OC Report :: Buffalo Firestix 2x1GB PC8000 C5

Buffalo Technologies isn't going to be the first name many of you think of when coming up with memory manufacturers that produce high-end overclocking RAM. They are however starting to really make their presence known in the enthusiast sector with high-quality memory kits at some of the most reasonable prices in town. Buffalo introduced their FireStix line back in the DDR hay-days and have carried that brand over into 2007 and the peak of DDRII performance.


These modules were provided to me by Buffalo but are a normal run-of-the-mill sample sent from their retail division. In fact, as you will see soon, they are kind of an odd set that somehow slipped through the production cracks. When I informed Buffalo of the oddity, they sent out a replacement module but I had already completed the testing with the first set of sticks so that is what I will be posting results from today. Here is the complete list of specifications for these modules.


I had trouble finding retail outlets that carried this memory and right now, Newegg.com doesn't even have this PC8000 kit listed. You can always grab Buffalo memory directly from the manufacturer and their on-line store has this kit listed at $280 right now. Sometimes their on-line store has some pretty good deals so if your looking into this kit, don't rule them out and check their price at time of your ordering. Now that we are all aware of what the subject of todays work is going to be, let's have a look at the modules and get to some overclocking.

Package:
Click for full size...

Buffalo sends out their modules in the standard blister pack with a simple cardboard insert that is universal with all of the FireStix line of memory. The model designation comes by way of a sticker on each module and a third sticker on the insert as seen on the right hand side about half way up in the first image. It is quite obvious that the oddity I was referring to earlier is the fact that one module has the newer heatspreader and one has the older heatspreader. They are pretty much the same, just a slight difference in color, logo, and sticker. So if you buy a set of FireStix modules, don't be surprised if you get mismatched heatspreaders, I assure you that they are the same sticks underneath.

Contents:
Click for full size...

The heatspreaders Buffalo uses on these modules are pretty basic and the thermal tape used is the thicker grey adhesive material that is evident in the fourth image. I would prefer to see the thin clear thermal material that Super Talent and Corsair have been using as of late that is heat cured to the heatspreader and ICs. That method would promote better heat transfer but also makes it difficult to remove the heatspreaders without causing damage and makes it impossible to re-attach them.

Either way, with the grey thermal tape used, it is quite easy to pull the heatspreaders up with a little bit of heat to reveal some lovely little D9GKX ICs below. The PCB appears to be produced by Dynamic but specifications seem to be scarce on the internet. I really would like to see Brain Power PCBs for better high voltage stabalization or some fancy 8-layer boards.

Intel Setup:
Click for full size...

The intel setup will be my standard Asus P5B-Dlx setup that involves some pretty intense cooling on the CPU by way of a Chilly1 single stage unit and a Noctua NC-U6 heatsink on the northbridge. I will also be using my DDR Maximizer as always and a 120mm fan hanging overhead to keep the heat generated by the modules and chipset away. For a few of the higher voltage runs, I did switch to air cooling by way of a Thermalright Ultra-120 as they were run at a later time so you will notice much higher CPU temps. I also had to substitute the E6300 for an E6600 at one point while my beloved 4GHz E6300 got RMA'd .

AMD Setup:
Click for full size...

I know I lied before by saying that the AM2 testing was going to be done but this will definitely be the last review as I no longer own this setup. There isn't anything special about this setup and it will be replaced by an Asus P5N32-E SLI 680i board in future reports. Here are the complete lists of hardware used for each setup:
As always, there are a couple disclaimers that one has to be aware of with these results.
A - SmartGuardian reports VDIMM 0.11v lower than it actually is on the AM2 results
B - What you see is what you get. I am only claiming dual32M stability and that is what I show in the screenshots. Please don't say "that isn't a stability test" or remark that I should be running something else for stability. Dual 32M is a great starting point for finding memory overclock stability and is all I intend on showing in my overclocking reports.

We can now see what these sticks are capable of, starting off with 3-4-3-8 results on the Intel setup. I choose to clock 3-4-3 instead of 3-3-3 because tRCD of 4 is faster than tRCD of 3 on this board. For those that are wondering, 3-4-3 clocks about 5-10MHz higher than 3-3-3.

