It seems like yesterday when people were talking about the new generation of memories and now the wide variety of existing flavors leaves us quite indecisive when it comes to building a PC. On this occasion our friends from Crucial have sent us their (classic) DDR5 UDIMM 5200Mhz memory kit.
The market for high performance memories of the current generation is quite large. We have, like the previous generation (DDR4), the favorites on the market, but we have other brands that, although aesthetically speaking, are not as attractive, offer excellent performance above all else.
Like all the tests carried out, we are going to compare this ram kit with the other brands that have passed through my hand, under the same circumstances to really analyze if they are really worth buying. Before we continue, let’s talk a little about the product specifications:
Technology: DDR5 Kit: 64GB (2x32GB) Module Type: UDIMM DIMM Type: Unbuffered Voltage: 1.1V/(external 5V) Number of Modules: 2 Speed: DDR5-5200 CAS Latency: 42 Extended Times: 42-42-42 limited lifetime warranty
As you can see the packaging is quite simple and with a slight sticker in the lower right part we can see the details of the ram, including the specifications that we all know and saw above. This ram kit is the classic version so it doesn’t have any temp shield around it and to my pleasant surprise this was not a problem.
At the specification level, we have the one that attracts many people’s attention and that is the latency, it is somewhat higher than the other versions but in the end, the way it uses all the other specifications is the most important thing. The RAM is compatible with Intel XMP 3.0 and AMD Expo so there will be no problem looking for compatibility issues. Both profiles have two different speeds, the first profile is at 4800 Mhz with a CAS latency of 40 and the best of all is at 5200 Mhz with a CAS latency of 42.
As these memories do not need any type of overclock we have a continuous use of 1.1V voltage, quite considerable for DDR5 memories of this potential. The kit in question that was sent for this review is a total of 64Gb divided into 32Gb each. As you can see in the image below we can see the specifications through the CPU-Z program and there we can appreciate each of the details mentioned above, including the time table.
If we go to the testing part, we have that the PC used is the following:
Continuing with the matter of specifications and others, we come across one of the most important of all. The temperature when using a ram memory is important but not a factor that affects many. When it comes to getting the most out of it and its maximum potential, we do need to keep its temperature the same, but since the highest configuration is already applied (XMP 3.0 Profile) it is not necessary to take such precaution.
As you can see in the image below, the temperature is quite stable in this ram kit. Let’s not forget that in some moments while we play, the internal temperature of the whole computer mixes and it may increase a bit but as you can see, after playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 for about 1 hour, the maximum it reached was about 33.5 to 35 degrees. Celsius. Making it clear that the temperature will not be a problem even though this ram does not have any temperature protector at all.
The first result we have is the memory and cache benchmark provided by the AIDA64 program. In this we see a total of results based on reading, writing, copying and latency. This result is not compared to anything, it is practically a test to detect the most that it can achieve in all aspects with the main measure of the speed variation that is in each of the cache layers.
All the tests carried out are with the Intel i9-13900K processor without any type of overclock:
Now comes the moment of truth, where we compare the Crucial DDR5-5200 with other DDR5-6000 and DDR5-6400 memory kits. The first of all is the reading section:
As you can see above, due to the lower number of MHz the result is a bit low compared to the others but the value is not that huge since it is carried over a bit in the final value. The next test is the writing test, based on the same comparison as the previous one:
In this case, the writing does not depend much on how many Mhz the kit has available, because although the Crucial are far below the difference is not that noticeable and obviously the T-Force Delta DDR5-6400 are in second place.
With a difference of around 5,000 points, the Crucial DDR5-5200 remain below, making it clear that despite being the one with the best frequency, it can show good results.
Here the smallest value influences since it is the response store they have when performing a task. Measured in nanoseconds and in this case if we have a high response when performing the tests. This is due to the CAS time latency of 42 that it is possessing. The T-Force Delta RGB in first place have a latency of 40 but their frequency is much higher.
As for the individual benchmark called PerformanceTest, we have the tests carried out on our RAM memory against the percentage of tests carried out in the world. The result yields something quite satisfactory letting us know that the Crucial DDR5-5200 is in the 93% with the highest score. The score returned shows that the highest speed RAM measured has a score of 6014 and this test returned a score of 3564.
The Crucial DDR5-5200 are not the ones with the best aesthetics, but they have proven to put up a fight in relation to other memory kits with greater power. Unfortunately they fall a little below the standard that many prefer but we must remember that 5200Mhz is the standard for any CPU of this current generation, any speed higher than this is simply an added value that does not even influence when playing. Its temperatures are quite incredible both when playing and when cooling down. Not having a heat sink makes them much cheaper and with good airflow in our PC that is not necessary at all.
The compatibility with Intel and AMD makes it one of my favorites since the issue of compatibility is left aside. We cannot let it pass that something so simple can give a performance as interesting as this. Many will think that not having RGB or a heat sink could be a problem, but in many cases they are more to decorate than to actually give more performance. I would like to see the performance of these same ones but with a higher frequency, it probably breaks the previous tests in a big way. This review was done with a copy provided by Crucial.