OCZ’s DDR Booster

Manufacturer OCZ
Model DDR Booster
Price (street)
Availability Now

EVERY SO OFTEN, WE COME ACROSS a product that is truly… unique. Something that is totally unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. The subject of this article is just such an item. OCZ’s DDR Booster is a supplemental power supply for your DDR memory that plugs into an empty DIMM socket to improve memory stability.

See, I told you it was unique.

The important thing to remember is that “unique” does not necessarily mean “good.” Does the DDR Booster live up to its promise? We’ll soon find out.

Turbo boost
When you open up the DDR Booster box, you’ll see an instruction sheet, a power cable and the DDR Booster itself. The Booster looks like a cross between a DIMM, a motherboard and… a stereo. No, seriously. Take a look:

On the far left is a two-digit voltage readout that tells you the current voltage (i.e., 26 when the voltage is 2.6V) when the Booster is installed and the system is powered on. Next to this are two Molex jacks with stickers, which just so happen to match the Molex plugs on the included power cord. Speaking of the power cord, it plugs in between the motherboard and the power supply using ATX connectors. The pinouts on the two Molex connectors are completely custom, so while you could in theory plug a couple of Molex plugs off your power supply into the Booster, doing so would almost certainly fry any number of components.

To the right of the power connectors are a number of voltage regulators that are covered with a big, passive heatsink. Finally in the upper right corner is a potentiometer that will adjust the amount of voltage the DDR Booster supplies to memory.

Installation
Installation is as simple as can be, with the understanding that only a fairly hardcore geek would be interested in a device such as this. Plug the power cable in between your power supply and motherboard, and then plug each of the color-coded Molex plugs into the appropriate socket on the Booster. Finally, install the DDR Booster into an empty memory socket.

That’s the short version. However, there are some things of which one should be aware in regards to the DDR Booster. First, it’s tall:

The circuit board itself isn’t that much taller than a DIMM, but by the time you factor in the Molex connectors and the cables coming out of them, the DDR Booster is pretty dang tall. I mention this only because one might be tempted to use a clip-on RAM cooler like Abit recently started making. Unfortunately I don’t have one here to test, but given the DDR Booster’s height I’m doubtful it would fit.

Here’s a side view of the DDR Booster installed next to some OCZ DIMMs. You can see that the potentiometer is touching the top of the closest DIMM, but this isn’t really a problem. However, I should point out that of the five brands of memory that I tested, the OCZ was shorter than all the others. Let’s switch to a different brand of RAM. . . .

With the Corsair DIMMs, the potentiometer really starts to be a problem. You have to basically force the DDR Booster into the DIMM socket with these DIMMs, and it sort-of-but-not-completely fits, as you can see by the tilt of the Booster in the DIMM socket. Finally, notice that in this configuration, the Booster effectively takes up two DIMM sockets, meaning that if you’re installing on a motherboard with only three sockets and you want the Booster “behind” the DIMMs, the placement of that third DIMM socket will become very important.

Of course, the smart ones out there are saying “Well why not just swap the memory and the DDR Booster?” Good point. Let’s try that out.

No Leaning Tower of Booster this time, so that’s good. Notice, however, that the component leads on the back of the DDR Booster circuit board are awfully close to the heatspreader. The metal, presumably electrically conductive, heatspreader. I could have just crammed a sheet of paper or cardboard between the Booster and the DIMMs, but stability on the motherboard I used for testing suffered significantly when the memory was farther from the processor like this, so I wound up going with the first configuration, leaning Booster and all.

And for the smart ones out there who are now saying “Well why not just move the DDR Booster to the first DIMM socket instead of the second?” I’ll say “good point” again. Unfortunately, a couple of capacitors interfere with the DDR Booster’s heatsink, making installation in the first DIMM socket impossible.

If you haven’t figured it out by now, it may be difficult to determine whether or not the DDR Booster will work or even fit on a given motherboard. If you’re interested in the product, I suggest checking out this page at OCZ’s web site, which has compatibility listings for a variety of motherboards. Also, it’s important to note that the maximum voltage reachable by the DDR Booster varies between motherboards, so the same page lists the maximum voltage for each motherboard that is compatible.

