OCZ Black Edition DDR3 Memory Kit Review

There is no shortage of DDR3 memory in the marketplace these days, and it's priced lower than DDR2 in many cases. As always though, the choices to be made when selecting RAM for a system can be confusing. There are a lot of kits currently available that are "optimized" for Intel i5 and i7 systems, and now OCZ has released two new low voltage kits that are designed to complement the AMD Black Edition series of CPUs. Both sets of DIMMs are specified at 1600 MHz; one at CL7 timings, and the other at CL8. They are both rated to run these speeds at 1.65v. In this article Benchmark Reviews will examine how a dual-channel kit of CL8 modules, optimized for an AMD 790FX platform, performs at a variety of speeds and timings.

The pair of DDR3 DIMMs under test is rated at 1600MHz with relatively tight timings of 8-8-8-24 (CAS-TRCD-TRP-TRAS) at a low 1.65 volts. OCZ has taken advantage of the Black Edition Memory Profile (BEMP) feature that AMD has built into the latest release of AMD OverDrive (AOD), and made these modules capable of having their optimum settings loaded directly into AOD, via download from an AMD web server. This is quite different from how SPD values are normally loaded into the system BIOS.

We're going to look at several DRAM speed and timing configurations, to see how flexible this new low-voltage kit is on an AMD AM3 platform. An AMD Phenom II Black Edition CPU with an unlocked multiplier will give us some needed flexibility in setting up test configurations. We'll also overclock the modules a bit, and see how much additional performance we can wring out of them.

OCZ Black Edition DDR3 Features

OCZ offers a memory kit for nearly any computer configuration you can think of, and this Black Edition kit is but one example. There are currently eighteen different kits available in the OCZ Special Edition series alone. Let's take a quick look at the special features that OCZ packs into this particular memory set.

OCZ's AMD Black Edition is tested and qualified specifically for AMD's latest "Black Edition" CPUs for ultimate performance and stability. Featuring the unique AMD "OverDrive^TM" (AOD) specification, users can unleash the remote stored profiles directly from AMD when used with supporting 790FX / 790GX motherboards, giving users a performance edge with instant "plug and play" functionality. This highly advanced feature detects your OCZ Black Edition RAM when used in conjunction with AOD-supporting motherboards and AMD Black Edition Phenom CPUs, then the data is sent to a remote server to download the correct profiles to get your system up and running at its peak.

These high performance modules feature both the high densities and blazing frequencies enthusiasts and gamers demand to make the most of the latest PC titles and applications. Delivering plug and play overclocking; the "AOD" feature does all the work for you!

* OCZ Black Edition memory is validated on ASUS M4A79T 790FX motherboards. Please make sure your 790 GX/FX motherboard specifically supports AOD and you have downloaded the latest software update from AMD if you wish to enable this feature on your system. Please note that you must be online to access the memory profiles in AOD.

OCZ3BE1600C8LV4GK Specifications

• Brand: OCZ Technology
• Series: AMD Black Edition
• Model: OCZ3BE1600C8LV4GK
• Type: 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM
• Capacity: 4GB (2 x 2GB)
• Speed: DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
• Cas Latency: 8
• Timing: 8-8-8-24 (CAS-TRCD-TRP-TRAS)
• Voltage: 1.65V
• ECC: No
• Buffered/Registered: Unbuffered
• Multi-channel Kit: Dual Channel Kit
• Heat Spreader: Yes
• Features: AMD OverDrive (AOD)*
• Manufacturer Warranty: Lifetime

About OCZ Technology

OCZ Technology Group, a member of JEDEC, designs, develops, and manufactures ground-breaking, high performance memory and premium computer components. OCZ products are the first choice for users needing high-reliability, enthusiast-grade solutions. OCZ continually invests in R&D to push the limits of performance, speed, and value for consumers, system integrators, and OEM clients.

OCZ Technology was founded by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts, and our commitment to that end-user group has not digressed. Entering the memory market in August 2000, OCZ was built around the determination to manufacture the very best high-speed memory for overclockers. In this pursuit, OCZ became the first manufacturer to make "dual channel" optimized memory kits available to the public, which originally took advantage of NVIDIA's Twinbank, or Dual DDR architecture, found in their nForce^TM chipset. Over the last decade, we have maintained that thirst for innovation and performance leadership in multiple categories including power management and solid state storage.

Today, OCZ continues to be a frontrunner in the memory industry, offering high-performance DDR3 modules for the next generation of JEDEC standards. OCZ was the first to release DDR3 Intel Extreme Memory for the X38/48 Chipset, along with other high-compatibility and high-speed modules that were some of the fastest on the market. By breaking speed barriers and maintaining the reputation of quality, OCZ is a name enthusiasts have turned to time and time again for cutting-edge memory solutions.

Now that we've heard what OCZ has to say abot the kit, let's take a closer look ourselves.

Closer Look: OCZ Black Edition DDR3

The OCZ Black Edition memory sticks follow the tried and true design pattern that OCZ established for their performance range of memory several years ago. Perforated aluminum heat spreaders provide a combination of heat transfer and ventilation in a thin, compact package. At this point, the design is so widely recognized, it's almost a trademark for OCZ. For special editions, they always add a subtle twist, a little extra style, and this time is no exception. Let's see if I remember correctly: red sticks for the ATI Crossfire Edition, green sticks for the SLI Edition.....no, I think they were black, too. Anyway, no extra credit for guessing what bright, shiny color these AMD Black Edition modules come dressed in. Black PCBs are are not the order of the day for these special edition modules, unfortunately.

OCZ makes their low profile heat spreaders without the extra spring clips that many DIMMS sport. The clean appearance and thin profile of the heat spreader has always been an advantage in my mind. In fact the heat spreaders are two completely separate assemblies, one on each side of the two-sided DIMMS. Each heat spreader is made from two pieces, both aluminum for efficient heat transfer. The perforated sheet is fastened to the memory chips with thermal interface tape, which is clear, and allows a somewhat distorted view of the chips beneath the spreader. The solid aluminum frame on top ties it all together, physically and visually.

While it might look, from the front, that the perforated sheet is only present in the "windows" of the outer frame, you can see here that the underlying perforated layer runs uninterrupted the entire length of the module. With the two layer construction of the heat spreader, and the raised edges of the outer frame, there might be some concern that the overall thickness of the modules could interfere in closely spaced DIMM slots. I had no trouble at all with these, even though most all AMD motherboards place pairs of memory in adjacent slots. OCZ has used this same physical design on dozens of kits, and I've never heard of anyone having trouble fitting them into a motherboard. These low-profile OCZ modules are a much safer bet for physical compatibility than some of the over-the-top RAM cooling solutions, especially if there is a chance the CPU cooler is going to be changed sometime in the future. It's always nice to have total flexibility when shopping for a new cooler.

I especially appreciate the fact that the modules are only as tall as the bare PC board that the memory chips are soldered to. While I also appreciate the thermal performance of my OCZ Reaper HPC modules, quite often the considerable height of the heat pipe and aluminum fin assembly gets in the way of the CPU cooler. Here's a shot that shows the huge variation in memory module heights, from several different manufacturers. The shortest and the tallest modules are both from OCZ; the Reaper HPCs in the back are my reference DDR3 modules for systems that can supply the hefty 1.9V required to run them.

After we get past the visuals, let's take a look at what else we have here. This is a dual-channel kit, and it's specifically designed for the AM3 platform, but it would not be impossible to use it on the LGA1156 (P55) platform, instead. The voltage level required to run this kit is right at the boundary of the on-board memory controller that's integrated in the i5 and i7 chips, at 1.65v, so some caution is advised. I ran them at 1.64v in these tests, due to my BIOS configuration. Also lacking from the devices is the Intel Extreme Memory Profile (XMP), which would require manual settings to get the advertised performance from the modules. In its place is a unique serial identifier that the AMD Overdrive application uses to detect the presence of a module type that has been registered with AMD.

Let's take a look next at how Black Edition Memory Profiles work in theory, and in practice.

