Mushkin pc4000 is on the way [Archive]

Arsenal

08-26-2003, 02:17 PM

Wow.. that Mushkin stuff looks excellent.. if they can make some PC4000 that lives up to that PC3500 then i'm definitely glad i held off getting that ocz gold 4000.

About time someone brought out some higher than 3500 rated ram that has some proper timings.

The Runner

08-26-2003, 04:49 PM

hey... what does the Mushkin Level 2 PC3200 O/C like fellas?

thanks.

retrospooty

08-26-2003, 05:48 PM

If Mushkin can do PC4000 at low latency, they will clean up the market. If the best they can do is 2.5-4-4-7 then its just another ho-hum, less performance for more $$$ pc4000 ram like all the others.

Major

08-26-2003, 05:50 PM

I'll bet its CH5 chips, so don't expect it to have better timings than all the other PC4000 stuff around. :(

Sick0fthelies

08-27-2003, 09:41 AM

My 3200, which is one of their special chips they gave out on promotion for pretty cheap a few months ago, does 450 at tight timings, and ive gotten it to 466, but dont have an intel to really test high speeds. It might do more, but im not sure. Its the best ram i can imagine, 2x 256mb 3200 running at 3700 speeds was $100 shipped.

xgman

08-27-2003, 12:50 PM

I just spoke with Mushkin. They are just testing some sample sticks with "mushkin" labeled on the chips, so they could be from anyone. No word yet on whether it is as I suspect, just another of the low timings, P4 geared PC4000 modules which seem to be everywhere right now. More info in a week or two.

Amoeba Assassin

08-27-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Sick0fthelies
My 3200, which is one of their special chips they gave out on promotion for pretty cheap a few months ago, does 450 at tight timings, and ive gotten it to 466, but dont have an intel to really test high speeds. It might do more, but im not sure. Its the best ram i can imagine, 2x 256mb 3200 running at 3700 speeds was $100 shipped.

can we see pics:stick:

LikwidKool

08-27-2003, 07:37 PM

I am thinking that pc3500 levelII is looking pretty good right now.

what are people maxes with the levelII 3500?

kromosto

08-27-2003, 07:57 PM

that is what i did with hyper x no mods right now just wonder to compare with mushkin

http://mail.baskent.edu.tr/~97131018/fsb280.jpg

daddy_fizz

08-27-2003, 11:43 PM

that is about the max i can do stable, 1:1 with my mushkin also...

~Fizz

Trooper_GR

08-28-2003, 12:35 AM

I am expecting my Mushkin Level 2 3500 today, so I hope for the best! I will post some results if anyone wants :)

I have tried so many RAM lately, I cant find something that is really good...

tazdevl

08-29-2003, 12:12 AM

Geil PC4000 Ultra Plat runs like a champ. Didn't have luck with the Mushkin Black Level 2 PC3500. Couple bad sticks and it wouldnt pass memtest.

Trooper_GR

08-29-2003, 12:43 AM

What FSB, volt and timings are you running them ?

retrospooty

08-29-2003, 07:34 PM

well... its out , rated at 3-4-4, just like all the others.

No sale for you ! NEXT ! ;)

http://www.mushkin.com/epages/Mushkin.storefront/3f500a6409595186273fc0a8010505e4/Product/View/991114

:D

Sick0fthelies

08-29-2003, 07:49 PM

NOOO! Well, at least we can look forward towards the black level I and II...

Amoeba Assassin

08-29-2003, 07:56 PM

lol the mush doesnt come thru

Sick0fthelies

08-29-2003, 08:01 PM

its mushkin man....

daddy_fizz

08-29-2003, 08:20 PM

meh same thing as too many others, warranty is only up to 2.75 volts where as, say geil is up to 3.1 :D

~Fizz

Sick0fthelies

08-29-2003, 08:33 PM

Mushkin will never fall!!!

retrospooty

08-29-2003, 08:53 PM

To be fair to Mushkin... They have always made some of the best ram, ever since PC100 was the hot seller... Still do

The fact is, no RAM chip makers are producing chips that can run at pc4000 speeds with low latency. If anyone did, OCZ,Mushkin, Corsair, and all the others would buy them up and make us some modules.