 

Operation
Now that the installation has been covered, it’s time to crank this baby up. Before doing so, OCZ recommends turning the potentiometer counter-clockwise until you hit the stop. This ensures that the Booster starts up at the lowest setting of 2.6V as opposed to, say, 3.9V. When you power the system on, the numeric display will indicate the current voltage level. In my experience testing the Booster, I found that it was a good idea to verify the voltage reported on the Booster using the motherboard BIOS or a monitoring utility like Motherboard Monitor. A smaller potentiometer (think jeweler’s screwdriver small) under the numeric display allows you to adjust the calibration if you find it to be off.

Personally, I would recommend relying on the LED display only as a general guide. This has less to do with the calibration of the device and more to do with its precision. When dialing in 2.8V for example, you could be dialing in anywhere from 2.79V to 2.89V without knowing it, because the display on the Booster lacks a hundredths digit.

Once the system is powered on, OCZ recommends you enter the system BIOS before adjusting the voltage, because the act of adjustment can cause an operating system to lock up. I did manage to blue-screen Windows a couple of times by turning the knob too quickly, but generally I found that if I moved in slow, small steps, the system tolerated it just fine.

In terms of operating the device, that’s basically all there is to it. Disappointed? What did you expect for a device whose control mechanism consists of a single knob?

Testing notes and our testing methods
OCZ’s description of the DDR Booster is interesting:

OCZ DDR Booster Diagnostic Device with Patent pending PowerClean Technology™ allows users to supply cleaner power to their memory modules, resulting in more stable memory. Additionally, users are able to view memory module voltage with the digital LEDs o­n the DDR Booster, allowing simple and inexpensive troubleshooting of the memory modules.

That’s the official version. I suspect the unofficial version is more akin to ‘It lets you overvolt the snot outta your RAM!” but I don’t have any confirmation on that. Nonetheless, the “cleaner power” claim is an interesting one, and it bears further examination. As a result, I decided to set up four testing scenarios: Stock motherboard voltage (2.6V), maximum motherboard voltage (2.8V), the equivalent of maximum motherboard voltage supplied by the DDR Booster (2.8V) and a significantly higher voltage supplied by the DDR Booster (3.3V). The idea with the second and third test conditions is to see if letting the DDR Booster supply the power will result in higher stable RAM speeds than the motherboard alone. If so, it would imply that the power coming off the DDR Booster is of higher quality than the motherboard power.

OCZ sent along some memory modules which they said responded well to higher voltages, but I wanted to test a variety of RAM, so I assembled a total of five sets of dual-channel DIMMs from a number of manufacturers. Timings were set manually to 2.5-3-3-8 to set a level playing field. In all cases, these were looser timings than the SPD of the memory, which should hopefully allow for higher speeds.

The objective here was to crank the memory speeds as high as possible. Motherboard Monitor was used to set the voltage as close to the target as possible; I found that relying on the DDR Booster display alone could result in significant variance in the actual voltage, and a few hundredths of a volt could significantly affect the maximum speed of the memory.

Our Sphinx speech recognition benchmark was used as a quick stability test for the memory. (Over time, we’ve found that Sphinx is very good at exposing iffy memory configs.) Essentially, I would start at a memory clock of 205MHz (5MHz over stock) and run Sphinx to determine if the test configuration was stable. If so, the memory clock got bumped 5MHz higher and the process was repeated until Sphinx crashed. Then, the speeds between the last stable setting and the unstable setting were tested to determine the highest stable speed to the nearest MHz. This procedure was repeated for each combination of DIMM type and voltage.

Since I was only testing for maximum memory speed, I didn’t want any other component to get in the way. Consequently, I lowered the multiplier of the CPU from 12X to 8X, locked the AGP and PCI busses at their default speeds, and lowered the HyperTransport multiplier to 2X.

Finally, I decided that I would just go hog-wild on whichever RAM performed the best in the above tests. That RAM would undergo one final max stable speed test, this time at 3.7V. Speaking of which, OCZ maintains that while the DDR Booster does get very hot, active cooling is only necessary if the voltage is 3.4V or above. After running some initial tests, the heat of the Booster and the memory just made me too nervous, and I resolved to come up with an advanced, high-tech cooling solution. Behold!

That’s right, baby. Ph34r my m0dding skillz.

