Home / Opinions / Memory Module Mega Test / Apacer PC3200 (DDR400 – 200MHz) CL3.0

Apacer PC3200 (DDR400 – 200MHz) CL3.0

Pence per Megabyte - 15.04

Torture Test at 200MHz – Passed

Torture Test Overclocked - Passed

The modules we were supplied are based on Infineon HYB25D256807B chips rated to 200MHz at 3-3-3. Strangely, Infineon actually specifies 2.5-3-3 for the same chip making me wonder why Apacer opted for CL3.0. The modules carry a lifetime warranty when purchased from Apacer or from an Apacer authorised reseller. Apacer specifies a voltage of 2.5v

No heat spreaders were employed on these modules.

First Impressions

As with just about all the budget memory, we’re once again faced with a standard green PCB bedecked with 16 wire bonded TSOP memory chips. Packaging consists of a semi-rigid blister pack affording ample protection during shipping.

Testing – 200MHz

Rank When Tested on a Prescott CPU at 200MHz: 16th from 18

Rank When Tested on a Northwood CPU at 200MHz: 12th from 18

More noticeable than the fact that overall performance was relatively mediocre is the fact that it still managed to better the performance of its theoretically faster stable mate, the Apacer CL2.5.

Testing – Overclocking

Maximum Frequency - Overclocked using SPD settings: 220MHz

Maximum Frequency - Overclocked using manual settings (CL-4-4-8) low ambient of 18c: 230MHz

Maximum Frequency - Overclocked using manual settings (CL-4-4-8) high ambient of 28c: 230MHz

Rank - overclocked performance (high ambient): Joint 15th from 18

Although based on different memory chips, these modules had the same traits as the CL2.5 modules in that they refused to overclock at anything more than 2.7v and then only made it to 230MHz maximum. Unlike the CL2.5 modules, these were just as fast running off their SPD settings as they were when set up manually.

I have a suspicion that the low overclocking threshold and the voltage sensitivity have more to do with the PCB design/layout than it has to do with the memory chips, at least in part.


Overall Rank, all performance parameters included: 15th from 18

A better overall rank than the Mosel Vitelic based CL2.5 part shows quite clearly that Infineon chips were the better choice for these particular modules. Had Apacer opted to run at CL2.5 with these too they could have perhaps offered even better numbers still.

Overall the numbers returned weren’t very inspiring and a finish in the lower third of the field sums up the slightly lacklustre showing. Again we find that availability is very limited in the UK, adding to the already quite disappointing showing from Apacer.

comments powered by Disqus