I lol at how they try to market 1333 CL9-9-9-24 as "enhanced latency"
1333 CL9-9-9-24 is generic and the bottom of the bar. This isn't enhanced latency.... it's normal latency. Only when the timings drop below that do we have enhanced latency.
Nevertheless the appearance of 1.7V kits seems interesting; it hints at us that the FX Series and A-Series memory controllers will be just as rigid as Phenom II's when it comes to voltage. The problem I have with using 1.65-1.7V on these kits, along with the sole ratings of 9-9-9-24 and 8-9-8-24 on the 1600Mhz kits: the likelihood of low quality ICs with little overclocking headroom.
Originally Posted by Nixuz
Why do I have a feeling that this is the same as "Designed for Windows7"?
Same RAM with a new sticker.
If it doesn't sell for the same price as every other RAM kit at the same specs, I'm not going to recommend these at all. Then we just have a marketing disaster on our hands. This has happened lately with G.Skill Flare with G.Skill apparently discouraging the use of lower-latency/higher speed Ripjaws or Ripjaws X on AMD platforms (despite that the majority of the time they work with zero issue) by not ratifying them at all and being rather unfriendly to AMD users who have problems with these kits by telling them to run higher than advertised (and paid for) timings among other things.Edited by xd_1771 - 6/20/11 at 7:10pm