Our test system was configured like so:

Processor Athlon 64 FX-53 
Motherboard Gigabyte GAK8NSNXP-939
BIOS revision F6
Memory size 1024MB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Corsair XMS3200LL PC3200 DDR SDRAM
Crucial Ballistix PC3200 DDR SDRAM
Kingston HyperX PC3200 DDR SDRAM
Mushkin LII V2 PC3200 DDR SDRAM
OCZ Gold Edition VX PC3200 DDR SDRAM
CAS latency 2.5
Cycle time 8
RAS to CAS delay 3
RAS precharge 3
Graphics ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB
Hard drive Seagate Barracuda V 120GB SATA 150
OS Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates Service Pack 2, DirectX 9.0b

We used the following versions of our test applications:

The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 
Test results
I could go on at length here in an attempt to add to the suspense, but you can already see that everything boils down to a single graph, so let’s just get started.

First of all, I should point out the obvious: Don’t take the results above as any sort of statement about the quality of the memory tested. The only measurement here is how well each type of memory reacts to (in some cases silly amounts of) overvolting.

Starting at the bottom, the Kingston RAM didn’t seem to like either the relaxed timings or the higher voltage at all. The speed here is listed at 199, but all that’s really signifying is that the HyperX wasn’t stable even at stock DDR400 speeds when its voltage was raised. I suspect that the HyperX is simply designed with really tight timings at stock voltage in mind, and this sort of thing just isn’t its bag, baby.

Next up is the Mushkin. It doesn’t benefit very much from additional voltage, but at least it wasn’t hampered by it. Pushing the voltage all the way up to 3.3V did result in a significant increase in top speed.

The Corsair RAM started out with a reasonably good overclock and responded pretty well to the additional voltage, as well, especially at 3.3V, where it topped the 2.8V speed by 23MHz.

The Crucial Ballistix did very well for itself here, hitting a top memory clock of 244MHz at stock voltage and extending that all the way to 261MHz at 3.3V.

OCZ said that their Gold Edition RAM responded well to overvolting, and they weren’t kidding, but it also managed to nab second place for the stock voltage tests. It also posted the largest gains with increased voltage, including a first place finish (by a nose, or a MHz anyway) in the 3.3V category.

Since the OCZ RAM was the top finisher, it got the, umm…. honor of being subjected to 3.7V. The added voltage allowed it to up its high score by 5MHz, but I suspect there’s more to the story than that. Throughout my stability testing, all of the RAM failed in a very consistent way, either crashing Sphinx or causing it to throw an error message, such as a divide by zero error. However, when I was testing the upper limits of the OCZ RAM at 3.7V, the failures were much different, always resulting in a hard lockup.

Based on these differences in behavior, I suspect the limiting factor here may be the motherboard and not the memory. I tried everything I could think of to make the motherboard more stable, from lowering HyperTransport multipliers to bumping up north bridge and CPU voltages, but the result was always the same. Perhaps with a different motherboard, the OCZ Gold Edition-DDR Booster combination could hit even greater heights.

On a more general note, you’ll notice that in no case did the 2.8V DDR Booster test configuration allow for higher stable speeds than the 2.8V motherboard configuration. Either the Gigabyte motherboard used in this tests provides cleaner power than other boards, or the advantage of the DDR Booster is more its upper voltage range than the “cleanliness” of the power it delivers.

 
Conclusions
Like most truly unique items, the DDR Booster certainly isn’t for everyone. From a physical compatibility standpoint, one has to be careful to pair the DDR Booster with the proper motherboard, and the testing reveals that different types of RAM have very different responses to the Booster. Setting those items aside for a moment, there is even the very real possibility of causing permanent damage to your memory or other components if you’re not careful with the DDR Booster, a fact that is plainly stated in the installation guide.

Fortunately, the type of user who would be most at risk of damaging his system in this manner is protected by the fact that he probably wouldn’t have the slightest interest in the DDR Booster. This is a tweaker’s toy, and in almost all cases, the person who buys it is going to be very much aware of its potential for both good and evil.

And in spite of all its fit limitations, compatibility requirements and quirks, the bottom line is that the DDR Booster does have its place. For the hard-core tweaker who spends entire evenings wringing every last bit of performance out of his system, the DDR Booster represents an exciting new avenue of exploration. So long as you keep the caveats in mind, OCZ’s DDR Booster has the potential to be a great bang-for-the-buck purchase for the true overclocking freak. 

