Crucial Ballistix Tactical 3000 MHz DDR4 (4x 8 GB)

[cadaveca]

Crucial released a speed bump to their DDR4 products! Today, we get get to look at their update to the Ballistix Tracer line-up with a maximum speed of 3000 MHz and amazingly decent timings of 15-16-16-35 operating at a voltage of 1.35 V. You may have thought of Crucial as a company that only offers entry-level to mid-grade DDR4 products, but cannot do so any longer!

Show full review

 

[Folterknecht]

So what was your OC result @1.35V with them? Stop teasing!!!

 

[Deleted member 50521]

Pretty nice to have DDR4-3000 run on 100BCLK now. BWE has definitely improved IMC both performance and stability. I wish my 5820K can tackle DDR4-3000 with 100BCLK.

 

[buildzoid]

How do they OC? I have a 2400 16-16-16-39 kit that does 2800 10-14-13-26-1T on 1.5V but I'd prefer to have something that clocks a little higher for X99

 

[TheLostSwede]

Got a 2x8GB kit of these a few months ago, been rock solid apart from the fact that my motherboard doesn't like the XMP settings...
Hopefully the UEFI update I just downloaded will solve that...

 

[Farmer Boe]

Dave, you should still post your overclock results as I'm sure lots of people are interested in seeing what you could hit for MHz and timings. Maybe have something like a spoiler tag with a drop down tab so you don't see them by default.

Regardless, good review and long live Crucial! (Or is it Ballistix now....).

 

[Deleted member 50521]

From my personal experience DDR4 doesn't overclock too well. A lot of the samsung IC chips are very specific binned into different tier of speed and timing. That applies to DDR4-3000 and upwards at least.

 

[Breit]

Doesn't Cinebench R15 always measure the CPU performance and then in single thread and multi thread mode?
The performance numbers in the review state a GPU score (in points) and a CPU score in FPS. I bet the CPU score should read as multi threaded CPU performance (in points) and the GPU score is actually the CPU single threaded score.

 

[cadaveca]

Doesn't Cinebench R15 always measure the CPU performance and then in single thread and multi thread mode?
The performance numbers in the review state a GPU score (in points) and a CPU score in FPS. I bet the CPU score should read as multi threaded CPU performance (in points) and the GPU score is actually the CPU single threaded score.

Uh, no. Cinebench offers a couple of different testing "modes".

I do keep screenshots of all results of all reviews.

 

[RejZoR]

So, it still stands true that RAM capacity is more important than RAM speed. The difference between 2400 and 3000 is next to non existent for 90% of scenarios.

 

[Breit]

Uh, no. Cinebench offers a couple of different testing "modes".

I do keep screenshots of all results of all reviews.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. But then again it should not read 'fps' for the CPU tests when it actually is points (or 'cb'), and it should read FPS for the GPU tests, where now it says 'pts'. Or am I missing something here?!

 

[EarthDog]

So, it still stands true that RAM capacity is more important than RAM speed. The difference between 2400 and 3000 is next to non existent for 90% of scenarios.

Certainly... that is OFN...the last part. The capacity thing depends. I would guess that its memory ranks/banks on the higher capacity chips is the reason you are seeing (negligible) performance gains.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. But then again it should not read 'fps' for the CPU tests when it actually is points (or 'cb'), and it should read FPS for the GPU tests, where now it says 'pts'. Or am I missing something here?!

Open GL tests the GPU, not the CPU. Hence why its in FPS. Ive never looked at it with the same GPU and different CPUs, however, so CPU may come into play. That said, out of 20 threads, one was maxed out during open GL while the others were essentially idle. The GPU was getting loaded (not a lot) in that test. In the CPU test, all 20 threads were used fully while the GPU was idle.

 

[RejZoR]

I mean, deciding between 8GB of ultra fast DDR4 RAM and 16GB of just the most average RAM you can find cheap, going 16GB makes far more sense and it'll benefit you for far longer. Or even if you have to decide between 16GB and 32GB, 32GB would still make more sense, regardless of RAM sticks speed. You only really look at maximum speed when you're benchmarking for bragging and you need to extract every score point you can get.

 

[biffzinker]

32GB would still make more sense, regardless of RAM sticks speed.

Speaking of the increase in RAM capacity (16/32 GB) shouldn't we be making use of ECC by now irregardless of Intel's attempts at artificial product segmentation?

 

[RejZoR]

Sure ECC is nice, but is it really necessary for consumers? Or does need for ECC increase with the RAM capacity? I never really paid much attention for it on systems outside "serious business".

 

[biffzinker]

Or does need for ECC increase with the RAM capacity?

With today's CPUs for example the i7 6700K to the i3 6100 allowing for up to 64 GB the need for ECC is more important than it was in the past. Of course the i3-6100 does have ECC turned on but the i5 up to the i7 doesn't have ECC, there's a more probable chance the i5/i7 are likely to be populated with above 16 GB.

 

[Breit]

Open GL tests the GPU, not the CPU. Hence why its in FPS.

Yeah I get that, but thats my point: The graph says 'fps' for the CPU tests and 'cp' or points for the GPU tests and NOT the other way around.
I just wanted to make the author aware of a simple typo, nothing more. But that seems far more complicated than I'd expected, obviously.
Maybe my English isn't good enough to express that in any comprehensible way?!

 

[pokazene_maslo]

Is this single rank or dual rank memory?

 

[basco]

Is this single rank or dual rank memory?

would be nice if this would be answered in all reviews of Memory
TIA