Sick0fthelies

08-30-2003, 04:00 PM

oh and too the guy with hyperx (is it 3200) doing 420, thats not very good at all. My mushkin can boot at 470 and do it for a while without any vmods with freezing, just long enough to bench.

Amoeba Assassin

08-30-2003, 05:38 PM

with 3.2 vdimm I think it could hit at least 485

Sick0fthelies

08-30-2003, 05:46 PM

yeah, im surprised how well\l it does, it was only $100 for the two 256mb sticks...

Amoeba Assassin

08-30-2003, 05:59 PM

my ocz outperforms it though:)

Sick0fthelies

08-30-2003, 06:16 PM

costs twice as much at a later date, it doesnt beat it by enough too make a difference on an amd rig.

Amoeba Assassin

08-30-2003, 06:25 PM

it does on an intel though:up:

Sick0fthelies

08-30-2003, 07:24 PM

Well if youre willing to pay 80% more for ram and 600% more for your cpu and 200% more for your mobo, intel is faster.

retrospooty

08-31-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Sick0fthelies
Well if youre willing to pay 80% more for ram and 600% more for your cpu and 200% more for your mobo, intel is faster.

Dang ! Where do you shop ? I suggest you find another store, your prices are rediculous ! ;)

But seriously, if you are comparing COMPARABLE AMD vs Intel systems, Intel is about 20% more expensive.

600% more for the CPU ? I think highly not ! :D

Also... Intel has not dropped prices much this year, because AMD is way behind this year. The past 2 years when AMD was highly competitive, Intel prices were much better compared to AMD. Now everyone is buying Intel again, so they arent dropping :(

Come on HAMMER !

Sick0fthelies

08-31-2003, 09:29 AM

my 1700+ gets comparable to a 3.0b, after both have been overclocked. Best amd mobo is nf7-s about $110, best intel mobo is ic7-g which is around $220. Just about double.

JCviggen

08-31-2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Sick0fthelies
my 1700+ gets comparable to a 3.0b, after both have been overclocked. Best amd mobo is nf7-s about $110, best intel mobo is ic7-g which is around $220. Just about double.

you could get a 2.4C and get way better performance than your OC'd 1700+ ... you're just chosing an expensive comparison here...

you could turn it around and say that if you OC a 2.4C and the AMD 3200+ , Intel is cheaper Ã:banana:nd faster...

Also something to remember is that if you sell your setup or parts after a while, the value of the Intel parts will be higher. So you're not really paying that much more, although I do like AMD.

Sick0fthelies

08-31-2003, 09:42 AM

Yeah, thats true JC. I sold my 2.5b for $20 less on ebay after a few months of running it. my cpu is so cheap its not even worth selling.

retrospooty

08-31-2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by JCviggen
you could get a 2.4C and get way better performance than your OC'd 1700+ ... you're just chosing an expensive comparison here...
you could turn it around and say that if you OC a 2.4C and the AMD 3200+ , Intel is cheaper Ã:banana:nd faster...

Ya :toast:

You gotta make it a fair comparison ;)

Sick0fthelies

08-31-2003, 10:23 AM

How can you tell that it is fair when theres no intel chip that even comes close to the price of the barton 2500 let alone the 1700+?

retrospooty

08-31-2003, 11:34 AM

Ok, your pricing... you say "my 1700+ gets comparable to a 3.0b"

You are comparing a low end cheap known good overclocker to a high end CPU with an FSB limitation.

As JCViggen said, you could just as easily get a P4 2.4C and compare it price against an Athlon XP3200+ ... The 2.4 is alot cheaper and can OC to an equal performance level. In this case, the P4 IS cheaper...

All I am saying is you can't compare a 1700+ that may OC well, to a 3.0B, the 3.0b is not the Intel OC champ, the 2.4C is.