3-4-3-8:
Intel:
Click link for full size screenshot...
365MHz :: 2.00v | 385MHz :: 2.10v | 405MHz :: 2.20v | 420MHz :: 2.30v | 435MHz :: 2.40v | 450MHz :: 2.50v | 460MHz :: 2.60v

3-3-3-8:
AMD:
Click link for full size screenshot...
365MHz :: 2.00v | 380MHz :: 2.10v | 400MHz :: 2.20v | 415MHz :: 2.29v | 425MHz :: 2.39v | 435MHz :: 2.50v | 445MHz :: 2.60v


4-4-4-8:
Intel:
Click link for full size screenshot...
460MHz :: 2.00v | 485MHz :: 2.10v | 515MHz :: 2.20v | 540MHz :: 2.30v | 560MHz :: 2.40v | 575MHz :: 2.50v | 585MHz :: 2.60v

AMD:
Click link for full size screenshot...
470MHz :: 2.00v | 500MHz :: 2.10v | 525MHz :: 2.20v | 540MHz :: 2.29v | 560MHz :: 2.39v | 575MHz :: 2.50v | 580MHz :: 2.60v


5-5-5-8:
Intel:
Click link for full size screenshot...
540MHz :: 2.00v | 560MHz :: 2.10v | 570MHz :: 2.20v

More CL5 funny action on my P5B-Dlx. There is nothing I could do that would get over 570MHz at 5-5-5. Sub timings and more voltage did nothing, despite CL4 running up to 585MHz. Clearly there is something with the memory controller on my board that doesn't like CL5 as this is not the first kit with symptoms like this. The modules are very stable at 570MHz as seen in this Prime / Win Memtest stability screenshot.

AMD:
Click link for full size screenshot...
515MHz :: 2.00v | 540MHz :: 2.10v | 570MHz :: 2.20v | 590MHz :: 2.29v | 600MHz :: 2.40v

That is about all the testing I have and will do with this kit. No DDR1200 4-4-4 but these modules certainly did like running 3-4-3 on the P5B-Dlx and almost reached DDR900 at 3-3-3 on the AM2 setup. Overall, this kit did just about what I expected it to do being D9GKX.

Hopefully this report shows some of those folks out there that think D9GKX is always better than D9GMH...highly binned D9GMH tend to beat most D9GKX that I have found and obviously Buffalo isn't getting the highest binned D9GKX from Micron. Perhaps my kit just wasn't great...which makes perfect sense as I have terrible luck with memory for the most part

As always, questions, comments, and concerns are certainly welcome. Thanx for looking.

very nice and concise info dude, thanks alot,
really enjoy reading it

Wow a huge review, thanks!

Just got the 800 set myself, can't wait to try em out

why do you say only the heatspreaders are different? look at the label, one is wrong too. for all we know this could be lower bin because thats what they put on lower end models, and if you ran dual channel both would be running at the lower end models max although its very likely that the ICs are correct as you say . the label says PC2 800... wtf? lol but anyway we should wait for the new sticks

great post

InCogneato said:

although its very likely that the ICs are correct as you say .

Click to expand...

sorry mate but your not making any sense. the ICs are the same, check the photos. trust me, both sticks are the same...right down to the date of manufacturing for the ICs (6AD22).

in fact, the older heatspreader stick clocks better than the other, thats why its in the outside slot

3oh6 said:

sorry mate but your not making any sense. the ICs are the same, check the photos. trust me, both sticks are the same...right down to the date of manufacturing for the ICs (6AD22).

in fact, the older heatspreader stick clocks better than the other, thats why its in the outside slot

Click to expand...

not all ICs perform the same, even if manufactured on the same date. they need to be tested to see how well they perform. slower ones go in lower models, faster go in higher models

Ordered 2gb yesterday.

InCogneato said:

not all ICs perform the same, even if manufactured on the same date. they need to be tested to see how well they perform. slower ones go in lower models, faster go in higher models

Click to expand...

correct, but what is your point? the sticker has an error on it, big deal. it is missing a 0 to make it PC8000 not PC6400. the PC8000 modules are Buffalos highest binned 2GB kit. both of these sticks are definitely the PC8000 modules, your trying to make too much out of a sticker misprint and are not making any sense. let it go...

