Just what is TCC5?

[saaya]

i stickied this thread to make sure everybody gets what this tcc5 discussion is about

[andyOCZ]

After spending the last couple of days running down all the different threads and discussions on this topic...that is my understanding as well. Same thing, just not TESTED by Samsung to DDR500 anymore.

All indications are though, that you still want the "F" revision over the "E".

OCZ, for example uses only "F", which is "the good stuff".

[[timko]]

Good idea Saaya. With TCC5 becoming more prolific it's gonna become a commonly asked question

[Reefa_Madness]

OCZ, for example uses only "F", which is "the good stuff".

Good to get that confirmation from you, AndyOCZ. Several guys have asked specifically what you used. They have also asked when you started using the TCC5 chips in the PC3200, for example.

My question is more general...do you know when Samsung switched/started production of the "F" revision of the TCC5 chip? If TCCD and TCC5 are the same then it should have been around late April or early May of 2004 (aren't the first TCCD 0417 chips).

I ask because maybe it would also be a good idea to track the various batches of TCC5 to see if patterns develop as to their overclocking potentials, similar to what has been done with other chips.

If you guys post any results with mfg. dates, I can try to organize them in the first post. That is the problem with starting a thread...you've got to be the record keeper.

[LikwidKool]

Good to get that confirmation from you, AndyOCZ. Several guys have asked specifically what you used. They have also asked when you started using the TCC5 chips in the PC3200, for example.

From what I have been told OCZ started using TCC5 back in March. You can tell what your sticks have by the rev number in the lower right hand corner of the sticker. v1.0 is TCCD and v1.1 is TCC5.

[Reefa_Madness]

Do the TCCD sticks even have the version # on them. My sets don't.

I was under the impression that only the TCC5 were labeled with a version number.

[[timko]]

My TCCD sticks do not have the extra rev number on them.

It is ONLY the TCC5 sticks that will say something like --> "Rev.2 rev1.1" on the white sticker.

[Reefa_Madness]

That is my understanding, too. Only the TCC5 have a version number. No version # = TCCD.

[hitmanx2]

so, is TCCD generally a little bit better than TCC5 like BH5 vs BH6?

[dippyskoodlez]

so, is TCCD generally a little bit better than TCC5 like BH5 vs BH6?

I think its more like a TCCD Vs TCC5 as BH-5/CH-5 is UTT ?

The stuff i have which I believe is tcc5, does ddr600, so you definatly cant say its always worse.

[g0dM@n]

You can do ddr600 at what timings? And is that 2x512 or 2x256?

[dippyskoodlez]

You can do ddr600 at what timings? And is that 2x512 or 2x256?

2.5-3-3-7 1x 512mb. I dont have another stick yet. BP pcb. its strange.. I bought black level II rev 2 from newegg, got this.. it says level II 2-2-2, green PCB, and clocks a hellova lot better than my friends Black level II. Im guessing its XP 2-2-2, and if it is, its some nice stuff.

[Frank the Tank]

I have some OCZ PC4800EL with a rev 1.1 (TCC5), which clocks way better than my Corsair 3200XL (TCCD) pro series. I can reach 310+Mhz 1T, with 2.5, 5, 4, 7. My Winchester mem controller is junk (2500 max.) and I can still get over 300+ @ 1T, the only value that gives me trouble is that TRCD fails SuperPI with anything lower than 5, but passes Memtest Dos fine?? I'm trying to work that bug out, but running at 5 doesn't seem to affect the bandwidth by much at all. A 3700+ SD core is on order, so I'll see if that works even better. These are the ICs used in the new PC5000 DFI Special Edition modules also, just binned a little different.

Here is a quote from Andy @ OCZ:

It seems you are having great results despite the odd TRCD of 5. The CPU you have most likely does not work at the usual timings above 270mhz. It is fairly common for Winchester cores to cause problems. Please see the following timings as they may help with a new starting point. You can tighten up from these after you establish your TRCD setting.

http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/sho...0&postcount=11

There is other interesting info in that thread also.

