Crucial Ballistix CLIII5N.32 PN56278
As the retail sales arm of Micron, the huge memory chip manufacturer, Crucial has managed to impress us many times with their high-end Ballistix memory line. The Ballistix name is almost always means high performance, but it also normally represents good value in the memory market.
Specifications
The Crucial Ballistix 2GB kit is rated at DDR500 at the somewhat conservative ratings of 3-3-3-8. We actually found that the DIMMs would run at much better timings at DDR500. We could run the DDR500 speed at 2.5-2-2-7 at 2.8V, which is the best performance that we have ever seen at DDR500 with 1GB DIMMs.
Voltage is rated at standard or 2.6V.
Test Results
To be considered stable for test purposes, Quake3 benchmark, UT2003 Demo, Super PI, Aquamark 3, and Comanche 4 had to complete without incident. Any of these, and in particular Super PI, will crash a less-than stable memory configuration.
Crucial Ballistix has been available for several months and the performance characteristics are pretty well known. We achieved incredible results with our Crucial Ballistix, but our results should be considered among the best that you can achieve with these 1GB DIMMs. Where we were able to run at 2-2-2 timings at stock voltage, we more commonly see results at DDR400 of 2-3-2. This is not to take anything away from the Ballistix 2GB kit, as it is definitely an incredible performer at the more normal results that we see in Forums.
One word of caution: some users have been killing their Crucial Ballistix 2GB kits. It appears that the culprit is high memory voltages. We did a survey of a number of Forums and found that, in most cases, the memory was dying at voltages of 2.85V and higher. Our advice, which we also followed in benchmarking for this review, is to keep voltages below 2.85V with the 2GB Crucial Ballistix kits.
The other end of the spectrum was also outstanding for Ballistix. We reached a stable DDR610 overclock at 2.8V with the 2GB kit. This is the highest overclock achieved with any of the nine 2GB kits tested in this review. Our only real reservation with Ballistix is the spotty availability that has characterized this product since launch. This "on again, off again" availability is usually an indication that yields may not be as good as a manufacturer would like. We don't know the real reasons why 2GB Ballistix doesn't stay in stock, but you should be aware of the supply problems before deciding on this 2GB kit.
As the retail sales arm of Micron, the huge memory chip manufacturer, Crucial has managed to impress us many times with their high-end Ballistix memory line. The Ballistix name is almost always means high performance, but it also normally represents good value in the memory market.
Specifications
The Crucial Ballistix 2GB kit is rated at DDR500 at the somewhat conservative ratings of 3-3-3-8. We actually found that the DIMMs would run at much better timings at DDR500. We could run the DDR500 speed at 2.5-2-2-7 at 2.8V, which is the best performance that we have ever seen at DDR500 with 1GB DIMMs.
| Crucial Ballistix CLIII5N.32 PN56278 Memory Specifications | |
| Number of DIMMs & Banks | 2 DS |
| DIMM Size Total Memory |
1GB 2GB |
| Rated Timings | 3-3-3-8 at DDR500 |
| Rated Voltage | Standard (2.6V) Voltage |
| SPD | 3-3-3-8 |
Voltage is rated at standard or 2.6V.
Test Results
| Crucial Ballistix CLIII5N.32 (DDR500) - 2x1GB Double-Bank | |||||||
| CPU Ratio at 2.4GHz | Memory Speed |
Memory Timings & Voltage |
Quake3 fps |
Sandra UNBuffered | Sandra Standard Buffered |
Super PI 2M places (time in sec) |
Wolfenstein - Radar - Enemy Territory fps |
| 12x200 | 400DDR | 2-2-2-7 2.6V |
545.2 | INT 2601 FLT 2724 |
INT 6082 FLT 6029 |
82 | 118.9 |
| 11x218 | 436DDR | 2.5-2-2-7 2.6V |
545.0 | INT 2724 FLT 2824 |
INT 6449 FLT 6386 |
81 | 118.8 |
| 10x240 | 480DDR | 2.5-2-2-7 2.7V |
556.9 | INT 2857 FLT 3033 |
INT 6736 FLT 6656 |
80 | 120.6 |
| 9x267 | 533DDR | 3-3-3-7 2.7V |
553.8 | INT 2991 FLT 3171 |
INT 6971 FLT 6871 |
80 | 120.3 |
| 8x300 | 600DDR | 3-4-4-8 2.8V |
561.2 | INT 3186 FLT 3335 |
INT 7173 FLT 7078 |
80 | 121.5 |
| 9x305 (2.75GHz) |
Highest Mem Speed DDR 610 |
3-4-4-8 2.8V |
618.6 | INT 3420 FLT 3574 |
INT 8000 FLT 7901 |
71 | 135.1 |
Crucial Ballistix has been available for several months and the performance characteristics are pretty well known. We achieved incredible results with our Crucial Ballistix, but our results should be considered among the best that you can achieve with these 1GB DIMMs. Where we were able to run at 2-2-2 timings at stock voltage, we more commonly see results at DDR400 of 2-3-2. This is not to take anything away from the Ballistix 2GB kit, as it is definitely an incredible performer at the more normal results that we see in Forums.
