OCZ 2GB Flex XLC PC2-9200

[Rob Williams]

OCZ is on the top of their game, which is evident just by taking a look at their recent inventory. I will be taking a look at their latest high-end kit today, which utilize the new water-cooling capable heat spreaders.

You can read the full review here and discuss it here.

This review reads like any other, and in general gives a good idea of what to expect in terms of the value of the RAM itself.

But this RAM is not like any other, because it comes with water blocks, which you didn't test. It doesn't seem like it should be that hard to pick up two hose adapters and a foot of 1/4" tube - maybe it was the fill/bleed that was too much of a pain? I also noticed that you didn't clarify how the mixed metals were arranged in the black design - do you use aluminum blocks in your personal system?

Here's a better attempt:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=3
He does the basic performance evaluation, but doesn't quite answer the other big question: What is the value of the water blocks?

To this date, no one's tried to determine if there is any speed improvement that can be had using water instead of air (that I know of) - PC Perspective got temperature differences, which was more than you did, and we all know water should be quieter when set up correctly, but as for speed...I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people are willing to buying tech without knowing the whole story.

I don't mean to sound overly harsh, but you do realize that this RAM has been reviewed several times before, right? The world has the general performance of this RAM pretty well pegged. I get disappointed when reviewers don't attempt to assess the entire product, or to give information that may not have been seen previously.

[Rob Williams]

Hi NicePants,

I am no water cooling enthusiast, but it doesn't sound like a good idea to throw 1/4" tubes into a setup that uses 3/8". It would be slowing down overall flow. The pump is designed to push water efficiently through larger tubes, so modifying it to use a combination of both doesn't sound smart. As for the blocks themselves, I didn't get all the information I wanted regarding those, so I couldn't speak on the metals used. I assumed they were aluminum with copper inside. I will question OCZ again about this.

As for PC Perspectives article, I don't see how it was a "better attempt". I respect their writers, but they didn't actually state what their max stable overclock was. They hit DDR2-1280... so can I, but it's not stable. 1250MHz was, however. As for their water cooling, they had an appropriate setup, while I did not. I use Corsairs Nautilus on all of my machines, which support 3/8" barbs. PC Per is the only website I have seen thus far that have actually used water cooling, so I am guessing I am not the only one who didn't have the appropriate setup.

"To this date, no one's tried to determine if there is any speed improvement..."

This is not how I view these modules. I don't expect "better" results just because they are on water. The memory chips are only going to be pushed so far. Maybe on dry ice we'd see far higher overclocks, but I am doubtful water will make a huge difference. The reason the water is useful is because it's completely silent and removes the need for an additional fan. It should technically help with ambient temp in the case as well.

"The world has the general performance of this RAM pretty well pegged."

Not all these websites have spitting image audiences. Anyone who is reading our review has not likely read another.

"I get disappointed"

I would give information you are looking for if I had it. So no, I guess no extra mile from me.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

I am no water cooling enthusiast, but it doesn't sound like a good idea to throw 1/4" tubes into a setup that uses 3/8". It would be slowing down overall flow. The pump is designed to push water efficiently through larger tubes, so modifying it to use a combination of both doesn't sound smart.

The reduction in flow would not be significant, if it were even noticeable - these blocks do not appear to have any flow restrictions other than the smaller diameter and a total of 4 90 degree bends. A 3/8" to 1/4" adapter on the input and the output, along with two very short lengths of 1/4" tubing would've got you running fine. If people needed a pump designed for 1/4" tubing in order to safely use 1/4" tubing, OCZ would never have tried to market these blocks.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

As for the blocks themselves, I didn't get all the information I wanted regarding those, so I couldn't speak on the metals used. I assumed they were aluminum with copper inside. I will question OCZ again about this.

PC Perspective updated their review after I questioned them about this, and according to them your assumptions are correct.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

As for PC Perspectives article, I don't see how it was a "better attempt". I respect their writers, but they didn't actually state what their max stable overclock was. They hit DDR2-1280... so can I, but it's not stable. 1250MHz was, however. As for their water cooling, they had an appropriate setup, while I did not. I use Corsairs Nautilus on all of my machines, which support 3/8" barbs. PC Per is the only website I have seen thus far that have actually used water cooling, so I am guessing I am not the only one who didn't have the appropriate setup.

