31 Kits Corsair XMS2 5400UL

[Reefa_Madness]

Pic shows rev 1.2 and 3-2-2-8 (as opposed to 3-3-2-8) spec. If you don't get as such, it'd at least be worth complaining to newegg about.

They really should be listing the spec in the ad, especially since it varies revision to revision.

Specs per newegg:

Model
Brand CORSAIR
Series XMS2
Model TWIN2X1024A-5400UL
Type 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM
Tech Spec
Capacity 1GB (2 x 512MB)
Speed DDR2 675 (PC2 5400)
Cas Latency 3
Timing 3-2-2-8
Voltage 2.1V
Heat Spreader Yes

I've noticed that sometimes when I follow the OP link to Newegg's product page, the Specification tab is also displayed, and other times only

Those 3-2-2-8 timings caught my eye, because if you look at just about any of the D9 fatbody listings, they all show the v1.2 to have the second set of timings you posted above (the 3-3-2-8).

Per this linked review (below), the versions earlier than v1.2 (v1.1?) were rated for 3-2-2-8 timings, whereas v1.2 and later received the more relaxed 3-3-2-8 ratings. In that case, newegg's Specs of 3-2-2-8 would infer that the product is v1.1, whereas the pic is for v1.2.

Quote from review:

According to Corsair, TWIN2X1024A-5400UL modules are one of the best DDR2 SDRAM offerings from the company. This memory is tested for operability at 675MHz frequency and with 3-3-2-8 latencies. Note that these characteristics apply only to version 1.2 TWIN2X1024A-5400UL kits (the version number is indicated on the module’s sticker). For earlier versions of its DIMM kits the manufacturer guaranteed more aggressive timings (3-2-2-8), but later they decided to worsen the characteristics a little to reduce the manufacturing cost.

Link to source of quote:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mem...-oc1ghz_2.html


As always...it will be interesting to see what actually ships (reminds me of when everyone was buying TwinMOS SP, by looking at the pics, and hoping for Winbond UTT. ).

Edit:
Added newegg's Specs for the product

[Gautam]

Per this linked review (below), the versions earlier than v1.2 (v1.1?) were rated for 3-2-2-8 timings, whereas v1.2 and later received the more relaxed 3-3-2-8 ratings. In that case, newegg's Specs of 3-2-2-8 would infer that the product is v1.1, whereas the pic is for v1.2.

Review isn't correct. I've personally had every version from 1.1 to 1.5 in hand...1.2 is definitely 3-2-2-8. 1.3 is 3-2-2-8 for single sticks, 3-3-2-8 matched pair. From then on, they're all 3-3-2-8. The review seems to use ES sticks, so maybe even Corsair themselves hadn't finalized the spec by the time the review was printed.

They all use D9DQT or D9DQW, but the newer revisions are markedly inferior, presumably because at that point the 8000UL's were getting the higher bin.

[Reefa_Madness]

Review isn't correct. I've personally had every version from 1.1 to 1.5 in hand...1.2 is definitely 3-2-2-8. 1.3 is 3-2-2-8 for single sticks, 3-3-2-8 matched pair. From then on, they're all 3-3-2-8. The review seems to use ES sticks, so maybe even Corsair themselves hadn't finalized the spec by the time the review was printed.

They all use D9DQT or D9DQW, but the newer revisions are markedly inferior, presumably because at that point the 8000UL's were getting the higher bin.

Thanks for that post.

I would certainly put more stock in your first hand experience than in that review so for future reference I'm going to bookmark your post...you are now officially a reference source.

Your theory on why the newer revisions of the 5400ULs were inferior makes sense and if I was producing the two models I would be binning accordingly. They were probably binned the same way TCCD was...some chips were better suited for running DDR400 at 2-2-2-5 and some were better suited for running DDR600, but at more relaxed timings. The later 5400s were probably selected because they could run the tighter timings at the lower clocks and the 8000ULs could do the higher clocks, but with more relaxed timings.

[squilliam]

I am most curious. How do you find out exactly how many they have in stock?