Black Edition Memory Profiles

The main difference between these Black Edition Memory Profiles (BEMP) and the XMP & EPP schemes is that the BEMP clock and timing data is stored online in an AMD server, rather than on the module itself. There are some advantages to having the DIMM configuration data stored in software, namely the ability to manage it (add, modify, delete), and also the ability to distribute it. I don't know of any memory maker that has made the data publicly available, but it's stored in XML format, so it's only a matter of time before these memory profiles are traded online in enthusiast forums. Some motherboard makers have also built similar technology into their BIOS management tools, in the last couple years.

Many of us who are a certain age (hint, we haven't been carded for liquor in a long time), prefer to set BIOS configurations manually. It's how we learned to do it, and it's the most comfortable for us. Plus, there's a trust issue: if we set it, it stays set; and no low life software is going to change it on us, without our permission. But we are talking about computers here, so if there is a better, faster way to do it.....plus it's so darn hard to get decent screenshots of BIOS pages. So, I use AMD OverDrive; as a testing and what-if tool, mostly.

I make no claims to being an expert at BIOS settings or overclocking. I am firmly in the group that knows only about 20% of what is required for success, and I "guess and test" the rest. I am not alone in this group, BTW; statistically, it should be about 80% of the population, but last time I checked, it was more like 98%. So, if OCZ and AMD agree that "Bank Swizzle Mode" should be enabled, and the "DQS Drive Strength" should be bumped up to 1.3X when I plug these particular memory modules in, who am I to argue? Face it, there are 38 unique settings on this memory page, and according to the math above, I have a firm understanding of 7.6 of them. That's just about right; give or take a few!

Imagine my dismay, when I went to take advantage of all this previously secret information and found out that it doesn't work with my Black Edition CPU. Yup, unless you have one of the Supported CPU Models: 965BE (C2) and 955BE, you can forget about using Black Edition Memory Profiles. Of course it took a day of digging on the Internet to find that out. FWIW, there are only two modules compatible with the AMD Phenom II X3 720BE CPU; you can see all ten supported DIMM types here, under the "System Requirements" tab.

I'm not sure who to blame here, but if you were paying attention a few paragraphs back, you may have noticed that I made reference to "low life software". I'll leave it at that; it's always easiest to pin the blame on inanimate objects. I know what you're thinking; "It's my fault for not having a 965 BE (C2)". Well, that's one way of looking at it.... Now that we've assigned the blame, it's time to move on to the next phase of the project. In this case, it's time to set up the test configurations, which we'll do manually, of course. Using our old favorite, CPU-Z, the standard JEDEC memory profiles are revealed here. 1066 MHz and 1200 MHz are the only ones of interest to us, but I'm going to skip the 1200 and go straight to 1333 MHz for testing. It's closer to the halfway point between 1066 and 1600 MHz, and more of a common setting in the DDR3 world.

The CPU-Z screenshot below shows the standard timings at 1600MHz with 1.65 volts. I had no troubles reaching the advertised speed and timings with just six BIOS settings. I don't know if am missing something by not having my Bank Swizzle Mode enabled, and I may test that someday. For now, these settings are rock-solid stable, which I verified with the AMD OverDrive Stability Test, OCCT, and Memtest86+ v4.0.0

I tried for 1800 MHz, but was not able to reach that, no doubt a direct result of the binning process all the memory manufacturers use to identify higher performing chips. I also tried for 7-7-7-24 at 1600, but modules that run at those timings are pulled out and sold for a premium in OCZ's other Black Edition kit.

So, now that we have defined some stable standard configurations, let's move on to the testing portion of our review where we see what sort of gains we can achieve with these various memory profiles.

RAM Testing Methodology

All benchmarks are conducted using the same system components and the same memory modules in the same DIMM slots. The memory slots sit directly between the main power connector and the CPU socket on the motherboard. Some systems work better when the memory modules are closer to the power source, and some perform better when the RAM is closer to the CPU. The manufacture of the motherboard used for testing in this review states their preference in the manual: "Install the RAM in the sockets closest to the power connector for better over-clocking capability."