I meant 'better attempt' in the sense of trying to assess the value of all parts of the product, (i.e. testing the water blocks and showing temperature comparisons) in all ways it can be used. Your benchmarks are fine. I'm just wondering, as a reader, if there's a reason I should pay extra for waterblocks if SPEED is my main concern. Your review doesn't answer this. While I understand that you are not the only one testing this RAM without water, that fact does not invalidate my question.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

This is not how I view these modules. I don't expect "better" results just because they are on water. The memory chips are only going to be pushed so far. Maybe on dry ice we'd see far higher overclocks, but I am doubtful water will make a huge difference. The reason the water is useful is because it's completely silent and removes the need for an additional fan. It should technically help with ambient temp in the case as well.

I agree that water is not likely to allow significant (or reliable) speed improvements, but I don't think it should be taken for granted.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

I would give information you are looking for if I had it.

You can get it with a little effort. All you need to do is find your maximum speed under water and update your review.

I offer to pay for the converters, tubing, clamps and any extra coolant that you need to do this, as well as shipping. All you would have to do is modify your loop to include the RAM, which shouldn't be that bad since you use an external box. Let me know if you're interested.

[madmat]

Originally Posted by NicePants42

The reduction in flow would not be significant, if it were even noticeable - these blocks do not appear to have any flow restrictions other than the smaller diameter and a total of 4 90 degree bends. A 3/8" to 1/4" adapter on the input and the output, along with two very short lengths of 1/4" tubing would've got you running fine. If people needed a pump designed for 1/4" tubing in order to safely use 1/4" tubing, OCZ would never have tried to market these blocks.

PC Perspective updated their review after I questioned them about this, and according to them your assumptions are correct.

I meant 'better attempt' in the sense of trying to assess the value of all parts of the product, (i.e. testing the water blocks and showing temperature comparisons) in all ways it can be used. Your benchmarks are fine. I'm just wondering, as a reader, if there's a reason I should pay extra for waterblocks if SPEED is my main concern. Your review doesn't answer this. While I understand that you are not the only one testing this RAM without water, that fact does not invalidate my question.

I agree that water is not likely to allow significant (or reliable) speed improvements, but I don't think it should be taken for granted.

You can get it with a little effort. All you need to do is find your maximum speed under water and update your review.

I offer to pay for the converters, tubing, clamps and any extra coolant that you need to do this, as well as shipping. All you would have to do is modify your loop to include the RAM, which shouldn't be that bad since you use an external box. Let me know if you're interested.

The reduction in flow is going to be horrendous. 1/4" is a little less than 1/2 the area as 3/8" so that's a huge decrease in flow arear. Add the thickness of all the fittings and you've got a major obstruction!

Now, if OCZ wants these to be readily plumbed into a loop, they need to include a set of Swiftech "F" fittings with each pair.

And in reality, you're not going to see a huge increase since the blocks aren't in direct contact with the ram chips.

[NicePants42]

Originally Posted by madmat

The reduction in flow is going to be horrendous. 1/4" is a little less than 1/2 the area as 3/8" so that's a huge decrease in flow arear. Add the thickness of all the fittings and you've got a major obstruction!

You overstate. In the PC Perspective review I linked above, they used a Koolance Exos cooling unit, and you can clearly see a CPU block in the picture they used, so you know that there is at least one other block in the loop. The temperature probe read 31C under load.

What I am trying to say here is that adding this RAM to an existing water loop like the Nautilus/Exos/etc should not cause any system problems, (or noticeable temperature increase) and so should not be balked at. If you're saying that the Nautilus will not be able to provide adequate cooling with a CPU block and these RAM blocks attached, then I have to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by madmat

And in reality, you're not going to see a huge increase since the blocks aren't in direct contact with the ram chips.

Not sure what you mean here, but if you're referring to a huge increase in clock speed, I think you're right - but I think someone should TEST it. If you're referring to a huge increase in cooling efficiency, I can only point to the temperatures reported by PC Perspective and ask what people consider to be huge. In either case, I still argue that it's WORTH TESTING.

Judging from his post here, Rob agreed with me at one point.

[madmat]

It looks to me like they used an old school Exos with native 1/4" tubing (I had one and recognize that blue tubing which is not used on the new version) which is designed for low flow. The Corsair setup uses a Liang DDC which is native to 3/8" and has much higher flow than that old Koolance has. Cutting the tubing area down to less than half (a 3/8" hole has 2.25 times more area than a 1/4" hole) will indeed have a very negative impact on the flow. I'm not saying that the Corsair can't handle the added heat source but plumbing it in without the "F" fittings that I said OCZ should include will be a bad impediment to water flow. Besides, what with OCZ mixing metals in those blocks I really wouldn't want them in my loop.

