- Joined
- Nov 1, 1998
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FRONTPAGE G.Skill TridentX 8GB DDR3-2933 Memory Kit Review
- Thread starter Overclockers.com
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2011
- Location
- Republic of Texas
Now that was interesting.....
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
Per XMP. The primary four are 10-12-12-31.
It's a matter of complexity. Storing data on a chip is a much easier problem to solve as opposed to making a fully functioning processing unit
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
To an extent, the bigger the CPU cache the less memory speed matters.
We have quite large caches now, so memory doesn't matter much.
If you could disable the L3 cache suddenly memory would matter a lot more.
This could actually be tested to an extent, Athlon II quad core vs PhII quad core, especially an early AthII that was simply a PhII with disabled L3.
Sadly, I don't have one.
To see full performance of most 2600+ kits on haswell you need 5GHz+ CPU if not higher and even then real daily performance won't change much. More important seem good timing balance than tightening everything at all cost.
You can actually set 2400 kit with well programmed SPD/XMP as fast as most these 2800-2933.
I had no chance to play with 2933 MFR kits but TridentX looks like one of the best available around for high clocks.
btw. nice review
You can actually set 2400 kit with well programmed SPD/XMP as fast as most these 2800-2933.
I had no chance to play with 2933 MFR kits but TridentX looks like one of the best available around for high clocks.
btw. nice review
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Location
- clean room-grenoble (france)
Nice review as usual Hokie
I was kind of curious: did you try this kit with lower frequency like 2133 or 1866MHz and tighten the timings as far as possible?
From my own experience, high frequency dedicated kits are not necessarly the best if you're looking for tight timings (as I do) with "moderate" frequency
I was kind of curious: did you try this kit with lower frequency like 2133 or 1866MHz and tighten the timings as far as possible?
From my own experience, high frequency dedicated kits are not necessarly the best if you're looking for tight timings (as I do) with "moderate" frequency
Better Hynix MFR kits can usually make 1866 9-10-10 , 2133 9-11-11, 2400 10-12-12 on ~1.60-1.65V but all depends from IC. Since these TridentX are one of the best available then I think it can probably run at slightly tighter timings.
On the other hand I doubt that anyone will buy 2933 kit in this price to run it at 1866/2133
On the other hand I doubt that anyone will buy 2933 kit in this price to run it at 1866/2133
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Location
- clean room-grenoble (france)
Thx for the info!
Well, it is already unbelievable to me spending 300+$ for 8GB DDR3, whatever frequency or timings
Btw, could you guys explain me why so much focus is put on reducing tCAS whatever it takes (ie. increasing sometimes drastically other timings)?
From what I understand:
The average read latency should be somewhere between tCAS if the page is active and tCAS+tRP+tRCD (worst case) if I need to close the page before opening an other.
So, if I want to optimize my latency and get the maximum page-hit, I would try to minimize tRCD/tRP, is this right?
The point is: if I want to see difference in overall read latency between two sticks of RAM, it would be when all the RAM is used, where page-miss occurs more often, increasing the latency.
So if I am more in the case where the latency is tCAS+tRP+tRCD instead of tCAS, what is the point of reducing tCAS by one cycle (from 10 to 9 for instance) and increasing by one cycle tRP AND tRCD?
Aren't we increasing the latency then?
Sorry if it is confused and unclear, I don't see how to put this simply
On the other hand I doubt that anyone will buy 2933 kit in this price to run it at 1866/2133
Well, it is already unbelievable to me spending 300+$ for 8GB DDR3, whatever frequency or timings
Btw, could you guys explain me why so much focus is put on reducing tCAS whatever it takes (ie. increasing sometimes drastically other timings)?
From what I understand:
The average read latency should be somewhere between tCAS if the page is active and tCAS+tRP+tRCD (worst case) if I need to close the page before opening an other.
So, if I want to optimize my latency and get the maximum page-hit, I would try to minimize tRCD/tRP, is this right?
The point is: if I want to see difference in overall read latency between two sticks of RAM, it would be when all the RAM is used, where page-miss occurs more often, increasing the latency.
So if I am more in the case where the latency is tCAS+tRP+tRCD instead of tCAS, what is the point of reducing tCAS by one cycle (from 10 to 9 for instance) and increasing by one cycle tRP AND tRCD?
Aren't we increasing the latency then?
Sorry if it is confused and unclear, I don't see how to put this simply
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
I think you may be over-complicating it, at least from a practical standpoint. Any reduction in timings, in theory, reduces latency, regardless of which one. One problem is that RAM now-a-days, generally speaking, hates tighter tRP. You can usually take tCL down at least one and tRCD can usually be reduced one to three'ish. On the other hand, tRP on most modern Hynix & Samsung chips strongly dislikes being reduced. So that's pretty much why the focus on the other two....because tRP is often incapable of tightening. At least from a user adjustment standpoint.
If you're referring to why manufacturers focus mostly on tCL, that's easy. They're binning to make the chips do the best timings they can with stability to make them look good. When looking at RAM, most people (rightly) consider tCL to be the most important timing. It does have the most impact on performance. Tightening the others and giving up some on tCL generally hurts more than it helps, so that's why you see most kits with a tighter tCL and slightly looser tRP & tRCD.