3oh6 said:

correct, but what is your point? the sticker has an error on it, big deal. it is missing a 0 to make it PC8000 not PC6400. the PC8000 modules are Buffalos highest binned 2GB kit. both of these sticks are definitely the PC8000 modules, your trying to make too much out of a sticker misprint and are not making any sense. let it go...

Click to expand...

umm its not just a sticker misprint, the heat spreader is wrong too. im not trying to make too much out of anything. i said its most likely the correct ICs but there is a chance its not and that we should wait for the new sticks before jumping to conclusions, you confirmed that both are equally as fast on their own, so that confirms the ICs are correct. all i did was correct your mistake that the "date they are produced" has anything to do with speed. i believe it is You who is not making sense (what exactly are you arguing?) and i believe it is You who is replying and making a big deal out of what i said even though there is no need to.

if the sticker and heatspreader isnt such a big deal to you, why did you call to have them replaced?

InCogneato said:

all i did was correct your mistake that the "date they are produced" has anything to do with speed.

Click to expand...

i missed where he said this. i saw that he pointed out the date were the same, and that they overclock the same, but nowhere was a connection drawn between the two

for the big deal, he's not making a big deal about anything. it's just a communication problem, i promise


3oh6.. nice, though mismatched matched pair will always make me laugh. no idea what buffalo was thinking on that one

(cf)Eclipse said:

i missed where he said this. i saw that he pointed out the date were the same, and that they overclock the same, but nowhere was a connection drawn between the two

for the big deal, he's not making a big deal about anything. it's just a communication problem, i promise


3oh6.. nice, though mismatched matched pair will always make me laugh. no idea what buffalo was thinking on that one

Click to expand...

i said that they might not be the correct ICs for that model and then he said

sorry mate but your not making any sense. the ICs are the same, check the photos. trust me, both sticks are the same...right down to the date of manufacturing for the ICs (6AD22).

in fact, the older heatspreader stick clocks better than the other, thats why its in the outside slot

Click to expand...

which implies that the date has something to do with how well the ICs perform

but nvm it all they are indeed correct, he confirmed this by testing them individually

InCogneato said:

i said that they might not be the correct ICs for that model and then he said which implies that the date has something to do with how well the ICs perform

Click to expand...

what do you mean, not the correct ICs though?
and he didn't imply that the performance is the same, he was simply pointing out how the sticks were identical, down to the date on the ICs

That was a great review. Very detailed and informative. You're very good with the camera . Reminds me of PCStats pics... in a good way...

Very nice review. I like how everything was laid out and the pictures were just phenomenal! Can I ask how long ago you bought these? I just got a 2gb set this week and I wanted to make sure they were still D9GKX. Buffalo wasn't very forthcoming with the info.

thanx for the positive comments guys. i received these modules from Buffalo in early Januarary i believe so they are not that old. of course that doesn't mean that every kit of their PC8000 is going to be D9GKX but it will be at least D9GMH which is just as good or better in most cases.

That result agrees with what I am seeing. I got a pair of these PC-8000 Firestix for $206 a couple of days ago. This is the best memory I ever owned.

I am running them 8x490 with the memory 1:1@4-4-4-8 2.2 volts = 3920 MHz on my E6400.

I can see I am not limited by memory headroom but there is no more left in this CPU than that -- at least not stable.

FallenCow said:

Very nice review. I like how everything was laid out and the pictures were just phenomenal! Can I ask how long ago you bought these? I just got a 2gb set this week and I wanted to make sure they were still D9GKX. Buffalo wasn't very forthcoming with the info.

Click to expand...

Yes I can confirm these are definitely D9GKX chips, I got mine a couple of days ago in the fabulous $206 Buffalo factory store deal --- they are D9GKX -- such a deal.

wdn said:

That result agrees with what I am seeing. I got a pair of these PC-8000 Firestix for $206 a couple of days ago. This is the best memory I ever owned.

I am running them 8x490 with the memory 1:1@4-4-4-8 2.2 volts = 3920 MHz on my E6400.

Click to expand...

good to see a little bit of relative consistancy in the Buffalo modules.