As to what I said about the water block not being in direct contact with the chips....look at the side cut-away in the PC Perspective review you linked to. The water flows through the top of the heat spreader, the heat spreader then reaches down to the chips and uses those gawdawful thick pads to contact the ram and the heat spreaders. Those things make great blankets but terrible thermal interfaces. Don't believe me? Take one and put it over the pad of your finger then hold a flame up to it from a lighter and see how long it takes to become uncomfortable. My own testing showed 10 full seconds.

Either way, my point is that plumbing them into your loop is a waste of time and unless you take steps to split them off from the rest of the loop you'll end up hurting the rest of your loop's performance. Not from the added heat from the ram which will be minimal at worst but from the restriction that you place in the line. You'd no more take your high flow loop and just plumb in a short length of 1/4" tubing and a few 90's for added measure if it would net you no appreciable gains, or at least I surely would not.

[NicePants42]

Originally Posted by madmat

Either way, my point is that plumbing them into your loop is a waste of time and unless you take steps to split them off from the rest of the loop you'll end up hurting the rest of your loop's performance.

Adding blocks to loops always hurts performance, yet people do it anyway. If all we cared about was flow rate, nothing would get cooled. Could none of your readers be willing to isolate the RAM on a separate loop - maybe with some HDDs or the NB or some FETs? You are arguing that it's pointless for people to add these to a water loop, I am arguing that TG, as a review site, should do your readers a favor, test this and back yourself up with data.

Originally Posted by madmat

Not from the added heat from the ram which will be minimal at worst but from the restriction that you place in the line. You'd no more take your high flow loop and just plumb in a short length of 1/4" tubing and a few 90's for added measure if it would net you no appreciable gains, or at least I surely would not.

What are appreciable gains? Should I not have added two GPU blocks to my loop because my flow rate decreased? If plumbing this RAM into your loop is such a bad idea, why are you opposed to trying it and showing your readers just exactly how bad an idea it is?

Originally Posted by madmat

Besides, what with OCZ mixing metals in those blocks I really wouldn't want them in my loop.

Incidentally, I tend to agree with you here, and while we're on this subject, let me ask you another question: Can you show me any review of this OCZ ram where the reviewer actually describes the materials used in the block in a specific manner? (i.e. this part is copper, this part is aluminum, the water contacts both, etc.) I only know of one such review - done by PC Perspective, and this information was added to the review AFTER publishing because a certain reader posed the question. Doesn't it surprise you that after at least 3 months on the market, all the review sites were content with simply posting OCZ's flow diagram and not really questioning what was in the blocks? Are you surprised that after at least 3 months on the market, no review site has posted any kind of data regarding the possible performance (in terms of speed) benefit of OCZ's 'ground-breaking' cooling solution?

Look, TG is a review site. Rob was planning on doing exactly what I'm asking about. Adding the RAM to his water loop is not going to kill his PC's performance, and the RAM can always be removed from the loop after the test is done to preserve flow rates. I'm not trying to piss you guys off, I'm trying to encourage you to make your review better. I realize it's not convenient, but I'm personally willing to give TG anything it wants - 'F' connectors, clamps, extra tubing, extra coolant, a case of Labatt for afterwards - to make performing this testing easier.

Rob explained why he changed his mind, I'm just trying to change it back, because this review has the potential to be the most comprehensive evaluation to date.

[madmat]

Originally Posted by NicePants42

Adding blocks to loops always hurts performance, yet people do it anyway. If all we cared about was flow rate, nothing would get cooled. Could none of your readers be willing to isolate the RAM on a separate loop - maybe with some HDDs or the NB or some FETs? You are arguing that it's pointless for people to add these to a water loop, I am arguing that TG, as a review site, should do your readers a favor, test this and back yourself up with data.

What are appreciable gains? Should I not have added two GPU blocks to my loop because my flow rate decreased? If plumbing this RAM into your loop is such a bad idea, why are you opposed to trying it and showing your readers just exactly how bad an idea it is?

