Crucial 512MB PC3200 DDR400 Memory

Reviews: Hardware

Motherboards | Power Supplies | Memory | Systems | Video Cards

Author:
Editor:
Sponsor:
Published:

Brian Kristensen
Kurtis
Crucial
Apr. 9, 2004

<< Previous

Next >>

PCMark04

PCMark04 is FutureMark's latest benchmarking utility aimed to test almost every component in computers. For today's testing, we will be looking specifically at the memory and overall system performance.

PCMark04
(Show All Graphs)

System Score

Memory Score

Crucial @ 400 MHz

Corsair @ 400 MHz

Transcend @ 400 MHz

3833

3835

3858

(PCMarks)

5000

System Score

Memory Score

Crucial @ 400 MHz

Corsair @ 400 MHz

Transcend @ 400 MHz

3448

3423

3385

(PCMarks)

5000

The results are all very close. The system outfitted with Crucial's memory has the lowest system score but the highest memory score. Once again, the performance is so close any differences are negligible.

ScienceMark2

ScienceMark2 is a rather interesting utility which uses mathematical calculations to benchmark the CPU and memory. It also includes a very detailed memory benchmark. I focused on Bandwidth, ALU Register Copy, and MMX Register Copy for this benchmark. The ALU and MMX Register Copy test how fast the memory can handle transfers coming from the processor. The Bandwidth benchmark is quite obvious.

ScienceMark2
(Show All Graphs)

MMX Register Copy

ALU Register Copy

Memory Bandwidth

Crucial @ 400 MHz

Corsair @ 400 MHz

Transcend @ 400 MHz

1643

1646

1627

(MB/s)

3500

MMX Register Copy

ALU Register Copy

Memory Bandwidth

Crucial @ 400 MHz

Corsair @ 400 MHz

Transcend @ 400 MHz

1621

1628

1603

(MB/s)

3500

MMX Register Copy

ALU Register Copy

Memory Bandwidth

Crucial @ 400 MHz

Corsair @ 400 MHz

Transcend @ 400 MHz

2798

2799

2765

(MB/s)

3500

Crucial is almost right up there with Corsair, and leaves Transcend lagging slightly behind. Do I need to say again how little these differences mean?

<< Previous

Page 5 of 6

Next >>

Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: A Closer Look
Page 3: Overclocking / Test System
Page 4: SiSoft Sandra 04 / Aida32
Page 5: PCMark04 / ScienceMark2
Page 6: Super Pi / Conclusion

Subscribe to Memory [more info]

Add Comment

6 User Comments

1 - Posted by A Person on April 10, 2004 - 1:50 am

I usually think of Crucial as the memory that you buy for your average PC. I was surprised to see it perform that well, even with reduced timings.

So does crucial have different quality memory? All I could determine from their website is that they make different speeds of "memory upgrades" :D from EDO and PC100 up to DDR2-533. I guess what I'm asking is, Corsair has the "Value Select" series and the XMS series. Does crucial have anything like that?

2 - Posted by Brian on April 10, 2004 - 11:21 am

All of Crucial's memory is pretty much the same. As far as I can tell, they don't have a higher/lower quality or speed lines of modules.

They have some information on their website which might be of interest to you. This is page four of their "Quality Counts" section:

http://www.crucial.com/library/quality_page4.asp

3 - Posted by Guest on April 10, 2004 - 12:19 pm

good review, but you didn't bench any games. will timings affect games more than synthetic benchmarks?

4 - Posted by Tulatin on April 10, 2004 - 6:58 pm

It also performs about the same as the ECC models.

5 - Posted by A Person on April 11, 2004 - 5:53 pm

wow, i never knew what "generic memory" actually meant. i guess i will never buy any of that stuff.

6 - Posted by OldCoot on May 9, 2004 - 1:29 am

I have an Asus P4P800, Intel 2.4C with a stick of the same 512 Mb Crucial PC 3200 memory.
The motherboard set to 'auto' detects the memory timing as 2.5-4-4-8.
Which timing is theoretically faster: the reviewed 3-3-3-8 or my detected 2.5-4-4-8?
I know that CAS 2.5 is faster than 3, but I don't know what effect the other numbers have on it.

Add Comment

To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields.