Review: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB DDR4-2400 (BLS4C4G4D240FSA)

Conclusion

Crucial comes to the DDR4 table with attractive-looking sets of memory sold under the Ballistix Sport banner. Sensibly equipped with timings and speeds that enable a sub-£200 price point for a 16GB (4x4GB) pack, performance rivals faster RAM due to the way in which the Intel X99 platform works.

And it overclocks well, particularly on the latency front, with the sample kit able to hit 2,800MHz speeds with a CAS latency of 15 clocks. Sure, knowing the ineffectiveness of DDR4 memory to add performance to the X99 platform mitigates the need to push the modules further to a large degree, but it's good to know that Crucial has reasonable headroom for the next generation of Intel Skylake processors that harness built-in graphics... a situation where fast, low-latency DDR4 may well show a much larger benefit.

We come away with the feeling that there's little reason to spend more than £200 for 16GB of DDR4 memory. Crucial, to its credit, strikes a fine balance between performance, build quality and price.

Bottom line: want some quality DDR4 memory suitable for today and tomorrow? Look no further than the Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR4-2,400 16GB.

The Good		The Bad
Good value Excellent build quality Aesthetically pleasing Overclock well		None of note

HEXUS.awards

Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR4-2,400 CL16 (BLS4K4G4D240FSA)

HEXUS.where2buy

The reviewed Crucial Ballistix Sport modules are 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.

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!

It's great and all that but with real world tests and applications how does this stack up against good DDR3. My concern is the ever increasing CL rates and how they will impact day to day applications that move around lots of small pieces of data rather than large chunks.

What would be nice is to see the best DDR3 has to offer against the worst and best DDR4 has to offer, in some game benchmark and other real world applications. I know you can't get 100% identical systems, but you can get close enough to show if the leap to DDR4 is worth it or if it's worth waiting for a price drop. At the moment the numbers look great, but how are they used to benefit what I do and is it really worth an upgrade in the near future.

I'd like to see dual channel DDR3 against quad channel DDR4, especially in 64GB ram systems

gstrange42
It's great and all that but with real world tests and applications how does this stack up against good DDR3. ..

What would be nice is to see the best DDR3 has to offer against the worst and best DDR4 has to offer, in some game benchmark and other real world applications. I know you can't get 100% identical systems, but you can get close enough to show if the leap to DDR4 is worth it or if it's worth waiting for a price drop. At the moment the numbers look great, but how are they used to benefit what I do and is it really worth an upgrade in the near future.

gwp
I'd like to see dual channel DDR3 against quad channel DDR4, especially in 64GB ram systems

Doesn't make sense to compare DDR4 to DDR3, since you can't simply upgrade the RAM without also upgrading CPU. At best you can compare reviews of the different CPUs and see which is best suited for you, as the effects of the RAM will be included.

I think at the moment, DDR4 is too expensive. I'd rather wait for the prices to come down, or maybe a few more iterations of DDR4 RAM and then I'll decide to go for a new build. Maybe alongside a 4K monitor?

Though, for this specific model, the price is quite good! (comparatively - still too expensive)

Why buy these rather than the cheaper
G.Skill Ripjaws 4 2400, which also have tighter timings? The conclusion section of the review really should include a fair comparison versus the other options used in the review.