The Rev 1.1 would designate TCC5, and as you observed it’s akin to a red Corvette vs. a Yellow one; same thing under the paint. The fastest memory I have here in my lab is TCC5, hands down.

Please let me know your results.

Thanks,

Andy

Online Media Coordinator

OCZ Technology, USA

[bugeyes]

Well it seems Samsung is still making TCCDs, it's just not supplying it to all companys!

I wan'ted to buy some for when I uprade to A64. so I decided to track down what was available locally (Australia) and the only ones I could find were G.skill 4400LE @ $478 AUD and Corsair 4400C25 @ $328 AUD.... I was a little sceptical about wether the Corsair's were infact TCCDs as there price seemed very low compared to the G.Skill. I went over to The House of Help and asked Corsair's representitive and here's his reply.

As I said before all XMS4400C25 and XMS3200XL modules use Samsung TCCD IC's. Corsair uses TCC5 RAMs only on other speed grades, such as the XMS3200C2 and XMS4000. Note that Samsung did not stop producing TCCD IC's, they just stopped shipping them to non direct suppliers. Or in other words we still get a large quantity every month and will do so for some time to come.

LINK ---> http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=20

[Eldonko]

Just found out that 4200EL is now TCC5. Will post my results in a bit.



EDIT: 284Mhz @2.5-3-3-5 and 2.8v, 289Mhz @2.5-4-3-5 and 3.0v are the limits on this RAM

[Reefa_Madness]

Well it seems Samsung is still making TCCDs, it's just not supplying it to all companys!

I wan'ted to buy some for when I uprade to A64. so I decided to track down what was available locally (Australia) and the only ones I could find were G.skill 4400LE @ $478 AUD and Corsair 4400C25 @ $328 AUD.... I was a little sceptical about wether the Corsair's were infact TCCDs as there price seemed very low compared to the G.Skill. I went over to The House of Help and asked Corsair's representitive and here's his reply.



LINK ---> http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=20

That information would be consistent with a post made by Duonger, the Mushkin rep, over at OCF. He stated that TCCD was still available, but you had to have contacts and buy a boatload.

I guess we now know who's got the contacts....

[LBJGH]

... see sig... 283mhz 1:1 2.5,4,7,3

Seems like TCC5 does just about as good as TCCD, anyone have anymore results with TCC5? OCZ likes it

[Reefa_Madness]

I've just received two set of OCZ PC3200 v1.1 so I will be able to at least try two different sets on the same rig (MSI Neo2/3200 winney combo). That will help in determining consistency in the OCZ product. I'll play with them over the weekend and let everyone know how it went.

[bugeyes]

I would love to see a comparison of the OCZ 3200R2 v1.1 against Corsair 3200XL... It should show hows the boss TCCD or TCC5

[Rick_Hunter]

hi guys
my corsair c2pt 4.2 came with tcc5 and I'm very happy....
this modules are very close to popular and expensive tccd in my opinion
the max fsb I can reach is 325mhz 3-4-3-7 but 2T ...the best configuration was 300mhz 3-4-3-7 1T (ras to cas work with 3 but show some inestability issues after heavy load)

[Reefa_Madness]

Self quote:

"I've just received two set of OCZ PC3200 v1.1 so I will be able to at least try two different sets on the same rig (MSI Neo2/3200 winney combo). That will help in determining consistency in the OCZ product. I'll play with them over the weekend and let everyone know how it went."

Not going to be able to do this two set testing as I've gone and sold a set NIB.

The set that I'm testing is probably in line with my other TCCD, which is to say 260 at 2.5-3-3-7 (1T) (2.7v), 282 at 2.5-4-3-8 (1T) (2.85v) and topping out at 292 with 3-4-4-8 (2T). I have removed the Booster from my board so these sticks have not been tested with higher voltges.

I'm still using an early BIOS and my board doesn't play as well with TCCD as others. The point that I'm trying to make is that my results were similar, whether it was TCCD or TCC5 that I was testing.

