate still costs more money. More (fairly) basic math)
Fail3.

Is that for 680K and 655K chips from the same production run? Batches vary in quality, even when clean room temperature is regulated to within 0.5 Celcius. It's illogical to compare speed bins from different batches, unless it's known that the batches are consistent enough with each other.

That's across every batch ever produced. If you're following that logic, it's illogical to believe that every RAM chip off a production line geared towards "1600MHz" chips will be correct.
You're arguing against yourself here, might want to rethink that one.
The variance of batches is decreasing as well, in the Intel CPU world batches have meant absolutely nothing for the last two generations.
Do you know what a batch is? It's more than one wafer, plenty of time for the temperature to change. Chips vary even on a single wafer, let alone per batch.

How can a brand's quality be good if its manufacturer's standards have allowed up to 2 faulty bits per module?

I ask again, where is your proof? Where is even a hint of proof? So far I've seen none, at all.
Every memory manufacturer I've dealt with was happy to RMA modules with even a single error in memtest86+.
This is a wild claim that demands some form of backup beyond "It's true cause I've said it a few times".
Fail4.

Then roughly 10% of the sticks are bad, and almost always those sticks made from no-name or overclocked chips. Probably a lot more than 0.1% of the buyers have to spend extra time or money getting them replaced.

Any backup for those numbers that are spit out as factual?

That's all I'd care about, too, provided all modules were the same quality, but those made with branded, nonoverclocked chips have been a lot, lot more reliable for me.

Look at Crucial alone: how much of their memory has been bad, outside their Ballistix lines?

How many modules from how many kits have you personally tested? How many high speed modules have you personally tested? Do you even have a system capable of testing high speed RAM?

Nobody who has actually tested high speed RAM is agreeing with you, have you noticed that?
Nor is anybody who has reviewed RAM agreeing with you.
Nor is anybody who knows anything about RAM agreeing with you.
Of course, all of the above could be because nobody is agreeing with you. Quite probably because you're wrong.



In conclusion: Try backing up your actual statements rather than going off on wild attacks on the questions of your statements.

 

[larrymoencurly]

wow... this is a thread of sillyness.

. . .

What does it matter if ram which is timed for both 1600 and 1866, comes off the same chip? Who cares? What does it matter? As long as it functions as advertized at the speed advertized, error free, then it shouldn't matter one bit.

Some people are making ridiculous comparisons between batches of chips, and it's not unexpected for one batch's slower rated chips to perform better when overclocked than another batch's fastest rated chips. Nobody has answered whether such bins were from the same batch or not; it's as if they don't have any proof.

Too many modules don't function error-free at their advertized speeds, and they're not the type I favor.

 

[larrymoencurly]

I mean sure, some might be more likely to be bad than others, but in the end you RMA the bad kits and keep the good ones and that's the end of it, irrespective of the brand.

I don't want to pay to ship RMAs, especially multiple RMAs, and it's easy to avoid defects in the first place.

 

[bmwbaxter]

IOW memory modules are just like power supplies -- the advertised claims are always true, and all the products are good.

not exactly true with PSU's but I haven't ever had a set of ram that didn't do its rated speed.
didn't refresh before I posted.

 

[EarthDog]

You are missing the point... we are concerned that you keep posting about this stuff that is essentially useless to nearly everyone on this board.

Do you think our responses would be different if you worded it differently?

'In my experience, samsung has a better doa and return rate than other ram companies'. Then you would want to provide a link to their doa / return rates so we know you are talking in facts and not just by your drop in a lake experience (which is all you admit you have).

 

[EarthDog]

I don't want to pay to ship RMAs, especially multiple RMAs, and it's easy to avoid defects in the first place.

what are the actual differences in doa and return rates between Sammy and the rest? You have those numbers or are will still using your microscopic sample size to make a broad blanket statement?

 

[Automata]

I'm not speaking for the staff here, but I have no issue with you keeping the discussion in this thread. That is what it was created for. The problem is when this discussion bleeds over into threads where it is absolutely ridiculous to be discussing such topics. For example, where someone asks a simple question about RAM and the thread explodes into this argument. I know for a fact that a lot of the recent posts from this thread were removed from another thread where this happened.

When someone new joins the forums, asks a simple question, and sees a flurry of confusing and angry posts, they are less likely to stay or participate.

I am absolutely not against the discussion of topics such as this, because, honestly speaking, I'm learning quite a lot.

 

[wingman99]

I don't want to pay to ship RMAs, especially multiple RMAs, and it's easy to avoid defects in the first place.

You can never tell when you are going to get a defective part because nothing is perfect in this world, so that is what the warranty is for.

You cant avoid defects they just happen and memory these days with DDR3 is a low defect rate, I don't see to many people complaining in the forms about DDR3 failures.

DDR2 on the other hand there was trouble every day in the forms with that memory failing.

 

[EarthDog]

What you quoted wingman is downright hilarious to me. He acts as if Sammy return rates are exponentially better than other vendors. Truth is nobody knows. I GUESS however that they are all within a couple % of each other and all well under 10%.

 

[Operant]

Well, I bought two sets of 2x4GB GSkill Ripjaws ram which have worked beautifully and overclock to 1800MHz just fine. It seems that they are WAY more reliable than competitors.

In all seriousness, I'd be interested in actual data on the failure rates for various companies. I absolutely agree with EDog that we should void the drop in the lake approach to this. The forums serve as proof that the failure rates for ddr3 is low and fairly random. So far, I have yet to see any real proof for any arguments you have made LMC.

 

[wingman99]

What you quoted wingman is downright hilarious to me. He acts as if Sammy return rates are exponentially better than other vendors. Truth is nobody knows. I GUESS however that they are all within a couple % of each other and all well under 10%.

Yeah I love statistics there just none here in this discussion, the only thing I can go buy is what people are complaining about in the forms on the net and there is almost none for DDR3. I guess he is saying just because you can see the memory IC's without heat spreaders it's better and he uses them so there good and reliable.

 

[\dev\goat]

Personally I've found that DDR3 lifetime expectancy increases on a linear scale relative to its water resistance

 

[ivanlabrie]

Water? Ram? what? xD
I want submergible ram, with cl5 capable ic's and rated for 1600mhz by JEDEC, cause that's the only standard I trust and not those greedy guys at Crucial, which actually produce the less overclockable ic's these days lol