Each benchmark begins after a complete system restart and is repeated five times; the high and low results are discarded, and the average of the three remaining results is calculated and reported in the text. To ensure system stability and the reliability of our results, each new memory configuration was fully tested with Memtest86 v4.00.

One of the advantages of an AMD based-system for memory testing is the wider availability of unlocked CPUs, allowing the FSB and CPU multiplier to be raised and lowered in tandem, so that the CPU clock remains the same while the FSB and base memory clock is increased.

One of the potential disadvantages of an AMD-based system is a problem that cropped up with the release of the Phenom II chips and the AM3 platform. Namely, there was a "Product Errata" called: #379, DDR3-1333 Configurations with Two DIMMs per Channel May Experience Unreliable Operation. The name is unfortunate, in that it doesn't exactly convey the fact that all memory clocks greater than DDR3-1066 were impacted, not just DDR3-1333. Luckily, time heals all wounds, and there are dozens of CPUs and motherboards today that do not experience any problems with these higher speeds.

Below is a table summarizing the hardware settings used in this review. I stuck with JEDEC standard frequencies, but experimented with tighter timings than the SPD values embedded in the modules. At all the standard frequencies I left the FSB base clock the same, at 200 MHz. When I started to overclock the RAM, I had to raise the FSB, but I reduced the CPU multiplier to keep the CPU frequency steady at 3.6 GHz.

Test System

• Motherboard: ASUS M4A79T Deluxe (2205 BIOS)
• System Memory 1: 2X 2GB OCZ Reaper HPC DDR3 1600MHz (7-7-7-24)
• System Memory 2: 2X 2GB OCZ Black Edition DDR3 1600MHz (8-8-8-24)
• Processor: AMD Phenom II 720 Black Edition (Overclocked to 3.6 GHz)
• CPU Cooler: CoolerMaster Hyper Z600
• Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD5770, Engineering Sample
• Drive 1: G.Skill Titan SSD, 128GB
• Optical Drive: Sony NEC Optiarc AD-7190A-OB 20X IDE DVD Burner
• Enclosure: CM STORM Sniper Gaming Case
• PSU: Corsair CMPSU-750TX ATX12V V2.2 750Watt
• Monitor: SOYO 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor (DYLM24E6) 1920X1200
• Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate Version 6.1 (Build 7600)

Benchmark Applications

• Passmark Performance Test v7.0 Build 1011
• EVEREST Ultimate Edition v5.30.1900
• SiSoftware SANDRA v2009.9.15.124
• Crysis v1.21 Benchmark Tool
• Memtest86 v4.00

Performance Test Results

Four benchmark applications for memory performance have been in rotation here at Benchmark Reviews for some time now, and there are no new contenders that offer any more or better information: Passmark Performance Test, Lavalys EVEREST, SiSoftware Sandra, and Crysis. The first three are synthetic benchmark suites specifically targeted at several aspects of memory performance. Each one has a unique approach, which provides a diverse set of measurements so that performance trends are brought to light. The last benchmark, Crysis, offers insight into how memory performance affects a gaming application that stresses the CPU and memory almost as much as it does the graphics subsystem. CPU speed is always a factor in memory tests, and we did our best to eliminate it as a variable. During overclocking, we had to adjust the Northbridge clock frequency, which has a halo effect on the overall system, but we were able to keep the CPU clock the same.

In Passmark Performance Test, there were either minimal gains or losses, from higher clock frequencies. The cached memory read test saw literally no difference between the three standard JEDEC configurations and a loss when I overclocked the memory to 1744 MHz. The uncached read test scored a 1% improvement between the 1066 MHz and 1600 MHz settings, and then a minor loss at 1744 MHz, again. One of the nice aspects of this benchmark is the consistency of the results; even the small changes measured here are real and repeatable.

