- Back to homepage
- Related articles
  Related articles

Kingston PC6400CL4 and PC8500CL5 2GB Memory Kits Review

Memory by thorgal @ 2007-02-21

When it comes to high performance memory, Kingston has a name to keep up in the business. We already took some memory kits from Corsair, Team Group and OCZ for a spin, but Kingston was noticeably absent. About time we set this right, and we do this today by looking at two of their products: the PC6400CL4 and PC8500CL5, both 2Gb kits. Let´s see how they stack up against some fierce competition...

800Mhz Performance

Benchmark suite

As soon as we ensure full stability on all of the cas settings as shown on the previous page, we are ready to run our benchmark suite. This suite consists out of the following applications:

Sisoft S.A.N.D.R.A. 2007

Lavalys Everest 2.20

Maxon Cinebench 9.5

MadOnion/Futuremark 3D Mark 2001SE

Futuremark 3D Mark 2006

Futuremark PC Mark 2005

Superpi 1.5, Xtremesystems edition

Game 1 : 3D Realms Prey demo ; benchmark by Hardware OC

Game 2 : Monolith F.E.A.R. Multiplayer demo, built-in benchmark

Bandwidth at 800Mhz DDR

To measure the bandwidth and latency performance of the memory kit we use two standard applications.

First is the bandwidth for which we use SiSoftware's Sandra application. The System ANalyser, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant is an information and diagnostic utility which has a very handy benchmark suite, in which you can compare your system to a range of other reference systems. The Bandwidth is one of the available benchmarks.

In all our graphs, please look at the blue bars for the PC8500 kit, and the green bars for the PC6400 kit. The bar for best performing memory in each test is coloured yellow.

Madshrimps (c)

The differences you see here are very small. The small difference you do see is dependent on the cas latency of the modules at 800Mhz DDR. The entire top of the memory pack are modules that are capable of running a cas latency of 3 cycles at 800Mhz, the bottom of the pack has to run at 4 cycles. Both our Kingston memory kits have to run at 4 cycles, giving a little lower result than most kits. The PC8500 did come very close though (at 797Mhz DDR), and could probably finish all but the most demanding benchmarks at 800Mhz cas 3 as well.

Latency at 800Mhz DDR

Second up is the latency test for which we use the Everest application from Lavalys.

Madshrimps (c)

When we look at latencies, the cas 3 vs. cas 4 differences are again pronounced in the same way as the bandwidth test. Our Kingston kits are again part of the bottom group with a setting of cas 4 at 800Mhz. Also note the (very) small difference here and in the bandwidth table between the PC6400 and PC8500 memory kits. It seems that at the very same settings, Memory equipped with Micron chips is just that little faster than the Elpida memory chips.

Benchmark tests at 800Mhz settings

In this section we take a look at the performance of the memory modules in the above mentioned benchmark programs and real life application tests. We start off with the Futuremark 3D Mark 2001 test :

Madshrimps (c)

As you can see, differences are small here. We're talking about a 1,5% difference only between the fastest (Team Group) and the slowest (the PC5300 generic) memory module.

Madshrimps (c)

Next up is 3D Mark 2006, where we take a look at the CPU test only, as well as the total scores. In this case the differences are even smaller between the modules: for the cpu tests only the differences are about 1% between the slowest and the fastest kit, for the total 3D06 benchmark differences are less than 0.5%. As with the 3D01 benchmark, the Kingston Modules are at the bottom of the chart.

Madshrimps (c)

When we look at the PC Mark test of 2005, things look much more favorable for our Kingston kits. The PC8500 kit even comes in second of all our kits reviewed so far. The differences between the slowest and fastest kit is about 4% in this case.

Now let's have a look at the Cinema 4D bench, better know as Cinebench :

Madshrimps (c)

As you can see, differences are almost none existent. Kingston is just there with the rest of the memory kits.

Time for some Superpi :

Madshrimps (c)

Here we see the influence of the slightly higher cas latency of the PC8500, as it sits at the bottom of the Micron pack. The Kingston PC6400 is right on par with the OCZ PC6400 kit. Differences between the slowest and fastest kit is about 5%. You can also see the very small difference in performance again between Elpida and Micron memory, the latter being just a little faster at the very same settings.

Here are the game tests:

Madshrimps (c)

First up is Prey, and Prey tends to give little fluctuations: maximum differences lie around 1.5%. Both our Kingston kits appear in the (lower) middle of the pack.

Madshrimps (c)

Finally some F.E.A.R. testing, and this test is clearly giving some more fluctuations than the other tests, as differences up to 7% are possible with this benchmark. The Kingston kit sits again in the lower middle of the pack.

Let's have a look how these kits perform on the 1066Mhz memory strap ->

Comment from Sidney @ 2007/02/21

Go for the lowest price point is still the best choice?

Comment from jmke @ 2007/02/21

best choice for who? If you're concerned about your budget, going for lowest price point is always the best choice

Comment from Sidney @ 2007/02/21

Indremental Money spent versus incremental performance/value received.

Comment from jmke @ 2007/02/21

for none OC'ers, this article still is true
http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=472

cheapest PC6400 DDR2 ram more than enough to satisfy COre 2 bandwidth needs

Comment from Sidney @ 2007/02/21

Agree; unless you get a processor that can do +500 FSB everytime, finding mobo and memory become secondary and relatively easier than the formal.

Comment from jmke @ 2007/02/21

I think most E6300 can reach 500+, just need a mobo that can do it

having negative FSB:MEM divider also helps

All information and graphics contained in Madshrimps are sole property of the Madshrimps crew and may not be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from us.