4 kits of DDR3 Kingston Review
If you enjoyed this analysis and / or need more information we invite you to review our analysis of RAM
With an ample supply of RAM, the giant of the business, Kingston, manages to deliver various products to meet customer needs novice as well as experts.
We start with something HyperX performance, memory designed to operate with times lower than normal memories, others working at Low Voltage and LoVo calls with an attractive color in the cooler, as well as the Genesis and Blu HyperX, which also give a good performance at a price well off.
Now begins the analysis of these four memory kits!
We start with the most powerful kit of all we tested, a Performance HyperX T1 and bred, which operates with sub times lower than normal kits, allowing you to achieve better results in terms of bandwidth.
We still have a special memory kit, the LoVo (Low Voltage) operating at a frequency of 1600 MHz and also a time CAS 9, but not just lay on it, since for this configuration only needs 1.35 V and 1 , 25 V when selected by the 1333 MHz XMP profiles.
The following kit is also HyperX family, but in an intermediate segment but without neglecting the known benefits of these memories Kingston. This time, they operate at 1333 MHz Genesis with a CAS latency 7 and 1.65 V.
Finally we have the Blu HyperX kit, the cheapest of the family, but that does not leave out exceptional performance, what about these memories to markets that previously did not have this privilege. This kit operates at a frequency of 1600 MHz and has a CAS latency 9 and which with two modules 2 GB allows a good performance in entrance platforms.
Platform and Methodology
The Intel platform for this occasion are detailed below.
|Processor||Intel Core-i7 3770K @ 3.5 GHz (35 x 100MHz)|
|Motherboard|| P8Z77-V Deluxe ASUS
|Memoirs|| Kingston 2x4GB @ 1600 MHz KHX1600C9D3T1K2/8G 9-9-9-27 1T 1.65v
Kingston 2x2GB @ 1600 MHz KHX1600C9AD3B1K2/4G 9-9-9-27 1T 1.65v
Kingston 2x2GB @ 1600 MHz KHX1600C9D3LK2/4GX 7-7-7-20 1T 1.35v
Kingston 2x4GB @ 1333 MHz KHX1333C7AD3K2/8G 9-9-9-27 1T 1.65v
|Video Card||NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670|
|Power Supply||Platinum 1000W Seasonic|
|Processor Cooling||Liquid-cooled Intel|
|Storage||Kingston HyperX SH100S3 120GB|
|Monitor||Viewsonic VX2835wm 28 “|
|Operating System||Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit|
|Video Drivers||NVIDIA GeForce 301.42 WHQL Drivers|
|Benchmarks|| AIDA64 Extreme Edition v2.50.2000
x264 HD Benchmark 4.0
|Games|| Far Cry 2
STALKER: Call of Pripyat
Unlike other reviews that the evidence is always done in versus mode, this time we will compare the reports against themselves, but working at different latencies with default voltage. The aim will be to determine whether there is a performance difference to justify working with times closer. The overclock that will prove the most stable operating system to start and run Cinebench R11.5. Before you begin, we let 4 CPU-Z screenshots showing the different settings used during testing. The processor operated at the frequency specified in each catch, related to the frequency and times with the memories that operated in the two situations.
Beginning with the tests, we need the kit is the HyperX T1 achieves the best results in terms of bandwidth, surpassing by a wide margin on the copy of data to their brothers kits.
Something happens with different latencies, the kit is Blu, the cheapest of the HyperX family achieves very fast response compared to other more expensive kits.
Following Cinebench, we have that the differences are reflected in the use of benchmarks with all processing threads available, ie multi-mode core, being HyperX T1 kit which achieves the best results.
As for coding, we see that consistent with the price, the HyperX T1 kit achieves a result superior to all other kits, but keep in mind that not all products are aimed at the more expensive segment, each has its advantages make them competitive, something Kingston is where it is.
Finally, in the games, despite the differences in average FPS are minimal, there, and after long test sessions could prove empirically that the results are real, even if we go to a normal situation, where we set the quality of details as full-resolution considering the hardware we have in this platform should not notice any difference, since much of the work goes to the video card.
As for overclocking, we have all the memories were not able to achieve high frequency overclocking, considering that you are quite the limit on memory timings and voltage. Anyway, we always try to extort a few more MHz and this is what we achieved with each memory kit during the time we dedicate to overclock to each of them.
We start with the HyperX T1
We continue with the HyperX Blu,
Then the HyperX Genesis
And finally the HyperX LoVo, which by its configuration could not get more often.
Whereas the cost of these modules varies between $ 29-59 USD (newegg.com prices obtained), the highest performing cost no more so-called economic and within this same reasoning, the Blu HyperX kit left us pleasantly surprised because achieves good results and was also one of the most overclockeo, reaching up to 2133 MHz with 10-11-10-27 latencies Q2, which are the great wonder but hey, the kits that operate at this frequency with similar times cost at least $ 100.
In another segment, we have a kit LoVo, which operates at 1600 MHz and achieves it with only 1.35 volts, whereas if we are more conservative and decided to work at only 1333 MHz only need 1.25 volts. What’s more, we overclockearlos but not at the level of T1 Blu neither, but something could be done.
Rounding out the issue a bit, we are conforming to see that the yields of the Kingston memory we tested HyperX today ranges from the cheapest to the most expensive without falling behind in any respect and most importantly, each kit stands out with its own merits.
- All kits give a good performance considering the price range we have.
- The HyperX memory kit overclock like no Blu and costs only $ 29.
- The HyperX LoVo saving energy when it is important to do so.
- The HyperX T1 kit overclockeo not as much as expected.
Author: Luis Felipe Castillo
Photos: Mariano Mancilla