The write performance was the only bright spot of this test, clocking in a 2.5% gain as clock speed increased. The kicker here is that the maximum performance was achieved at 1333 MHz, with CL7 timings. The lower clock with tighter timings beat both the 1600 MHz and overclocked 1744 MHz configurations. Once again, the results were very consistent for this test, and while 2.5% may not seem like a lot, it is real, measureable and repeatable. Plus it was interesting to see the advantage of the tighter timings at the lower frequencies. I predict that we will see more differentiation in the remaining tests, though.

EVEREST Ultimate Edition offers three simple memory bandwidth tests that focus on the basics; Read, Write, and Copy. In order to avoid concurrent threads competing over system memory bandwidth, the Memory benchmarks utilize only one processor core and one thread.

The Everest Read benchmark measures the maximum achievable memory read bandwidth. The code behind this benchmark method is written in Assembly and it is extremely optimized for every popular AMD and Intel processor core variants by utilizing the appropriate x86, MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2 or SSE4.1 instruction set extension. The benchmark reads a 16 MB sized, 1 MB aligned data buffer from system memory into the CPU. Memory is read in forward direction, continuously without breaks.

In Lavasys Everest we see more dramatic performance differences between speed settings in the read test. From best to worst, there is a 25% improvement in read performance. We can also see how the tight CL7 timings at 1333 MHz almost made up the difference in speed between 1333 and 1600 MHz.

The Everest Write benchmark measures the maximum achievable memory write bandwidth. The code behind this benchmark method is written in Assembly and it is extremely optimized for every popular AMD and Intel processor core variants by utilizing the appropriate x86, MMX, 3DNow!, SSE or SSE2 instruction set extension. The benchmark writes a 16 MB sized, 1 MB aligned data buffer from the CPU into the system memory. Memory is written in forward direction, continuously without breaks.

The write performance is much flatter than the read test as speed settings increase, but once again, the 1333 MHZ CL7 setting yields excellent results, close to the overclocked configuration. That's significant, since we achieved the 1744 MHz overclock by increasing the Front Side Bus (FSB) 9%, from 200 to 218 MHz. We reduced the CPU multiplier to keep the CPU clock the same, but as most people know, increasing the FSB clock makes almost everything faster. In fact, the best performance is usually achieved by pushing the FSB even higher and using a lower FSB:DRAM strap. But that's not a fair way to test memory products...

The Everest Copy benchmark measures the maximum achievable memory copy speed. The code behind this benchmark method is written in Assembly and it is extremely optimized for every popular AMD and Intel processor core variants by utilizing the appropriate x86, MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2 or SSE4.1 instruction set extension. The benchmark copies an 8 MB sized, 1 MB aligned data buffer into another 8 MB sized, 1 MB aligned data buffer through the CPU. Memory is copied in forward direction, continuously without breaks.

Copy performance was influenced the most by cranking up the memory clocks. We achieved a 38% increase in performance on this benchmark, which seemed to depend mostly on clock speed and less on clock timings. Overall, there were some significant performance gains to be had in the Everest set of benchmark tests.

Sandra is based on STREAM, a popular memory bandwidth benchmark that has been used on personal computers to super computers. It measures sustained memory bandwidth not burst or peak. Therefore, the results may be lower than those of other benchmarks. STREAM 2.0 uses static data (about 12M) - Sandra uses dynamic data (around 40-60% of physical system RAM). This means that on computers with fast memory Sandra may yield lower results than STREAM. It's not feasible to make Sandra use static RAM - since Sandra is much more than a benchmark, thus it would needlessly use memory.

A major difference is that Sandra's algorithm is multi-threaded on SMP/SMT systems. This works by splitting the arrays and letting each thread work on its own bit. Sandra creates a thread for each CPU in the system and assigns each thread to an individual CPU. Another difference is the aggressive use of scheduling/overlapping of instructions in order to maximize memory throughput even on "slower" processors. The loops should always be memory bound rather than CPU bound on all modern processors.

The results from SiSoft Sandra look a lot like the Read performance results in Lavasys Everest. They scale more as a result from increasing clock speeds than clock timings. Interestingly, the Integer and Floating Point results are almost identical, and the individual results were also very consistent from run-to-run. The overclocked pair, running 1744 MHz at CL8 bested the 1066 MHz CL7 set by 48% in both tests. That's a pretty significant gain, and a testament to the strength of the memory controller built into the AMD Phenom II architecture.