Incidentally, I tend to agree with you here, and while we're on this subject, let me ask you another question: Can you show me any review of this OCZ ram where the reviewer actually describes the materials used in the block in a specific manner? (i.e. this part is copper, this part is aluminum, the water contacts both, etc.) I only know of one such review - done by PC Perspective, and this information was added to the review AFTER publishing because a certain reader posed the question. Doesn't it surprise you that after at least 3 months on the market, all the review sites were content with simply posting OCZ's flow diagram and not really questioning what was in the blocks? Are you surprised that after at least 3 months on the market, no review site has posted any kind of data regarding the possible performance (in terms of speed) benefit of OCZ's 'ground-breaking' cooling solution?

Look, TG is a review site. Rob was planning on doing exactly what I'm asking about. Adding the RAM to his water loop is not going to kill his PC's performance, and the RAM can always be removed from the loop after the test is done to preserve flow rates. I'm not trying to piss you guys off, I'm trying to encourage you to make your review better. I realize it's not convenient, but I'm personally willing to give TG anything it wants - 'F' connectors, clamps, extra tubing, extra coolant, a case of Labatt for afterwards - to make performing this testing easier.

Rob explained why he changed his mind, I'm just trying to change it back, because this review has the potential to be the most comprehensive evaluation to date.

Adding blocks with the same sized barbs has far less impact on your loop than adding blocks with smaller barbs. I fully grok why Rob didn't bother because realistically you won't see an increase in the ram's clocks by adding in the water cooling. It appeals to the silence freaks for obvious reasons but for raw performance you'll get just as good results by putting a fan over the ram and cooling it that way.

Let's see, appreciable gains means you gain something good from doing a certain thing. As far as I can see, if Rob had plumbed in the ram when he did his review he most likely would have suffered a loss. The resultant loss in flow rate and hampering of his loop performance would have most likely resulted in a lower OC on his proc. Overall a no-win situation. Now if he feels like plumbing in the ram properly with the "F" fittings then it wouldn't hurt to see what it does if anything or if it proves to be just another gimmick that ends up being a waste of time and effort.

I'm not opposed to liquid ram cooling. I reviewed the Swiftech Vram cooler a while back and found it worked a treat but it was properly implemented with the base of the block directly on the ram and was using thermal paste rather than thermal blankets for the TIM.

I'm not trying to say that he shouldn't investigate it further properly equipped, I'm just letting you know why he didn't do a half baked setup by improperly plumbing it into his loop and finding out that it screwed things up worse than it helped.

[Rob Williams]

Originally Posted by NicePants42

Look, TG is a review site. Rob was planning on doing exactly what I'm asking about.

I was going to, but that was before I realized the tube sizes were different.

Here's a diagram that OCZ drew up for me regarding the innards. According to it, only one side of the chips has copper, which doesn't make much sense to me. I'm trying to get an answer as to why that is.

I should also mention that continuing to evaluate these modules is just a waste of time. HotHardware just posted a review of the modules, under water cooling, so they may offer more information than I did.

http://www.hothardware.com/viewartic...?articleid=940

As it stands, this review didn't receive as many reads as I expected, so it's a waste of time (to me) to set aside time to do all this testing. I'd rather continue working on content that people will actually read. As bad as that sounds, it's the truth. I have a job to do, and need to evaluate how much time a piece of content deserves. Had I known I would have received this reaction, I would have made sure to have the proper equipment before hand.

I am sure this is not the last Flex I will be receiving... it seems to be selling well. Between now and that time, I will see about getting in an external kit that uses 1/4" and perform my testing then. As it stands right now, it's just not worth the time and effort.

[NicePants42]

First Matt:

Originally Posted by madmat

Let's see, appreciable gains means you gain something good from doing a certain thing. As far as I can see, if Rob had plumbed in the ram when he did his review he most likely would have suffered a loss. The resultant loss in flow rate and hampering of his loop performance would have most likely resulted in a lower OC on his proc. Overall a no-win situation. Now if he feels like plumbing in the ram properly with the "F" fittings then it wouldn't hurt to see what it does if anything or if it proves to be just another gimmick that ends up being a waste of time and effort.

We disagree on the magnitude of the effect of the RAM blocks on flow/temperatures. Even in the event that Rob's CPU clock had to be slowed down, the review wasn't about his CPU, it was about the RAM. Generally when testing RAM, the CPU multiplier is lowered anyway, and in any case the RAM blocks could've been removed after the test.