One word of caution: some users have been killing their Crucial Ballistix 2GB kits. It appears that the culprit is high memory voltages. We did a survey of a number of Forums and found that, in most cases, the memory was dying at voltages of 2.85V and higher. Our advice, which we also followed in benchmarking for this review, is to keep voltages below 2.85V with the 2GB Crucial Ballistix kits.
The other end of the spectrum was also outstanding for Ballistix. We reached a stable DDR610 overclock at 2.8V with the 2GB kit. This is the highest overclock achieved with any of the nine 2GB kits tested in this review. Our only real reservation with Ballistix is the spotty availability that has characterized this product since launch. This "on again, off again" availability is usually an indication that yields may not be as good as a manufacturer would like. We don't know the real reasons why 2GB Ballistix doesn't stay in stock, but you should be aware of the supply problems before deciding on this 2GB kit.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
bigtoe36 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link
TomThe parts are 2x1204, we don't supply single sided CE5 512 kits, infact no one does.
For the record, 4000eb is 2048mb so 2x1024mb modules.
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
The OCZ we tested is definitely a 2GB kit. I changed the Corsair name in the review since they refer to 2GB kits as TwinX 2048. However I just double-checked their web site and OCZ uses the 1024 to describe the dimm size. In fairness they are officially a 2x1024 kit, so I will update the reference to hopefully clarify what we tested.The memory manufacturers all have pretty awful naming schemes for their memory, but OCZ is still one of the most confusing.
CCUABIDExORxDIE - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
how does crucial not get gold? honestly, go out and try to buy the EB 4000 or the Redline PC4000, you cant cause of Infenions horrible yeilds. so in your mindset, the gold winner should be the UCCC corsair stuff. also where is the Gskill pc4000 and the Mushkin pc4000?? There should have been more UCCC tested and less CE-6.just my opinion though.
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
You can not presently buy Crucial any where, and Crucial told us they would not likely have the product available again. Infineon has had problems with consistency since October, but all of the memory manufacturers here assured us the Infineon-based dimms were current products and supply would continue. Some even sent links on where you could buy the Infineon dimms.We asked manufacturers to submit their "best" 2GB kit. There was nothing to stop them from submitting both Infineon CE and Samsung UCCC for the roundup. As we found in the review Samsung UCCC is not as fast as Infineon at most speeds, but it does overclock just as well, and it's generally 30% to 40% cheaper. At present Samsung UCCC chips are easier to find, but manufacturers tell us recent Infineon is finally producing better yields - and chips are becoming available again.
CCUABIDExORxDIE - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
alright...what about this? http://www.chiefvalue.com/app/productdetails.asp?s...">http://www.chiefvalue.com/app/productde....asp?sub... aww a bit of misinformation? thats rightozzimark - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
while we're mentioning misinformation.. it was stated that teamgroup can be had at newegg? atm, i'll have to disagree.second.. micron chips don't go to just crucial. i have a set of 2x1gb teamgroup in my hands that i need do a review on that use micron chips, and they easily hit 280mhz on a DFI that appears to be having serious VTT stability issues :P
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
We checked with Newegg and Team is not available there. We have removed that comment from the review and asked Team where buyers can buy their memory in the US. We'll post the info when we get an answer.cool - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
@Wesley:On the "Test Configuration" page, I noticed that you're using the following nForce drivers: "NVIDIA nForce Platform Driver 6.86"
When will they be released and do they solve the PATA/SATA and nvFirewall issues that are still plaguing nForce4 users?
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
I apologize for the typo. We used the latest release 6.70 on our DFI nF4 SLI. The latest release for AMD X16 is 6.82, and we listed a beta x16 driver rev we had on an x16 machine used for editing.The platform driver version has been corrected in the article.
PrinceGaz - Monday, January 23, 2006 - link
Hopefully one day, the nVidia softtware team will pay some attention to its chipset drivers and get these issues with the PATA/SATA drivers, which in v6.70 still have issues on my nForce4 mobo, albeit not so badly as some earlier drivers, but are still unreliable enough for me to revert to the default Windows ones.As for the hardware firewall; I'm not even going to consider installing the drivers and software for that given the continued reports it has of causing serious problems. I'd rather let my dual-core processor do the work on one of its cores, which as I use Kerio Personal Firewall would hardly be noticed even in a multi-threaded app as it takes very little CPU time.
Given the mess nVidia have made of the nForce chipset drivers, and how Microsoft recommend ATI graphics-cards for the Vista betas as their drivers are better; I really do wonder if nVidia who built a good reputation for themselves with rock-solid graphics-card drivers a few years ago have lost the plot. I bought an nForce4 mobo and 6800GT last year, but am increasingly thinking an ATI graphics-card would have been a better choice, and if similarly feature-rich mobos with other chipsets were available then, that any of ATI, VIA, SiS would have been a better choice than nVidia.
It's sites like this that have over-hyped nVidia mobos since the nForce2 on performance alone that I'm sure contributed to their dominance, and the sorry state of afares we are in with their chipset drivers as there is little competition and can afford to give it low priority.