n7
Elite Member
- Jan 4, 2004
- 21,281
- 4
- 81
I'm looking thru this thread, & one thing is glaring at my face: DFI Blood Iron T2RL
Not Crucial vs. OCZ or whatever you guys are trying to claim is better or worse or good or bad (this is nothing but opinions from people; not facts).
DFIs are notoriously picky with RAM, & i've experienced this firsthand.
I had a UT P35-T2R that was quite frankly a POS IMHO when it came to my 8 GB of Mushkin at the time.
It could run 2x2 GB wonderfully, but as soon as i dared to run 3x2 or 4x2 GB you'd think i was trying to kill it, as no amount of voltages/tweaking could get anything but the 2:3 ratio stable.
If i didn't run 4x2 GB using 2:3, it would error in HCI Memtest every single time, even when the CPU & RAM were underclocked.
So while Crucial has definitely been full of fail of late, it may not be the RAM that's entirely the culprit.
And overall, yes, i'd say OCZ is "good".
But really, like with any company, they make craptactular products alongside very fine ones (like my current RAM; it's rather nice).
Not Crucial vs. OCZ or whatever you guys are trying to claim is better or worse or good or bad (this is nothing but opinions from people; not facts).
DFIs are notoriously picky with RAM, & i've experienced this firsthand.
I had a UT P35-T2R that was quite frankly a POS IMHO when it came to my 8 GB of Mushkin at the time.
It could run 2x2 GB wonderfully, but as soon as i dared to run 3x2 or 4x2 GB you'd think i was trying to kill it, as no amount of voltages/tweaking could get anything but the 2:3 ratio stable.
If i didn't run 4x2 GB using 2:3, it would error in HCI Memtest every single time, even when the CPU & RAM were underclocked.
So while Crucial has definitely been full of fail of late, it may not be the RAM that's entirely the culprit.
And overall, yes, i'd say OCZ is "good".
But really, like with any company, they make craptactular products alongside very fine ones (like my current RAM; it's rather nice).