Crysis needs no introduction on this website. It is well known as one of the most demanding benchmarks, and our move to DirectX 10 has only increased the overall difficulty of achieving reasonable frame rates at high resolutions. In this scenario, where we want to reduce the influence of the video card in the results, we are primarily interested in the low resolution tests, and minimizing the video processing that is handled by the graphics subsystem.

Starting on the right and moving to the left, we can see that at 1680x1050 and 1280x1024 resolutions with quality settings on High, there are minimal differences in gaming performance with changes in memory. The only thing that has any effect is raising the FSB; even if you zero out the increase in memory speed and CPU clock, raising the FSB has a positive effect. Concentrating on the lowest resolution we tested, 1024x768, there is a noticeable, 10 FPS difference in average frame rate between the lowest and highest performing memory configurations. I say noticeable, meaning that it is both consistent and easily measured; I doubt that you or I could visually tell the difference between an average of 110 and 120 frames per second in Crysis. It's also interesting to note that tighter-than-standard timings at 1333 MHz, performed better than stock timings at the higher, 1600 MHz frequency.

Overall, the synthetic tests mostly showed measureable performance improvements from increased memory speeds and tighter timings. Our toughest gaming benchmark, in terms of CPU and memory usage only showed measureable changes at low resolution. But, as GPU power increases in the system, this influence will be felt at higher resolutions. Similarly, if you are still using DirectX 9, where the GPU has an easier task, the impact will be greater.

We're left with the question of value, then. How much difference does premium, high speed memory make, especially compared to investing money in other system components. Continue on to Final Thoughts for the answer to that question, and a discussion of how I really feel about EPP, XMP, and AOD memory standards.

Black Edition DDR3 Final Thoughts

Who spends over $100 on DDR3 memory and then runs modern games at 1024x768 screen resolution? Nobody. So, why should you spend the extra cash for premium, high speed, low latency RAM when Crysis couldn't care less? The answer is hidden in the testing details above, where I explained how I made sure the CPU clock didn't vary during these tests and I minimized changes to the Front Side Bus clock. In the real world, where we're not testing, we're optimizing; every attempt is going to be made to get both the CPU clock and the FSB clock as high as possible, within the limits of overall system stability. In that case, you need as much flexibility as you can get in memory clock speed, so you aren't prevented from dialing an extra hundred, or couple hundred megahertz into one of the clocks that DO matter. Once you get those clocks maxed out, you mess with the FSB:DRAM straps and the timings to get the maximum possible performance from your memory subsystem. Doing this will definitely gain you some substantial increases in performance on most all your gaming applications, unless the system is severely GPU limited, and we know that's not going to be the case, don't we...?

On another note.... I have a love-hate relationship with standards. On the one hand, I love industry standards, especially when there is a strong, unified, forward thinking agency that can get out ahead of the product development curve and provide some stability for the marketplace. Can't think of one? Well, most good standards organizations are a victim of their own success. The reason you don't think of them is because you don't have to; they're just quietly doing their thing behind the scenes, saving you from the death throes of incompatibility. On the other hand, I hate proprietary standards, like EPP (NVIDIA), XMP (Intel), and Black Edition Memory Profiles (AMD). They are all mutually exclusive, and force you to pick sides and commit to a certain platform for your memory purchases.

In this particular case, the restrictions are even more severe. Out of all the Black Edition CPUs that AMD has produced, the memory profiles for these modules only support two, the 965BE (C2) and 955BE. Sadly, the only place this information is available, is on one single webpage, several pages deep within the AMD OverDrive materials. To top it off, a lot of this angst could be short circuited if OCZ or AMD would just publish the XML code for the memory profiles. AOD allows for profiles to be imported from sources other than the AMD web server, but neither of them is disclosing the memory profile data at this point. There's nothing proprietary involved here, we just want to know what the optimum settings are for the product.