As for these blocks possibly being a gimmick/waste of time, isn't that why I'm reading the review? If your review doesn't tell me whether some fancy new thing is a waste of time, then reading your review is a waste of time. If your review CAN tell me whether something is a waste of time, then you either saved X readers Y amount of time (because they know it's a waste) or you showed X readers how to get Z more performance/value/etc (because they know it's not a waste). I don't think it was ever possible for testing this RAM under water to be a waste of time for Rob. (Now that we know the review didn't get many hits, I can understand how other things will take priority.)

Originally Posted by madmat

I'm not opposed to liquid ram cooling. I reviewed the Swiftech Vram cooler a while back and found it worked a treat but it was properly implemented with the base of the block directly on the ram and was using thermal paste rather than thermal blankets for the TIM.

I'd be very interested in reading that review. Did the added cooling capacity allow you to increase speed?

Originally Posted by madmat

I'm not trying to say that he shouldn't investigate it further properly equipped, I'm just letting you know why he didn't do a half baked setup by improperly plumbing it into his loop and finding out that it screwed things up worse than it helped.

Rob's done a fine job of explaining that. However I still think that any findings would've been helpful to readers.

Then Rob:

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

continuing to evaluate these modules is just a waste of time. HotHardware just posted a review of the modules, under water cooling, so they may offer more information than I did.

Yup, they pretty much nailed it down. No pleasant surprises.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

As it stands, this review didn't receive as many reads as I expected, so it's a waste of time (to me) to set aside time to do all this testing. I'd rather continue working on content that people will actually read. As bad as that sounds, it's the truth.

That doesn't sound bad at all - the only reason I've been nagging you is for the sake of potential readers.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

I have a job to do, and need to evaluate how much time a piece of content deserves.

Here is where my problem was - I think that it is the job of a reviewer to try and evaluate all the aspects of a product that his/her readers might find useful. Maybe I overemphasize the importance of a scientific method, but I think that a good review of this set of RAM should include testing with water cooling. Something unexpectedly nice might happen.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

Had I known I would have received this reaction, I would have made sure to have the proper equipment before hand.

If you test all the possibilities, people like me can't ask for more. I hope you don't consider this a bad reaction though; I'm only one person, and I'm only trying to help.

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

I am sure this is not the last Flex I will be receiving... it seems to be selling well. Between now and that time, I will see about getting in an external kit that uses 1/4" and perform my testing then. As it stands right now, it's just not worth the time and effort.

I look forward to it. I appreciate the time you've taken to review the RAM and respond to me.

[Rob Williams]

Originally Posted by NicePants42

First Matt:
We disagree on the magnitude of the effect of the RAM blocks on flow/temperatures. Even in the event that Rob's CPU clock had to be slowed down, the review wasn't about his CPU, it was about the RAM. Generally when testing RAM, the CPU multiplier is lowered anyway, and in any case the RAM blocks could've been removed after the test.

When I do this in the future, I'd like the ram to be the only thing in the loop, which is why I expressed interest in an external WC rig that uses 1/4". Putting something else into the equation, whether it be different sized tubes or more components to cool could result in inaccurate or inconclusive results.

Unless I switched entirely over to a system that just used 1/4" tubes, then that would be manageable.

Originally Posted by NicePants42

Here is where my problem was - I think that it is the job of a reviewer to try and evaluate all the aspects of a product that his/her readers might find useful. Maybe I overemphasize the importance of a scientific method, but I think that a good review of this set of RAM should include testing with water cooling. Something unexpectedly nice might happen.

I couldn't agree more. The fact was that I did not have the appropriate equipment to test the ram blocks, so it was more of a state of regret than anything. I still believe that 3/8" should have been considered though. I believe either two things. OCZ realizes that 1/4" was probably not the best way to go, or that 3/8" was not possible due to the fact that it would increase block size. Regardless, I don't think taller blocks would have mattered much because they are tall enough as is. Another half inch wouldn't have mattered. Damn, that sounds like my last relationship.

Originally Posted by NicePants42

If you test all the possibilities, people like me can't ask for more. I hope you don't consider this a bad reaction though; I'm only one person, and I'm only trying to help.

It's far from being a bad reaction. I admit it, these -should- have been tested with my cooling setup. I took the easy route like twenty other sites. OCZ could have helped us out by releasing better blocks though ;-)

Originally Posted by NicePants42

I look forward to it. I appreciate the time you've taken to review the RAM and respond to me.

Thanks, we appreciate the constructive criticism. Hope to see you stick around a while. Are you a ram enthusiast or a water cooling enthusiast? We publish a decent amount of both :-)