Jon Bach (President)

Our experiences with memory manufacturers

Written on January 29, 2009 by Jon Bach
Share:

When it comes to memory manufacturers, we've been around the block...a few times.  We've learned a lot in the process -- too much to keep to ourselves!  For each memory manufacturer we've used in the past, we have thousands of sticks of memory out in the field, and that gives us some good objective experience.  I wanted to take a minute to comment on the various memory manufacturers we have experience with, share our stories, and to explain why we are standardizing on Kingston memory going forward.


Samsung


Way back in the beginning of our company, we used Samsung memory.  We used it for a very long time, and it was good memory.  The failure rates were decent at 2%, but it was the stereotype for "generic."  This is memory you'd find in Dell machines, and as our company developed, it became clear that it wasn't a good fit for us.  It does the job, but there's no focus on speed, little in terms of options....its just boring!  What set us over the edge was actually the RMA process.  Failed sticks were "repaired" by turning off the bad parts of the chip.  IE, if we sent in a failed 512MB chip, we got back a 511MB chip with a "fixed" sticker on it!  Not only is that just not acceptable, but those "fixed" chips had a 80% failure rate.  The total lack of relationship with Samsung (we were too small, and they were too big to care) made the situation unresolvable, so we left them for greener pastures.

OCZ Technology


This company is a very attractive pick, both for boutique system builders, but also for enthusiasts in general.  They have an attractive product, and their focus on performance is in line with the desires of the enthusiast.  As Puget System developed its identity as a high end system builder, OCZ was a good fit.  At the time, we carried their "Performance" and "Premiere" lines of memory, and had good response from our customers.  Unfortunately, over time we measured their failure rates to be about 8%.  We didn't know enough about the industry at that time to know WHY the failure rates were higher (more about that later), we just knew that it was too high.  Their RMA process was good, and we couldn't argue with lifetime warranty.  However, we kept looking back at Samsung and their 2% failure rates, wondering if OCZ *really* was a better pick.  Without success in lowering the failure rates, we once again went looking for a better alternative.


We returned to OCZ years later, under the promise that their quality control had improved, and that we'd have a better experience.  Unfortunately, this turned out to not be true.  Failure rates were exactly the same, at about 8%.  To be fair, a great majority of the failures were at delivery, which means that we caught them in our testing, and they never made it out to our clients.   Still, 8% failure rates isn't something we're willing to accept.

Why is the OCZ failure rate higher?  The thing to understand about memory is that there are only a handful of companies that manufacture IC chips -- these are the chips that go onto the memory module.  Samsung, Infineon, Micron, Nanya -- these aren't names most computer enthusiasts recognize, but they're all likely inside your computer.  The memory manufacturers that source the best IC chips have the ingredients to make the best memory.  The problem that OCZ has is two-fold:  first, they're a smaller company, and don't have first pick at the IC chips.  Second, they're not consistent with what they do get.  If they get an great batch of IC chips, they just crank up the speed, release a new product, and discontinue it once the chips run out.  Its chaos.  And chaos is a good word to describe OCZ -- there's always some crazy new product or another, which you can never buy, because they change it again before you can order!  So while half of OCZ's problem is what I feel to be their own making, the other half is a harsh reality of the memory business.  The big manufacturers get first pick at the best, and most consistent supply of IC chips.

Corsair


Corsair isn't quite as edgy as OCZ, but is well known amongst enthusiasts.  We use them for our power supplies, and LOVE them for it.  Their power supplies and their service are amazing, and we wanted nothing else but for Corsair to be the long term provider of our memory.  Unfortunately, we have measured their failure rate at 5%.   Corsair does a great job with what they have, and I think they're GREAT as a company.  They are happy to work with us to provide the consistency we need, by giving us what is called a locked BOM.  This means that *we* specify what IC chips we want, at what timings, what voltage, etc.  This definitely has the possibility to give us consistent, low failure memory...but the problem becomes the fact that Puget Systems is not yet the size to take this on.  The quantity commitments and forecasts are feasible, but the probability of shortages or delays, and the costs of carrying inventory with a volatile market just isn't going to work.  We wish it were different, we really like Corsair!