[high5]

since i see there has been much talking about tcc5 issue on various forums, i'll post the information i have:

tccd & tcc5 (ones used in newer production ocz platinum el rev2) are exactly the same ic's, the only difference between them is what they have been tested for. 'tccd' and 'tcc5' stuff is not ic type, its their speed rating, what they've been binned for. tccd means that it has been tested & qualified by samsung as ddr500 part, tcc5 means its ddr466. they're both k4h560838f ic, that 'k4h560838f' thing is the ic type, samsung's premium ic. samsung tcc5 reviewed at anadtech that reefa posted has nothing to do with tcc5 used on ocz platinum el rev2, for example, since ones reviewed on anand are k4h560838e ic, notice the 'e' instead of 'f' at the end. that is the different ic and can't be compared to f-tcc5 we're talking about here. some people call that rev.f or rev.e. calling that thing revision is wrong b/c most people are getting impression that its revision f of the tccd ic (for example), while in fact its the other way around: its ic type f, speed grade tccd.

now the speculation part: why did samsung stopped (or just reduced) testing their ic's for ddr500 parts? well, this is my guess; winbond sells their ic's completely untested, and that means they're very cheap b/c testing ic's is expensive. and the more demanding testing is, the more it costs. therefore the same ic tested for ddr466 operation instead of ddr500 would cost less and would be more competitive on the market b/c price difference between utt and tccd is huge.

[amrgb]

...and the more demanding testing is, the more it costs.

I can´t see how can Samsung save in direct costs of testing when testing for DDR466 instead for DDR500.

However they indeed save costs because less chips will fail the test procedure (those that can run between DDR466 and DDR500 but not above DDR500).

Additionally, since they are still producing and selling TCCD, unlike many have claimed, Samsung will relabel those chips that failed the TCCD testing.

Concluding, a batch of TCC5 chips will have inferior quality compared to a batch of TCCD.

Of course that one can find TCC5 chips performing the same or even better than some TCCD chips. But with TCC5 it is possible to get a chip clocking between DDR466 and DDR500, whereas with TCCD this would not happen (provided that the testing procedure is accurate).

In the past, when buying TCCD based memory rated at 2-2-2-5 DDR400 we had two thing for granted: DDR400 and DDR500 performance. Nowadays we only have DDR400 and DDR466 for granted. And the probability of not achieving DDR500 performance is not negligible (in the same conditions as Samsung has tested the chips, since there is little evidence of TCC5 not achieving DDR500 in real world use, although there are some cases out there).

So, it is not correct to state that TCC5 is the same as TCCD. On average TCC5 is worse. This justifies the fact that it is cheaper than TCCD.

[high5]

I can´t see how can Samsung save in direct costs of testing when testing for DDR466 instead for DDR500.

as i stated in previous post, the more testing is demanding, the more it costs. testing ic's is not a simple thing and is certainly not being done in one step. since i believe many reps hanging around here, there would be no problems confirming this i hope.

Additionally, since they are still producing and selling TCCD, unlike many have claimed, Samsung will relabel those chips that failed the TCCD testing.

this is exactly why i posted my initial post, tccd is not being produced, k4h560838f is what is produced and tccd/tcc5 is what its being tested for. there is no such thing as relabeling tccd to tcc5, simply b/c after the production, they're all just k4h560838f ic's before testing part. and for testing, i believe the ic's are being tested at the lower speed first, and then if they pass the test they go to higher grade testing and so on and so on... however, i'm not 100% certain about that but i think its the way it is.

So, it is not correct to state that TCC5 is the same as TCCD. On average TCC5 is worse. This justifies the fact that it is cheaper than TCCD.

i stated that physically tccd and tcc5 are completely identical b/c they are the same ic's of the same manufacturing process. please, re-read my post with some understanding.

[BioPC]

physically tccd and tcc5 are completely identical b/c they are the same ic's of the same manufacturing process.

This is what i got testing my OCZ EL PC3200 Rev.2 TCC5: 320 2,5-4-3-7 1T @2.9v (x8 multiplier)
Sorry for the bad foto quality.