Since it was first introduced by Corsair almost a year ago, memory based on Samsung TCCD chips has become the performance standard for DDR memory. As we saw in our roundup of memory for the AMD Athlon 64, Samsung TCCD also performs particularly well on the Athlon 64 with the on-chip memory controller. Almost every memory manufacturer now has a version of its own TCCD memory. In our recent reviews, we have seen TCCD from Corsair, G. Skill, Geil, Mushkin, OCZ, and PQI. All of the TCCD-based memory performs well, with the best performance coming from TCCD based on the Brainpower PCB. While Samsung TCCD has recently been challenged by Crucial Ballistix and the revival of Winbond parts in OCZ VX and the new BH5 Value RAM, there is no doubt that in most systems, at the voltage ranges seen in most motherboards, TCCD-based memory is the standard.

Into this climate, PDP Systems has introduced its own Samsung TCCD memory built on the Brainpower PCB. Patriot has chosen to rate the PC3200+XBLK at two different speeds: DDR400 at 2-2-2-5 and DDR533 at 3-4-4-8. This is quite a broad range and we will see if the memory meets or exceeds those ratings. The Patriot memory also stands out from the TCCD crowd by being the most reasonably priced TCCD that we could find on the web. At around $225 for a 1GB (512MB x 2) pair, the Patriot is even cheaper than the lowest-priced G. Skill at the vendors where we checked. Since the largest barrier to TCCD pricing is the actual cost of the chips from Samsung, reportedly about $6 per chip (or $190 for 32 chips for a 1GB pair), then Patriot is very near the lowest price currently possible for TCCD modules.

The question, of course, is how the Patriot performs compared to other TCCD-based memory. It has the right stuff in its design, but does it deliver in the all-important performance arena?

Patriot PC3200+XBLK
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • sphinx - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Great article. But, how well does it perform against Kingston.
  • overclockingoodness - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    #10: While I understand how that may be useful in certain articles, I think it would only delay the time of the article. I bet it already takes AnandTech quite a bit of time to produce each article and when they start to add this "Dual-Core" section, I don't think it will really work out.

    Besides, it would start to get pretty annoying after a while. They might as well do a short piece on memory and how it effects dual-core. A seperate article may be cool, but I don't think I would want a dual-core section in memory reviews or anything else.
  • mariush - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Something is wrong here ( page 4 )

    While maintaining a constant CPU Speed of 2.4GHz, we measured the impact of increasing the Memory Speed from 200 to 300, a 50% increase. Memory Write performance increased about 29% with this 50% speed increase, while Memory Write performance improved by just 17%.
  • Determinant - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Hey guys (AnandTech staff),

    Just want to say that I've recently been really impressed with the quality and thought that goes into your articles.

    I have a suggestion; Now that dual cores are upon us, I think that it would be a really good idea to have a new section in each article. The new section would show how the current product being tested allows for more functionality.

    I'll explain: For example, a lot of people have been complaining about the dual core benchmarks saying that it isn't how they use their computer but that's because they have adapted to a single core environment. Alot of people (me included) turn off antivirus & spyware checkers etc when playing a game not because they want to but because it affects their gaming experience.

    So, for example, in memmory reviews, I don't know if memmory affects the functionality on a dual core system (eg. does this faster memmory also allow me to listen to mp3's while gaming)

    Me personally, I will purchase a dual core cpu not because it improves the performance of my current application but only because it allows me to have increased funcionality, less hassle, and a more enjoyable experience (I won't have to worry about stopping my antivirus when going into a game). Of course, more speed is always welcome.

    If interested, I can provide examples of functionality that I would be interested in (eg. things that I would like to be able to accomplish with my computer).

  • mongoosesRawesome - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Considering how depending memory performance is on the actual speed of the CPU for Athlon64 systems, it would seem to me that people should be buying relatively cheap PC3200 Cas 2 ram and running with a divider. You can easily reach 90 percent of the performance without having to use 1:1 divider, as long as your divider and multiplier allow you to reach the same CPU speeds.

    Currently at PC3200 CAS 2-3-2-5 T1

    Also - "As you can see in the photo, there are just 8 small components in a row just above the gold connectors. Other boards for TCCD memory have many more components in this row. " Maybe its just me, but I can't see what you are trying to point out in the small picture. Maybe if you linked to the full size pic?
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    #1 - Supposedly the memory controller runs at the same voltage as the CPU, since it is part of the CPU on the Athlon 64. The memory itself is what runs at 3.3V with VX, and it warranted to 3.5V by OCZ. The fate of the memory controller would therfore be dependent on the voltage used for the CPU. We rarely use more than 1.55V with a CPU with a default of 1.5V.

    #4 - The testing is complete for a Value RAM roundup which will appear next week.

    #6 - Corrected.

    #7 - We have not tested the TwinMOS with the same chips used in OCZ VX, but we have included OCZ Value VX in our upcoming Value RAM Rounup. It costs about $115 for a Gigabyte (2x512) and is made from Winbond UTT chips that have not been binned - like the TwinMOS. You will see how it performs in our Value RAM Roundup.
  • n yusef - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Great article. You guys need to do an article on the new TwinMOS value RAM with the (is Bh-5 or UTT, I forget) Winbond chips though.
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Page 3:

    The website is not
  • Shinei - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Man, DDR630 at reasonable timings... Looks like another nail in DDR2's coffin. I wonder if the RAM could be coerced to tighten up its timings if one was to feed it 3.0 or 3.1 volts instead of 2.9v...
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, April 8, 2005 - link

    Still waiting for a comparison against value memory :P

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now