Review: GeIL EVO Veloce DDR3-2,400 16GB dual-channel memory

by Tarinder Sandhu on 20 September 2012, 14:59 3.5

Tags: Geil

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qabmmj

Add to My Vault: x

Final thoughts and rating

HEXUS Verdict:

...if you really do need capacity and speed on a leading Intel platform, GeIL's EVO Veloce pack is as good as any.

The recipe for high-speed DDR3 memory is simple enough: take some fast chips, stick them on a custom PCB, add a nice-looking heatspreader, and then give them a suitably 'speedy' name. GeIL's take on this particular bake is the EVO Veloce memory, available in dual-channel kits at speeds up to a blistering 2,800MHz.

Our review of the 16GB pack of 2,400MHz CL11 dual-channel memory underscores a truth that we've been preaching for a while now. Fast, expensive DDR3 RAM provides the very last drop of performance on Intel's Z77 platform, but it is exactly that: the last drop. Most users would be advised to look at significantly cheaper RAM that's good enough to do the job required.

But HEXUS also appreciates that there's a market, albeit very niche, for super-high-frequency system memory. £130 is a lot of cash for 16GB (2x8GB) of DDR3-2,400 memory, absolutely, yet GeIL's pack is, in reality, on the low side for this configuration.

Bottom line: if you really do need capacity and speed on a leading Intel platform, GeIL's EVO Veloce pack is as good as any.

The Good

High-speed, high-density RAM
Competitive pricing amongst peers

The Bad

Aesthetics are an acquired taste
DDR3-2,400 memory doesn't scale well on Core i7

HEXUS Rating


GeIL EVO Veloce 16GB
(GEV316GB2400C11ADC)

HEXUS Where2Buy

The reviewed GeIL EVO Veloce 16GB DDR3-2400 memory kit is available to purchase from Overclockers UK.

HEXUS Right2Reply

At HEXUS, we invite the companies whose products we test to comment on our articles. If any company representatives for the products reviewed choose to respond, we'll publish their commentary here verbatim.



HEXUS Forums :: 3 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
You may know that AMD is soon to launch a desktop version of its ‘Trinity’ chip in the coming days. Its IGP component is particularly partial to changes in memory speed, so we'll take another look at this GeIL pack on that processor's launch.

Ooooh, teasers! I do hope that means you'll be testing a number of other DDR3 kits on Trinity - I'd love to see the scaling from 1600 through 1866, 2133 and 2400 :)
I'm pretty sure the limits you're facing in the graphics based tests is probably due to the IGP being completely maxed out. When you want to test performance of a specific part you need to put it into a system where it is THE limiting factor on performance. So, either pick games and graphics settings where the Intel integrated graphics will have some breathing room or use high end discrete graphics. I understand the purpose is to use a standard benchmark suite, but it's pointless when you're not actually testing the performance of the intended hardware. Every single one of those graphics tests is well within the standard variation of multiple tests on the same hardware.
Gamil
… it's pointless when you're not actually testing the performance of the intended hardware. …
I think you're missing the point on this one - it's a real-world test intended to demonstrates that for that particular task the speed of your memory makes no real difference. It's quite possible that someone might want to know if faster memory will improve the IGP gaming on their i5/i7-based system, in which case the Hexus IGP benchmark makes a lot of sense (and the answer is "No, save yourself the money and get generic 1600MHz RAM ;) ). Sometimes the point of benchmarking is not to measure the difference between two things, but to demonstrate that the difference between them is insignificant, due to bottlenecks elsewhere. The HD4000 IGP test is a great example of that.

As Tarinder says in the review, the Trinity IGP should be a lot more sensitive to memory bandwidth, and he's going to retest a range of memory with that platform. That *should* show some differences, but again it'll still be an interesting result if it doesn't.