Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2400 RAM review
Is this 2400MHz, 16GB, high-performance memory worth buying?
Corsair’s Vengeance LPX 2400MHz memory kit (Code: CMK16GX4M2A2400C16) is what we use in the PC World Test Rig. It’s designed for high performance overclocking which is beyond the needs of most users, but that won’t stop regular PC builders wanting a good kit in their system.
We tested the two 8GB sticks, which have low-profile heat spreaders and an XMP memory profile of 16-16-16-39 at 1.20V using our Gigabyte Z170X Designare motherboard-based Test Rig plus 6th and 7th Generation Intel Processors.
First, we ran the sticks at default settings with our Core i7 Skylake (6th Gen) 6700K CPU and then again with the XMP settings activated. This boosted the modules from 2,132MHz to the advertised 2,400MHz.
In PC Mark the score jumped from 4008 to 4040 when running at the default 4GHz settings. When overclocked to 4.6GHz using the Designare’s automatic overclocking settings, the score jumped from 4302 to 4355. So simply turning on XMP provided a 0.8 to 1.2 per cent boost. In reality this meant that the Photo Editing test ran a fraction of a second quicker.
In terms of hard numbers, Maxxmem gave the following scores:-
We also tested the sticks (with XMP turned on) alongside the newer (7th Gen) 4.2GHz Kaby Lake i7 7700K Processor. In PC Mark the sticks scored 4448 at stock settings and 4477 when overclocked to 5GHz on the Designare. All of these runs used the XMP profile.
Read more: Gigabyte Z170X Designare motherboard review
We also tested the sticks on a Z270 Asus Strix motherboard using our regular Test Rig components. The board struggled to (automatically) make the best of the XMP settings with additional overclocking. It scored 4411 in PC Mark at 4.2GHz and a lower 4289 when it attempted to overclock the system by just nine per cent. Anything above this level of automatic overclocking led to the system crashing.
3D Mark Time Spy
We performed a quick test with and without XMP turned on when running our 6600K processor at its stock 4GHz settings. The score jumped from 5455 to 5590 – that’s a 2.5% increase. In more-real terms, this reflects a boost of a whopping 1 frame per second boost in all tests. Yay.
When we ran the tests at 4GHz, 4.6GHz (Skylake 6700K) plus 4.2GHz and 5GHz (Kaby Lake 7700K) all four sets of Graphics Test scores were the same – only the CPU test saw any increase: from 17fps to 20.43 fps.
As these are our new test rig memory modules we don’t have much to compare them to at the moment. But at $155, they aren’t the cheapest modules you can buy.
We’re going to leave it there which is unusual in the world of component reviews. But we’re not reinventing the wheel with torture testing RAM and writing multiple pages about it. These reviews will be for people who want to gauge real-world performance/value under general computing usage.
If you just want some decent and reliable memory in your DDR4-compatible system – that will stably handle the levels of overclocking afforded by the automatic settings on the motherboard – these are a good all-round choice. Naturally we’ll be refining that conclusion over time.
Join the newsletter!
Latest News Articles
- New high-speed graphics card from AMD
- Logitech dials up great sound and a handy mouse
- New products round-up: Belkin, Bose and Logitech
- Intel launches 11th-gen Tiger Lake CPUs and premium laptop Evo brand
- You can now control your Razer-powered RGB lighting setup with Alexa
Most Popular Articles
- 1 Macworld's February digital magazine: iPhone 12 vs. Android's best phones
- 2 How much of my budget should I spend on a graphics card? | Ask an expert
- 3 MagSafe and medical devices: Apple says keep them ‘a safe distance away’
- 4 Ryzen 5000 doubles AMD's gaming laptop share, but Nvidia still rules
- 5 How to buy the right-sized TV (the only problem is that it might not exist)
- Why do gamers like RGB Lights?
- Sonos Arc review: The Main Event
- Umurangi Generation review: Evangelion Meets Pokémon Snap
- Intel Core i3 vs i5 vs i7: find out which cpu is better
- Laser vs. inkjet printers: which is better?