Jump to content
Corsair Community

C3df Testing????


twiSted1

Recommended Posts

i have a question about the thread http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54052 on the C3DF testing, thats an AMD AM2 mobo being used? not an INTEL? not a 680i? but a 590 chipset?

 

ummm, am i missing something? what good are those specs on that old mobo.

and you contradict yourselves..

"*Important Note* Unless stated otherwise, all testing is done with only one module at a time"? but then you say "each pair is tested and packaged together using the following settings"?

 

i see nothing about SLI ready except performance mode is set at standard. if you look at the 9136D and the 10000D you get a little more involved and you actually test them on a 680i.

 

and what is this?

MCH Chipset V: 1.65V

ICH Chipset V: 1.20V

 

those of us with a EVGA 680i have SPP voltage, MCP voltage, and HT SPP <-->MCP voltage.

i would think you'd test on and post specs for the 680i with all the questions and problems i see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees

When that was wrote and the modules were developed there was no 680I chipset or it was still to new to validate modules with.

However you can look up your MB on Corsair Labs Performance Reports! if the MB is new it might not be listed but you can search by MB model of by module and see what MB's we tested from any manufacturer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to your link, no testing was done on the EVGA 680i mobo with the C3DF :bigeyes: and only 3 mobos were tested with them? the last one back in Nov. of 2006, which was the crosshair, a 590 chipset? i see testing was done with almost all other dominators but not the C3DF? if any testing was done is there something to reference like that big thread of tests an validations on old mobos?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
The reports are for reference and to see how the MB performed. You can use it when you set up your system just pick a set of modules that are close, but we do not test every MB with every module we make. There should not be any problems with that MB as we use some EVGA MB's on the production line to validate modules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TWIN2X2048-8888C4DF, 11/15/2006, EVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR

TWIN2X2048-8500C5, 1/19/2006, EVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR

TWIN2X2048-8500C5D, 1/19/2006, EVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR

TWIN2X2048-6400C4, 1/18/2006, EVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR

TWIN2X2048-6400C4D, 1/18/2006, EVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR

TWIN2X2048-6400C4PRO, 1/18/2006, EVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR

TWIN2XP2048-6400C4, 1/18/2006, EVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR

 

these were all tested, mostly in january '06, 1 year before dominator memory and the 680i was released? LOL yeah quality control at work anyways, those are performance tests?, with almost no info to reference, nothing like the validation thread with alot of info, which sadly is old and useless to most.

 

why was the C3DF omitted from the tests on the 680i? the last test was on the Crosshair 590 mobo. i dont see any tests being done on a 680i with 2.4V. you would think, regardless of the issues, that Cas 3 wouldve been tested to be sure it works?

 

so which set of modules and mobo should i choose that are close?

 

the AMD 590? LOL or the intel 965?

no offense Ram GUY but in my experience here most times your answers are vague, provide less than no help and just add to the frustration.

 

why send me 2 links on tests that have no bearing or relation to my questions or my desire to be able to reference something on the C3DF that i purchased from corsair for my 680i?

 

what are you referencing when answering questions? the same outdated tests that were done on last years chipset? or the tests done on the 680i but with memory that doesnt require 2.4V for default speed and advertised timings?

 

or are you just pulling it out of your Dimm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL something like all those validation and or performance tests but specific to the C3DF and the 680i and 2.4V.

 

something i can reference so i can see what settings that it worked on your tests.

 

i also asked like 5 questions in my last post and you answered none of them : ( "its like talking to a klingon"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am "testing" the 3df dimms on an Asus P5n32-E SLI and have had zero successful results. I have had short-lived boot success, followed by bsods or postlessness to the extreme. In several cases the os has become corrupted. I have tried replacing the power supply to a 720 enermax, I have replaced the video with an xfx 8600gts, tonight I will swap out the mainboard for another unit for my final test. if it fails after replacing every piece of hardware, my conclusion will be that this dimm just doesn't work with anything I've tested. (D975 Intel, D975 Asus, P5N32-e SLI, and P532N Pro (650i). None of them were able to run for more than 24 hours with the 3DF dimms other than the Asus d975, which lasted 3 days.

 

based on the lack of info on this dimm here and the troubling reports, I have low hopes for my mobo replacement helping things.

 

If I cannot use the dimms, I'll return them for an upgrade to the 9135 or 36 or whatever number it is. Frankly, I am at a loss where this particular part works! I tried a lot of high end boards with zero success. By the way, I could always replace the dominator 3df with the regular xms2 pc6400 and the systems ALL worked normally.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
these were all tested, mostly in january '06, 1 year before dominator memory and the 680i was released? LOL yeah quality control at work anyways, those are performance tests?, with almost no info to reference, nothing like the validation thread with alot of info, which sadly is old and useless to most.

A: When that modules was developed The 680i Chipset was not available and the reports were done on the most popular MB's at that time. We are working a new testing program and the 680I chipset MB's will be one of the first to be tested. However we have tested that chipset with all of our modules just we have not tested them for this purpose.