Kingston


Kingston is a monster of a company.  They're huge, and they know it.  Forget about having any conversation with them, and forget about them being flexible to meet your needs.  However, this trait is also a strength.  They know their job -- build quality memory.  Period.  Nothing more.  They're the opposite of OCZ -- while OCZ is running around the room like an over-caffeinated wild animal, Kingston is quietly sitting in the corner, shaking its head.  And because of that focus, they do their job well.  Their size gives them first priority on the IC chips that hit the market, which means they get the chips they want.  The result is they have an amazingly consistent product.  Locked BOM?  Don't bother, the memory is always the same.  These qualities add up to an amazing 0.5% failure rate.  We don't have a partner with Kingston, but we definitely have a great memory provider.  And that's just fine.   We'll pick quality over excitement any day.


While we certainly haven't given a first-hand look at every memory manufacturer out there, I feel we have a good sampling of the different approaches these companies can take.   While everyone has their own opinion on what memory is best, most people's opinions are based on their personal experiences, which are typically quite limited.  Having dealt with each of these manufacturers for years, having worked with thousands of sticks of their memory, I'm excited to put this information out there, and very much welcome your thoughts or questions!

Alex

Any experience with G Skill?

Posted on 2009-01-30 19:37:46
Marcos

Great post

I love who share knowledgement and experience with others, thank you

Great post, great job!

Posted on 2009-01-31 11:44:07
chevysales

nice short story touching on why you use kingston.

i see many names out there some i have never heard of but seemed to jump on the i7 platform loudly.

one trip to the ausus mobo forum will give users ahint of what is working and what isn't.

i don't see kingston mentioned there much except in their higher rated speeds for i7 which you folks don't list onn your website? is that by choice or something you found in testing?

to my eyes reading articles from tom's hardware and elsewhere it seems the memory people use the hype,flash,whiz,bang method of selling a bit more than other ends of the computer industry.

Posted on 2009-02-03 14:18:42

Unfortunately, a great deal of the computer industry is hype, flash, whiz, bnag! :( You're exactly right though that memory has gone too far. Why we do not list faster memory is a mix of what we've found in testing, and the standards we hold -- check out http://www.pugetsystems.com/bl... for my full thoughts.

Posted on 2009-02-03 20:50:40
chevysales

interesting story.
and thanks for pointing it out.

i have been touting your work amoungst the photog sites whenever i see a post from a user about getting a new computer :)

nice that you try to keep it truthful which must be hard when marketing sells in the casual users eyes.

Posted on 2009-02-04 20:15:43

very informative article. I'm considering a puget system right now. I've looked at a few different companies, and have been most impressed with what I've found.

Posted on 2009-03-25 16:11:45
Mark

I used to work for a local system builder and we most defiantly settled very quickly only utilizing only Micron original IC (Crucial Labeled) and Kingston memory. We meet OCZ at a trade show in Chicago. Initially, to get started OCZ gave us very steep discounts, but we came to similar conclusions about their organization as you did. I thought this was a very well done article.

Posted on 2009-04-18 17:01:08
steve

I relize this is a rear old, but its my first time reading it. I thought it an excelent writeup. Tehre is so much hype over memory takign advantage of those who do not know better. ICoun't help but notice you did not mention crucial.
working for a fiarly large cimoany, i've had the oprotunity to use several diffrent brans of memory, and settled on kingston and crucial for ther consistant quality.

Posted on 2010-01-20 14:35:58

Thanks for the message, Steve! We haven't used Crucial much in the past, so I can't speak with any first-hand knowledge about it.

Posted on 2010-01-20 19:37:01

Nice site, nice and easy on the eyes and great content too.

Posted on 2010-11-22 22:36:24

I and also my pals ended up taking note of the good items located on your website while quickly I got a horrible feeling I never expressed respect to you for those tips. All of the people ended up totally joyful to learn them and have in effect definitely been enjoying them. I appreciate you for turning out to be well kind and for settling on certain helpful tips most people are really desperate to be aware of. My sincere regret for not saying thanks to earlier.

Posted on 2011-05-31 08:54:25
Bob Slade

Hello, I need to upgrade the memory in my MacBook and was wondering if anyone has had experience with "Knight" brand memory. I have located some brand new, but haven't heard of them myself and wanted to get and Idea before purchasing them. Any help would be greatly appreciated. You can contact me direct if you wish at prim88@comcast.net
Thanks, I look forward to your thoughts and ideas. Bob

Posted on 2011-07-04 21:32:24

The Corsair Vengeance has better timings (for DDR 1866 at least). 

Posted on 2012-07-20 23:45:32

The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful

information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of

writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and

implement the concept.

Posted on 2012-07-23 07:38:36
renesmee wright

I like this blog, thank you for sharing this about hardware manufacturer because i'm exactly looking for this information. It was really interesting :)

Posted on 2014-09-18 06:08:22