If you're referring to why manufacturers focus mostly on tCL, that's easy. They're binning to make the chips do the best timings they can with stability to make them look good. When looking at RAM, most people (rightly) consider tCL to be the most important timing. It does have the most impact on performance. Tightening the others and giving up some on tCL generally hurts more than it helps, so that's why you see most kits with a tighter tCL and slightly looser tRP & tRCD.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Location
- clean room-grenoble (france)
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Sorry but, i think that raw MHz is no use to the daily user of real stuff such as games and not only synthetic benches. Best RAM is usualy the one with best balance between timing and MHz. In the budget range, a 1600/9 9 9 24 kit (8 GB DIMM available) is unbeatable. If someone isnt happy using standart specs and is willing to pay more, then a 2400/ 9 11 11 31 kit (4 GB DIMM only) would be awesome too and overall surely better performing but i truly see no use for MHz (above 2400) or even timing (below CL 9) beyond that level as long as either timing or MHz is unable to achieve a good balance.
So, from the common sense view, that kind cant be recommended (sorry, yes even if we are a overclocker community) but of course just for benching or raw enthusiasm purpose... why not. But definitely there is no practical use for "daily "programs and tasks.
On top of that, i have to say, that a volt number of 1.65 isnt the best bet on a CPU controller (designed for 1.5 V) for 24/7 use and may definitely decrease lifetime. I usualy go with 1.5 V memory, more safe to the CPU controller and i wont even notice the difference in RAM peformance for almost any of my tasks. In term someone want to be stick with 1.5 V, then the best bet would be a 1866/ 8 9 9 24 kit (4 GB DIMM only) but more expensive than a 1600 kit.
Another issue is the size of the sink, when i build small factor PCs, i usualy have coolers with very problematic size around the CPU and sink higher than 40 mm are usualy a issue to me. So, i dont necessarely need low profile but highest possible is "medium profile" such as the one from Ripjaws Z-Series. Most "super high peformance RAMs", either got to huge sinks, bad balance between timing and MHz, bad price/performance ratio and minor performance improvement for daily use or even multiple issues at once. So all in all... just rarely and barely worth it.
So, from the common sense view, that kind cant be recommended (sorry, yes even if we are a overclocker community) but of course just for benching or raw enthusiasm purpose... why not. But definitely there is no practical use for "daily "programs and tasks.
On top of that, i have to say, that a volt number of 1.65 isnt the best bet on a CPU controller (designed for 1.5 V) for 24/7 use and may definitely decrease lifetime. I usualy go with 1.5 V memory, more safe to the CPU controller and i wont even notice the difference in RAM peformance for almost any of my tasks. In term someone want to be stick with 1.5 V, then the best bet would be a 1866/ 8 9 9 24 kit (4 GB DIMM only) but more expensive than a 1600 kit.
Another issue is the size of the sink, when i build small factor PCs, i usualy have coolers with very problematic size around the CPU and sink higher than 40 mm are usualy a issue to me. So, i dont necessarely need low profile but highest possible is "medium profile" such as the one from Ripjaws Z-Series. Most "super high peformance RAMs", either got to huge sinks, bad balance between timing and MHz, bad price/performance ratio and minor performance improvement for daily use or even multiple issues at once. So all in all... just rarely and barely worth it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
I...didn't recommend them. 
From the review:
As far as the heatsinks, as noted in the review, that top red fin is removable so your comment there is moot.
From the review:
As far as the heatsinks, as noted in the review, that top red fin is removable so your comment there is moot.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Ok yes true, i just say in general. But Overclockers wasnt recommending it thats indeed true.
About the sink, in term its able to achieve medium size (when head is removed) then its usualy fine (medium = 40 mm/1.58 inch module height or less). Then i would accept that my comment is moot, but just for that review and not for "general". "Small" size is basically almost same size such as the PCB where the chips are stored (up to 10 mm lesser than medium size) but not a requirement for most high end coolers. Most of them are tuned in order to allow 40 mm, as far as i can see.
Anyway, yes in term its not above 40 mm when head removed its fine regarding that matter. As far as i can see on the picture, using my "sense of proportion" the removal of the head will cut the difference to the top of the PCB by a bit more than half. The total size is 54 mm, the difference to the PCB is about 24 mm, when head removed we may have around 40 mm (54-14 mm), so it may fit the medium range.
About the sink, in term its able to achieve medium size (when head is removed) then its usualy fine (medium = 40 mm/1.58 inch module height or less). Then i would accept that my comment is moot, but just for that review and not for "general". "Small" size is basically almost same size such as the PCB where the chips are stored (up to 10 mm lesser than medium size) but not a requirement for most high end coolers. Most of them are tuned in order to allow 40 mm, as far as i can see.
Anyway, yes in term its not above 40 mm when head removed its fine regarding that matter. As far as i can see on the picture, using my "sense of proportion" the removal of the head will cut the difference to the top of the PCB by a bit more than half. The total size is 54 mm, the difference to the PCB is about 24 mm, when head removed we may have around 40 mm (54-14 mm), so it may fit the medium range.
Last edited:
Similar threads
