| Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB DDR3-1600 |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Memory | ||||||||
| Written by David Ramsey | ||||||||
| Monday, 12 December 2011 | ||||||||
Page 1 of 6
Corsair Vengeance Low-Profile 16GB Quad-Channel Memory Kit Review
Manufacturer: Corsair Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by Corsair. The introduction of Intel's X79 chipset with its quad-channel memory controller coincides nicely with historic lows in memory prices. Corsair's recently introduced "Vengeance" line of peripherals includes products as diverse as headphones, mice, and even memory. Representing a lower-cost alternative to their "Dominator" memory line, Vengeance memory is offered with both high and low profile heat spreaders and several different speeds and timings. Benchmark Reviews tests the 1600MHz C8 16GB quad-channel low profile Vengeance kit against an assortment of other memory in this test. High performance memory is one facet of a high performance system; a balanced approach to system performance considers processor speed, the amount of memory (as well as the speed), the GPU (for gamers), and the storage device (hard disk or SSD). Enthusiasts commonly concentrate on one or two of these items to the exclusion of others, which leads to systems that produce great benchmarks scores in some instances but drag in others.
Vengeance LP DDR3-1600 Specifications
The main differences between Corsair's "Dominator" and "Vengeance" memory products are that the Dominator memory gets fancier, machined aluminum heat spreaders and some guaranteed degree of overclockability, while the Vengeance line makes do with sheet aluminum heat spreaders and no guaranteed overclockability. All Corsair memory comes with a lifetime warranty. So how does this kit perform? Let's find out...
|
||||||||
Comments
Importantly, as the reviewer notes, you do not really see a perceptible difference between high speeds and lower latencies. It is good RAM, and the low profile heatsinks (which is all you need if you are going to run at 1600Mhz, these do not get hot at all, they are warm to the touch) enable them to fit even under large heatsink overhangs. Perfect.
enable C state tech and rebench please, the memory performance suffers greatly on Core i processors when C state tech is disabled.
In benchmarking tests the most important thing is consistency, so that users can judge the relative performance of the products being tested. All the memory in these benchmarks was tested on the same system with the same settings, so even if the C state thing is legitimate (and I will do more research on this), the results are comparable.
these write results are also a good deal less than what i've seen from other benchmarks using the C9 vengeance kit on lesser hardware (the C8 sticks should obviously be a little faster)
see
##pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=1216&page=5
Can you provide an example of a reproducible benchmark I can use to test this? If so I can incorporate it into future memory reviews.
C states enabled: read 18924,, write 14995, copy 16914, latency 48.8ns
C states disabled: read 18897, write 15082, copy 17101, latency 48.9ns
The difference in write performance is a fraction over 1%, well within the margin of error of these tests. I conclude that at least with this motherboard and CPU, whether or not C states are enabled makes no difference in memory performance as measured by AIDA64's tests.
"You can choose red, blue, or black heat spreaders (there's also a special white, low-voltage version)."
In any case I can only review what a vendors sends me. Corsair sent me a black memory kit, so that's what the appearance score was judged on.
Sigh.
#forums.aida64.com/index.php?/topic/292-c-state-tech-disabled-negatively-affects-memory-bandwidth-tests/page__p__1712#entry1712