 

so which set of modules and mobo should i choose that are close?

the AMD 590? LOL or the intel 965?

no offense Ram GUY but in my experience here most times your answers are vague, provide less than no help and just add to the frustration.

 

A: the choice is your's if you want an Intel platform MB and will not use SLI I would suggest Intel P35 chipset. Or the 680I chipset is a Valid choice, however as you may know new chipsets come out from month to month and that may change in the near future. I cannot suggest one MB over another as it will cause a conflict of interest for me sorry.

 

 

why send me 2 links on tests that have no bearing or relation to my questions or my desire to be able to reference something on the C3DF that i purchased from corsair for my 680i?

 

A: Again that is just for reference, we do not need to test every MB on the market to know that our modules will work. However we usually do validate all of the major MB's with our modules.

 

what are you referencing when answering questions? the same outdated tests that were done on last years chipset? or the tests done on the 680i but with memory that doesnt require 2.4V for default speed and advertised timings?

A: I answered this previously, but if you have any more questions please let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am going to give up on the C3DF, I don't think it works. At least I've never seen it work on the 7 systems I tried to use 'em on. I'd try an EVGA 680i mainboard, but Corsair also told me it would work on the P5N32-E SLI and it definitely does not, so I believe their words, but I don't have the time nor the energy to verify, so my conclusion stands. No workie. I'm trading up to the 3196 or whatever it is, the CAS4 flavor, to see I get some stable action going.

 

If someone gets a lightbulb over their heads with some working settings please let me know.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A: When that modules was developed The 680i Chipset was not available and the reports were done on the most popular MB's at that time.

 

thats a load of crap. so ur saying the 8888C4DF came out before the C3?

cos you tested them on a 680i back in Nov of 2006.

 

A: Again that is just for reference, we do not need to test every MB on the market to know that our modules will work. However we usually do validate all of the major MB's with our modules.

 

usually? so why not now?

all i want is 1 test that was done on any 680i chipset mobo with the C3DF. why test 7 other flavors of dominators but not the one with the lowest latency you offer on 800mhz memory CAS3? you guys just assume they will work cos they've worked on other mobos? like the Crosshair 590?

 

what about all the problems i've had and seen other people have? its all the same issue, random shutdowns, then hard to post, then no post til the memory is swapped out? i watched it happen on 2 completely different 680i rigs that i have.

 

it makes no sense to me that the regular Cas5 dominators have tests but the much more expensive Cas3 dont.

 

and dont tell me again that the 680i mobo wasnt around for the testing when you tested almost all the other dominators on it. if ur going to BS me, put a little effort into it. ur starting to sound like the George W Bush.

 

as for my C3DF they are working in both my 680i's at stock Cas3 settings @ 2.325V (SLI ready disabled)for 5 days with no problems so far.

 

a mobo bios update might have taken care of a stability or compatibility issue, i cant rule that out til when and if they fail again.

 

for now its all good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
I think you are making some assumptions on when we would test or do a MB qualification on a new MB, the 680I chipset was just out about that time, yes I agree and we did indeed test that MB and chipset however, it was not in the system for MB compatibility testing and by the time it was 6400C3 module had became extinct for the most part as Micron IC were at that time hard to get a hold of let alone parts that would screen to that speed grade. We have not seen any problems like you have described short of someone having a failing module or some other system component. As I said previously in another post we are in the process of reorganizing the MB characterization testing and XM2S-6400C3DF is one of the parts we will Validate along with this platform and other popular chipsets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would think when a new chipset came out there would be rigorous testing to ensure compatibility,also that these specs would be posted as to avoid the million noob questions as to settings.

 

Especially when EVGA posted a disclaimer about dimm failure after prolonged 2.4V on their 680i mobo.

 

Especially when all these components are advertised for overclocking.

 

as to referencing your material for maximum voltages on xms prior to dominator and the new dominators,the 6400C3 is 2.1V the 6400C3DF is 2.4V but the 6400C4 is 2.1V and the 6400C4D is 2.1V. the 8500C5 is 2.2V and the 8500C5D is 2.2V.

 

why did the C3DF get such a voltage bump when the other didnt get any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees

Of course we do testing on the most popular MB's and hot MB's that have great performance enhancements and that was indeed done on this chipset, however this type of testing is not published and is not the same as the MB performance reports testing. Hope that is more clear and I have posted several times in reference to that statement from Nvidia.

 

The Voltage was required to make the newer systems compatible at that speed grade with the IC's that are currently available. Even though they are the same IC Micro D9 they do not seem to bin the same as the first lots. This is not uncommon and production of memory continues as they will refine the DIE to get more yield.

 

Bottom line if you have a problem with your module we will be happy to replace them is the best we can offer. However, when we release a part we publish the tested settings and the MB we use in XMS Qualification and Testing or Dominator Qualifications and Testing! However, even using the same MB and CPU some users may have problems running aggressive module for any number of reasons. Best we can do is provide as much help as possible and replace them as needed. But the return rate on this part is still quite low less than 3% so I have to assume that a majority of the problems users might have would be caused from some other issue not always a bad or failing module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...