If you want to make a comparison, try your 1700+ against a 2.4C... since both seem to the the OC "Sweet spot" for each platfrom. Yes its still cheaper, but not by much, and the 1700+ DOES NOT perform as well. (also, if you get the 1700+ you are not Gauranteed to get one of those newer batches that OC so well, you could get the old one and not be able to OC much at all.

And... furthermore you can get an IC7 for $113 on the web... Thats $3 more than the NF7-S you used as an example (not quite 200%) . and an IC7G for $177 not $220 the only diff. is the Gbit lan, and 1 extra SATA controller. (IC7G has 2, the IC7 has 1)

Sick0fthelies

08-31-2003, 11:50 AM

The nfs-7 comparison was the best overclocker for amd vs. the best overclocker for intel. Its not a good mobo vs. a good mobo, because then there are $50 nforce2 mobos that are actually pretty decent. In my mind you cant compare the 1700+ and the 2.4c because the 1700 is around say $50 for a guaranteed dlt3c (thats a bit on the high end) and a regular not guaranteed 2.4c is $170. Thats more than 3x as much. My initial statement that amd is much cheaper for a price performance combination will stand until the 2.4c can triple the 1700 in performance.

retrospooty

08-31-2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Sick0fthelies
In my mind you cant compare the 1700+ and the 2.4c because the 1700 is around say $50 for a guaranteed dlt3c (thats a bit on the high end) and a regular not guaranteed 2.4c is $170.

Yet you compared a 1700 against a 3.0b ? :confused:

You CAN compare the 2, its the ONLY way to compare at all... Its the "lowest common denominator" Both are the "sweet and cheap" overclockers of each platform.

Yes, the Athlon is cheaper, but for a whole system, its not that much cheaper, not 200% and certainly not 600% cheaper as your post above would seem to indicate. The whole system you may pay 15 to 20% more for Intel, but it performs better.

Like I said above... Intel has not dropped prices much this year because everyone is buying Intel again, because the Athlon is no longer keeping up... That in itself says alot.

I REALLY hope the Athlon 64 rocks ! We need good competition to drop prices for all of us.

Sick0fthelies

08-31-2003, 12:12 PM

Every day that passes makes the athlon 64 look worse and worse. It runs at the same speeds as the barton, and theres no killer chip coming out thats gonna blow away intel.

sandman

08-31-2003, 12:20 PM

Yea, I hate to say it, but I think AMD is somewhat close to going under. Thier athlon 64 is a joke thus far, the bartons and T-breds are close to hitting thier max.

Course, the prescott isn't looking amazing either...

retrospooty

08-31-2003, 12:27 PM

Aw come on, lets wait until the A64 ships and see what we overclockers can do with it before we write it off. It may do really well, especially considering the Prescott is so damn hot its not looking so "hot" :D

I agree the Opteron isnt looking to powerful, but there is a new revision they using for the A64, and the tests I have seen indicate is scales really well, a few hundred mhz more can make a big difference, where the AXP and P4 it does not.

Sick0fthelies

08-31-2003, 12:35 PM

we shall see...

Amoeba Assassin

08-31-2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by retrospooty
Yet you compared a 1700 against a 3.0b ? :confused:

You CAN compare the 2, its the ONLY way to compare at all... Its the "lowest common denominator" Both are the "sweet and cheap" overclockers of each platform.

Yes, the Athlon is cheaper, but for a whole system, its not that much cheaper, not 200% and certainly not 600% cheaper as your post above would seem to indicate. The whole system you may pay 15 to 20% more for Intel, but it performs better.

Like I said above... Intel has not dropped prices much this year because everyone is buying Intel again, because the Athlon is no longer keeping up... That in itself says alot.

I REALLY hope the Athlon 64 rocks ! We need good competition to drop prices for all of us.

:owned:

Sick0fthelies

08-31-2003, 04:14 PM

:spam:

retrospooty

08-31-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Amoeba Assassin
:owned:

:bows:

gokickrocks

08-31-2003, 07:35 PM

how bout we take in to account the 3 nf7s boards that died on me or just didnt want to work...

im sure im not the only 1 that had a nforce2 board die or just not work for them

suddenly the intel route seems cheaper...