Comments closed
    • MadManOriginal
    • 15 years ago

    All the flaming aside, when it comes down to the graph this thing actually does have merit. Just look at the memory speed difference above 2.8-2.9 V for all but the Kingston Ram and remember that not all motherboards have setting higher than 2.8-2.9. Pretty good improvements really. Whether you want to subject your Ram to that or not is another question, but the booster certainly does work – which is the conclusion of the article.

    Read overclockers.com forums especially the memory sections, those guys get into lots of detail with what sticks have what memory chips etc, and it does turn out that some types respond better to voltage than others. If you’ve got some time Diss try 3.7V (lol) on the other sticks just for kicks 🙂

    • Zenith
    • 15 years ago

    Strabo – Oh, my, then maybe those people who can’t fit it…maybe they shouldn’t buy it? YA THINK?

    • Convert
    • 15 years ago

    You guys sure do bitch a lot. Constructive criticism is always good but come on, this is just ridiculous.

    Other than the compatibility problems this would fit right at home in any serious ocer’s system. The thing costs 40$ fricken dollars, not a whole lot considering people will pay an extra 200$ for uber speed low latency ram in the first place.

    Has anyone Ever made a product like this before? No, so why is it a bad thing to review something new and innovative? Part of reviewing things lets a person know WHAT NOT to buy as well.

    Either you like it or you don’t, either you are currently filling out a order for one or you wouldn’t use it if it was given to you, TR did you a service by reviewing it.

      • Rakhmaninov3
      • 15 years ago

      Indeed! I enjoyed the article. It’s fun to see interesting gadgets on here once in awhile, different from the normal fare. Keep finding crazy things like this and reviewing them!

      • flip-mode
      • 15 years ago

      All things considered, it’s pretty rare around here that an article gets bad reception. So maybe when it happens it happens for a reason. We should count our blessings that as yet there are no memory booster fanbois to make half of the comments worthless. Yes, it is a unique product, and despite the feeling of emptiness after reading the article there’s really no harm in reviewing it. But don’t get upset that the product has been received poorly – take the good with the bad and move on.

        • Convert
        • 15 years ago

        You missed the entire point of my post. In my last sentence I said a person can hate it. I am not telling people they should praise it, I am just saying you shouldn’t blame TR or get bent out of shape when something you don’t agree with is reviewed.

    • Freon
    • 15 years ago

    I’ve got to say this seems like a completely worthless product.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 15 years ago

    I personally don’t have a use for it, but if I were more into tweaking and stuff…I would definitely be looking with a more contemplative eye….
    I’m of the opinion that that is something worth reviewing…thanks TR crew…don’t listen to these nay-sayers

    • SpotTheCat
    • 15 years ago

    I hope this is an article to help break into memory reviewing.

    • Zenith
    • 15 years ago

    I can see this falling into the hands of the same people that buy Phase-Change cooling for their P4’s. I have no use for it 😀

    …What’s that sound…is it..Strabo off crying in a corner?

    *Chuckles*

    • totoro
    • 15 years ago

    Many people use these, particularly with OCZ(tm) brand RAM.
    There are reasons why you might want 3.3V on the RAM, but elephino why.

    • flip-mode
    • 15 years ago

    Next week on Tech-Report, tune in as we review a giant log of poop, we promise it won’t be a waste of time.

    • PRIME1
    • 15 years ago

    Can’t I just shear off one of my molex connectors from the power supply and cram it into any free memory slot?

    And how is this better than flashing LED’s?

    • Nullvoid
    • 15 years ago

    Am I the only one who thinks the ballistix came out looking the best memory of the bunch(even though that wasn’t what was being tested obviously…)?

    • Strabo
    • 15 years ago

    This article is disappointing. I’m sorry, but it reeks of payola, and TR is better than this.

    “Throughout my stability testing, all of the RAM failed in a very consistent way, either crashing Sphinx or causing it to throw an error message, such as a divide by zero error. However, when I was testing the upper limits of the OCZ RAM at 3.7V, the failures were much different, always resulting in a hard lockup.”

    “Based on these differences in behavior, I suspect the limiting factor here may be the motherboard and not the memory.”

    “Perhaps with a different motherboard, the OCZ Gold Edition-DDR Booster combination could hit even greater heights.”

    “On a more general note, you’ll notice that in no case did the 2.8V DDR Booster test configuration allow for higher stable speeds than the 2.8V motherboard configuration. Either the Gigabyte motherboard used in this tests provides cleaner power than other boards, or the advantage of the DDR Booster is more its upper voltage range than the “cleanliness” of the power it delivers.”