OCZ3BE1600C8LV4GK Conclusion

The performance of the OCZ Black Edition DDR3-1600 CL8 1.65V Dual-Channel Kit was spot on with the advertised specifications. I experienced no difficulty achieving their rated speeds and timings at the rated voltage. Actually, I ran them 0.01v below the 1.65v rating due to limitations in the BIOS, causing me to choose 1.64v or 1.66v. I didn't want to over-volt them if I didn't have to, and they ran fine with the 1.64v setting in BIOS.

The OCZ Black Edition modules have a classy visual appeal. Nothing succeeds like black when you want to get dressed up. The basic design that OCZ has been using for their heat spreaders is a classic; they've covered it in platinum, gold, copper, black, red, camouflage, and probably some other finishes I've missed during the last couple years. It has looked good in every color combination, which is why I say it's a classic design. The attention to detail in the finish of the materials is first rate; take a look at the extremely fine detail on the logo, which is protected by plastic film during packaging and shipping. That's not aliasing artifacts, it's a fine pitch, decorative pattern embossed on there!

Construction quality of the OCZ Black Edition modules is top notch, at least the parts you can see. Most of the module is covered up by the heat spreader, but you can see the quality of the soldering from some of the smaller SMT components located on the periphery. You can also count on the lifetime warranty and the reputation of the brand to go on. OCZ has one of the largest and most responsive product support groups in the industry, which can be invaluable if you have a real quality problem with one of their products, or just have a question about how to use the product to its full potential.

Functionality is a sore spot for me, with this memory kit. The fact that the Black Edition Memory Profile only works with two AMD processors may have some technical basis, but I really think OCZ needs to make that information available in their own marketing material. The fact that one of their largest competitors sells BEMP compatible modules that DO work with my AMD Phenom II X3 720BE, just adds insult to injury. Everything else about the memory functions just like it should, and it runs easily at the rated speeds and timings, so perhaps it's just my wounded pride I'm complaining about here.

With a retail price of $121.99 at Newegg, the 4GB OCZ3BE1600C8LV4GK kit is not bargain material, but is still reasonably priced. The lowest price 4GB, 1600 MHz CL8 set at Newegg was $99.99 and the highest priced comparable set was $168.99, so you can see that this pair is priced below the median.

OCZ has a commanding presence in the gaming and enthusiast market for good reason. These modules performed very well, without any drama. I've had modules in the past that took extra work to get them to perform correctly, nothing like that was required with the OCZ Black Edition modules. Despite my dislike at being left out of the Black Edition Memory Profile game with my X3 720BE Phenom II processor, these OCZ CL8 modules earn a Silver Tachometer Award for their performance, appearance, quality, and value.

Pros:

+ 1600MHz rating
+ Low CL8 latency at 1600 MHz
+ Black Edition Memory Profile is useful for some
+ Lifetime warranty
+ Classic good looks
+ Value
+ Product Support from OCZ is tops
+ Shortest profile of all RAM heat spreaders

Cons:

- BEMP only works with 965BE (C2) and 955BE CPUs
- OCZ and AMD haven't published XML code for memory profiles

Ratings:

• Performance: 9.25
• Appearance: 9.50
• Construction: 9.25
• Functionality: 7.00
• Value: 9.00

Final Score: 8.8 out of 10.

Excellence Achievement: Benchmark Reviews Silver Tachometer Award.

Questions? Comments? Benchmark Reviews really wants your feedback. We invite you to leave your remarks in our Discussion Forum.

Related Articles:

• AZZA Solano 1000R Full-Tower Computer Case
• ProlimaTech Armageddon CPU Cooler Heatsink
• Sentey Burton GS-6500 Computer Case
• Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge CPU
• MSI N560GTX Ti Hawk Video Card
• ASUS ENGTX480/2DI/1536MD5 GeForce GTX 480
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Graphics Card
• Corsair Vengeance M90 Laser Gaming Mouse
• Antec One Hundred Mid-Tower Case
• GIGABYTE GeForce GT-240 HDMI Video Card