Rattle Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 from what i just learned my corsair CMX512-3200XL sticks are TCCD, they are XMS2308v1.1 are these able to hit 270's or higher? I have a rig with a 3700 diego Overclocked to 2.75 with some OCZ ddr500 stix. I was wondering if I dropped my multi to 10 and put my corsair in would I be abble to hit 275 maybe with these? I'm hearing mixed results, 260 from some. I seen a fella hit 288, he said he had thses stix and they were 510's .... any thoughts? thnx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC_SAVAGE Posted May 28, 2005 Share Posted May 28, 2005 I seen a fella hit 288, he said he had thses stix and they were 510's .... 510's....................... :confused: 3200XL running at 576MHZ?...................Post me link. I doubt they'll hit 550 either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattle Posted May 28, 2005 Author Share Posted May 28, 2005 510's....................... :confused: 3200XL running at 576MHZ?...................Post me link. I doubt they'll hit 550 either. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=856429#post856429 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high5 Posted May 28, 2005 Share Posted May 28, 2005 you should be able to hit 270 on those xl's with no problem. my tccd (xms 3200c2 v4.1) hits 265 2.5-3-3 @2.7, and i didn't really bother pushing it to the limit... yet those who do 300 are probably xl v1.2 that utilise brainpower pcb. 510 thing is tccd revision. its number on the upper right corner of the ic. it should be read as 'ymm', that is year 2005 week 10 in this case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattle Posted May 28, 2005 Author Share Posted May 28, 2005 you should be able to hit 270 on those xl's with no problem. my tccd (xms 3200c2 v4.1) hits 265 2.5-3-3 @2.7, and i didn't really bother pushing it to the limit... yet those who do 300 are probably xl v1.2 that utilise brainpower pcb. 510 thing is tccd revision. its number on the upper right corner of the ic. it should be read as 'ymm', that is year 2005 week 10 in this case... awesome man thnx I will try and let you know how I make out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattle Posted May 28, 2005 Author Share Posted May 28, 2005 awesome man thnx I will try and let you know how I make out. i got them in and tried and could not post over 260 no matter what i tried, still 260 is good for 200's hahaha back in my girls machine they go at 2-2-2-5 thnx guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high5 Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 have you tried playing with vdimm a bit? is the thing stable at 260? post more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC_SAVAGE Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 3200XL here which is tccd 510, I have mine at 288 2.5-3-3-6 right now and I just got them today. seems like they like voltage. It takes 3.1 to get them stable. Not sure how much to feed a tccd stick. FYI, The warranty limit is 2.9 volts. Let me know what you get with just 2.9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattle Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 yes I tried 2.9, I was good and stable at 2.5-3-3-6 at 250... I pushed to 260 stable that was my cap at 2.5-3-3-6, if I gotta lossen timings to get 5 more mhz the performance loss is not worth it lol, anyway i loosened timings and I think I got into windows at 265, but like I said I left them at 2.9, more voltage is usually not a help with TCCD, plus they are awesome stix and not worth popping LOL just wanted to see if I had gems that could push 275 or more, my OCZ ddr500 only goes to 270 lmao.... my 3200xl's were obviously speed binned for ddr 500, so they are ROCK SOLID at 250 at 2-5-3-3-6 timings, with my OCZ ram and the corsair at 11X250 with 2.5-3-3-6 timings I got 7050 mb/s in sandra memory bench, so they perform admirably and scored the same compared with my TRUE ddr500 stix in every test I tried at exact same settings. Now I just gotta find me some corsair TCCD pc4000's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 They're not speed binned for 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high5 Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 They're not speed binned for 500. not by corsair, but yes during manufacturing process by samsung. tccd & tcc5 are ddr500 parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 They're designed to hit 500 yes, however like all silicon, not all can do it, but they may be able to do say 480, and as such can still be used for 400 sticks. Again, this is all speculation from all sides. None of us are Samsung or Corsair :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high5 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 tccd has been classified by samsung itself as ddr500 part, there's no speculation in this. its a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 From what I heard, TCCDs that don't hit 500 are still sold as TCCD, just not at that speed, and not as TCCx. TBH, haven't seen any evidence either way, doubt there's much either as it's a marketing loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high5 Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 From what I heard, TCCDs that don't hit 500 are still sold as TCCD, just not at that speed, and not as TCCx. the stuff that doesn't hit 500 isn't tccd. testing determines whether certain module will become tccd or tcc5 or something else. that is, ceratain part is part numbered after the testing is done, they're all just ic's before that. besides, i must say i haven't seen any tccd based ram that can't hit 500, and i've seen it a lot. and just to correct myself, i stated before that tcc5 is ddr500 part, actually tcc5 is ddr466 (pc3700) part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Could've sworn there was some design difference in the TCCx's, but I'm pretty damn sleep deprived ATM, so I dunno lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.