    That’s a doubleplusgood article. Practice cognitive dissonance much (no pun intended)? Looks like the clue train almost ran you over there, but you leapt out of the way in the nick of time. Sorry for the theatrics, I’ll tone down the sarcasm now.

    I think it’s funny that of your obviously cherry-picked results, you show the motherboard–sans placebo junk gizmo–achieving the same overclock as the OCZ shit-on-a-board, yet in the third quote you attribute the lackluster results of the OCZ POS to being a failing of the motherboard? So wait, for their product to perform as advertised we have to buy SHIT motherboards?

    This article is just sad.

      • mattsteg
      • 15 years ago

      I love it when a cast iron kettle calls a gleaming stainless steel one black. If you’d just try reading *[

        • Strabo
        • 15 years ago

        Please, wise one, educate me in the error of my ways. How did I misinterpret the data given?

          • mattsteg
          • 15 years ago

          Based on the simpleness of your original interpretation I have doubts whether you can understand at all. You’re just ignoring little things like logic completely.

          When a previously predictable failure mode changes form, something is changing about the failure. It’s quite reasonable to suspect the motherboard or other components as possible failure points in this case.

          In addition, it’s hardly difficult to see that this “placebo” did increase memory overclocks when used to increase voltage beyond that offered by the board. I don’t see how this requires a crappy board to be useful, most boards don’t offer extreme RAM overvolting. Your claim that the board alone achieved the same overclock is just flat-out false. I don’t see how it could be made more clear that the whole “clean power” thing is bunk, but isn’t really the point of the product anyway. Heck, one of your quotes states that.

          Also, how exactly were results cherry picked? Every stick was tested at every setting that approached sanity, and one more, determined by previous performance, was pressed further as a demonstration of what a crazy person might try with this product.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 15 years ago

      This thing is completely ridiculous…the price/performance ratio just isn’t going to justify it.

      Then again, maybe this IS the E-Penis Booster that Krogoth mentioned.

      • indeego
      • 15 years ago

      Hence why the article starts off with the cash money guarantee for OCZ:
      q[

        • Dposcorp
        • 15 years ago

        indeego, nice catch. Game over.
        Strabo=owned

      • Dr. Evil
      • 15 years ago

      You seem have a fundamental flaw in your logic, so let’s try to clear things up. There are two different tests at issue here. The purpose of the 2.8V tests was to determine whether the DDR Booster supplied cleaner power to the memory than the motherboard. The purpose of the 3.7V tests was simply to get the maxmimum amount of memory overclocking possible with the DDR Booster using this test configuration.

      In the 2.8V tests, the DDR Booster and the motherboard performed identically. The implication (which I clearly stated in a part of the article which you quoted in your post) is that the DDR Booster doesn’t seem to offer any cleaner power than the motherboard in these tests.

      In the 3.7V tests, the system failed in a way that was completely different than the failures caused by memory instability throughout the benchmarking process. The implication here (which I clearly stated in a part of the article which you quoted in your post) is that because the failure is manifesting itself in a different way something other than RAM instability is causing the problem. Given that the AGP and PCI busses were locked at stock speeds and the processor was actually underclocked for these tests, the motherboard seems the most likely candidate at this point.

      What you’ve done is to take statements I made about one set of results and imply that I made those statements about a different set of results. Such an approach is nonsensical. I would suggest you read the article again carefully and make sure you understand it before posting.

        • Strabo
        • 15 years ago

        “…the motherboard seems the most likely candidate at this point.”

        No, the motherboard is not the most likely candidate. The most likely candidate is the OCZ stick ‘o crap which is totally bypassing the motherboard’s built-in power regulation equipment, and flooding the entire motherboard with out of spec voltage. By feeding this voltage directly into the DIMM slot, you’re not only overvolting the DIMMs, you’re overvolting everything they’re connected to on the motherboard, including the integrated memory controller on the A64. Rhetorical question: do you really think Gigabyte’s engineers designed the motherboard components to run at a 42% overvolt?

        One other thing you failed to mention in the article…regarding DIMM height, and the width of the OCZ POS. Many people aren’t going to have the luxury of moving their DIMMs around due to dual channel considerations. Moving your DIMMs into a signal channel configuration to accommodate their monstrosity would assuredly wipe out any performance gained by the addition of the few MHz you managed to gain with OCZs cherry-picked memory (come on, you don’t have another stick of OCZ lying around you could have tested with? are you even TRYING to maintain credibility?).

          • flip-mode
          • 15 years ago

          You’re being absurd – PERIOD

          • Dr. Evil
          • 15 years ago

          When you say the DDR Booster is the most likely component for the lockups at high FSB speeds, you’re wrong. Period. Why? Because if it was the high voltage of the DDR Booster causing the lockups, the lockups would have occurred at any FSB speed. The fact that these lockups only occurred when the FSB reached a certain threshold points to the motherboard as the cause as I stated previously.

          The dual channel issue didn’t need to be mentioned specifically because anyone with a modicum of reasoning skills could look at the fit issues presented in the review and realize that dual channel could be a problem on some motherboards. How do I know this? Well, you figured it out…

          Finally, I find it ironic that you’re throwing around the word credibility in the same post as such mature and professional terms as “stick ‘o crap,” “OCZ POS” and “monstrosity.” That fact that you level such venom against a piece of hardware is both amusing and a clear indicator of bias on your part.

    • Krogoth
    • 15 years ago

    Next-up, OCZ will develop the “E-Penis booster”! It’ll be able to raise your system performance by 200% and much more. However, Sempr0ns get the best results from OCZ exclusive “E-Penis booster!”

    • indeego
    • 15 years ago

    I like unique.
    I don’t care for this, however. I think OCZ is actually turning itself around in my mind as a company worth listening to again. Will wonders never ceaseg{

    • Ragnar Dan
    • 15 years ago

    This is why I am still not convinced OCZ is other than the same rotten company they were before they supposedly reformed themselves.

    • Logan[TeamX]
    • 15 years ago

    Sweet, but I need new RAM in order to come close to using this thing properly.

    • FireGryphon
    • 15 years ago

    This is the second recent article on superfluous DIMM accessories. What’s next? case mods that get plugged into a DIMM slot to draw power?

      • eitje
      • 15 years ago

      hey, i think you’re really onto something there!

      • indeego
      • 15 years ago

      Dude that is sweet, go with it. Maybe a small UPS/battery can be plugged into the unused memory slots to filter power for small devicesg{

    • thebluesgnr
    • 15 years ago

    Well, I have a question.

    Some ABIT K8 boards that had an option of up to 3.2V for Vdimm were changed to 2.8V with later BIOS, and the reason was that a high Vdimm would kill the memory controller of the A64.

    Is that still true? Is this a problem with the Booster?

    • Rousterfar
    • 15 years ago

    Wow… People are actually going to buy these?

      • Pettytheft
      • 15 years ago

      The same people that buy ultra low latency ram for ridiculous amounts of money. If they can squeeze out some extra speed they will.

    • Convert
    • 15 years ago

    Daaaaang, 1.1v increase, I don’t push a processor much past that, usually only a 1v increase.

    Edit, what am I thinking, I don’t push a processor past .1

    • wesley96
    • 15 years ago

    Their ‘cleaner-power’ claim doesn’t make a lot of sense in an electrical engineer’s standpoint, and I think the results speak for itself. The RAM isn’t receiving power from an isolated power source, but both from the ‘regular’ source and the one that’s regulated by this booster. The thing is, this ‘regular’ source is also a regulated one, done by the mobo. Having two sources regulating the same rail doesn’t seem preferable, as the two sources may create a bad feedback loop and actually destabilize the rail altogether. That the RAM was on the same ‘stability level’ with or without the product in question at the same voltage level itself seem to be an achievement.

      • Larc
      • 15 years ago

      exactly, for good performance, the clean power supply should be done on the motherboard… i think most try to do a good job.

      as far as i can tell the “clean” attribute advantage is zero… the rams ran just as fast with and without the mod at the same voltage right? so this is purely a way to overvolt your system.

      I usually try to stick within standard part specs (5-10%)

      • Dr. Evil
      • 15 years ago

      It may not be supported, but it does work; I tried it myself. Obviously it doesn’t pass through the extra four pins, but just like a 24-pin PSU will plug into a motherboard with a 20-pin power connector (leaving the other four pins hanging off the side) it will plug into the power cord of the DDR Booster.

    • Hizpanick
    • 15 years ago

    Wow, that IS unique. Prolly real small niche market for this too.
    FP!!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This