Just what is TCC5?

[Reefa_Madness]

Everyone seems interested in TCC5 all of the sudden (including me), especially now that it is being used more and more as a replacement for the EOL TCCD.

How about you post any info you may have on these chips and ram using these chips here so that guys can get an idea of what to expect?

I'll start with this link to a review done by Anandtech when Samsung first released these chips and then lets take it from there.

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=1998&p=2

edit:
It is my understanding that the "F" revision is better than the "E" pictured below. Any info along these lines would also be welcomed and helpful.

[gundamit]

Wow. That article is 14 months old and yet it seems like ancient history. I'm surprised TCC5 has been around that long. I thought it was a replacement rather than a precursor to TCCD. Does this mean Samsung is not firing up the TCC5 machines for new production but is instead just picking through older memory that has been sitting in inventory?

[(sin)morpheus]

Maybe so, I was wondering what this TCC5 was too. I don't remember seeing it in the past, maybe I just wasn't watching carefully enough.

[saaya]

search button? :P

from my understanding samsung was binning the same memory chips either as tccc tcc5 or tccd depending on what timings and speeds they would run, right?
samsung is slowly reducing their tccd production, but this only means they no longer sell chips labeled as tccd. the only thing that is changing is that samsung does less extensive speed binning and sells most chips as tcc5 wich arent tested for as high speeds and as tight timings as tccd was binned at. so most chips that are now sold as tcc5 would have been rated and sold as tccd just some weeks ago.

now its ocz and all the memory manufacturers who speed bin the chips they buy wich probably means theres a wider range in clockspeeds, and that the low end sticks dont oc as well as they used to do when they were using tccd.

so afaik thats why ocz and no other memory manufacturer said something about this "different" chip they use. it isnt really a different chip...

im not 100% sure though, i asked the ocz guys to make a thread explaining what tcc5 is and i think they will make a thread about it soon

[nugzo]

I have 2x512 supertalent memory tcc5 chips. running at 275 2.5-3-3-3 or at 290 3-4-4-7 3.1 volts. i like them better than my twinmos bh-5 i just recieved. I picked up from a local parts distributor for 50 bucks each. had no idea what chips they were till i pried off a heat spreader (and a chip along with it) I'm real happy with em. A friend ordered some mushkin that was suposed to be tccd, instead it was tcc5, he called mushkin to complain and they told him it was just as good as tccd.

[OnDborder]

What does it mean when you speed bin the memory at 466 instead of 500?

[metro.cl]

do you know that there is also tcc4, im not sure but if

tcc5 means 5ns mems
tcc4 means 4ns mems

tcc4 should be way faster or oc better, can anyone comment on this couse im not sure about my theory about ns

[alphaalien]

do you know that there is also tcc4, im not sure but if

tcc5 means 5ns mems
tcc4 means 4ns mems

tcc4 should be way faster or oc better, can anyone comment on this couse im not sure about my theory about ns

That is a bad assumption to make, especially considering you can find the information on samsungs website: www.samsungsemi.com :

X-TCXX

The first X designates the Die revision, samsung has used B, C, E, F as their primary revisions, the second "-TCXX" designates speed grade/timings.

-A0 100MHz/200Mbps@CL2 2-2-2

-B0 133MHz/266Mbps@CL2.5 2.5-3-3

-A2 133MHz/266Mbps@CL2 2-3-3

-AA 133MHz/266Mbps@CL2 2-2-2

-B3 166MHz/333Mbps@CL2.5 2.5-3-3

-C4 200MHz/400Mbps@CL3 3-4-4

-CC 200MHz/400Mbps@CL3 3-3-3

Samsung doesn't even post about "C5, CD" as you can see.

[5-Clicks]

so would TCCD be just a tad better than TCC5 because of the samsung speed bin testing along with the OCZ, G.Skill, Corsair or whoever? more stress tests = better chips type of thing?

[[timko]]

What does it mean when you speed bin the memory at 466 instead of 500?

Speed binning is the process of find if a the memory can perform at a certain speed. Therefore, speed binning of 466 means testing to see if the RAM can perform stable at 233Mhz and binning at 500 means looking for 250Mhz stability. Simple

[OnDborder]

So the tccd were held at a higher standard than tcc5.. Or passed the higher standard. To speed bin the tccd and the tcc5's at 233 both will pass.. But speed bin at 250 will both pass? Obviously the tccd will pass
So then in turn, the tccd are a better chip than tcc5's. Does this make sense?

Also, when did these companies start using the tcc5 instead of tccd's?

[5-Clicks]

Also, when did these companies start using the tcc5 instead of tccd's?

when Samsung started making them apparently.

[poiuy223]

Also, when did these companies start using the tcc5 instead of tccd's?

when tccd was announced eol

[metro.cl]

That is a bad assumption to make, especially considering you can find the information on samsungs website: www.samsungsemi.com :

X-TCXX

The first X designates the Die revision, samsung has used B, C, E, F as their primary revisions, the second "-TCXX" designates speed grade/timings.

-A0 100MHz/200Mbps@CL2 2-2-2

-B0 133MHz/266Mbps@CL2.5 2.5-3-3

-A2 133MHz/266Mbps@CL2 2-3-3

-AA 133MHz/266Mbps@CL2 2-2-2

-B3 166MHz/333Mbps@CL2.5 2.5-3-3

-C4 200MHz/400Mbps@CL3 3-4-4

-CC 200MHz/400Mbps@CL3 3-3-3

Samsung doesn't even post about "C5, CD" as you can see.

thanks for the answer, me and my asumption

[Reefa_Madness]

Wow. That article is 14 months old and yet it seems like ancient history. I'm surprised TCC5 has been around that long. I thought it was a replacement rather than a precursor to TCCD. Does this mean Samsung is not firing up the TCC5 machines for new production but is instead just picking through older memory that has been sitting in inventory?

When I first read this review right after it came out I tried to find some ram with these chips and had no luck. I forgot all about it until one of the OCZ reps posted over at OCF that the TCC5 were DDR466 and then I recalled the article and sure enough...TCC5.

The thing is that the chips in this article are "E" revisions and the stuff being used in the newer ram is the "F" revision, which is supposed to clock better. Clearly it is being used in some stuff that is running 300, so when binned, it works good. In my mind it is kinda like using BH5 in PC3500 rated ram. Do we turn our noses up at it because its only rated at 200?

My early impressions are that these chips, when well binned, are probably just as good as TCCD, although at the low end of the speed spectrum they may or may not be as good as TCCD. Only time and more posts from users will answer those questions.

By the way guys, thanks for posting. Keep it going!

[dippyskoodlez]

When I first read this review right after it came out I tried to find some ram with these chips and had no luck. I forgot all about it until one of the OCZ reps posted over at OCF that the TCC5 were DDR466 and then I recalled the article and sure enough...TCC5.

The thing is that the chips in this article are "E" revisions and the stuff being used in the newer ram is the "F" revision, which is supposed to clock better. Clearly it is being used in some stuff that is running 300, so when binned, it works good. In my mind it is kinda like using BH5 in PC3500 rated ram. Do we turn our noses up at it because its only rated at 200?

My early impressions are that these chips, when well binned, are probably just as good as TCCD, although at the low end of the speed spectrum they may or may not be as good as TCCD. Only time and more posts from users will answer those questions.

By the way guys, thanks for posting. Keep it going!

I havent looked under my heatspreaders, but if what Im reading is true, then the mushkin XP 2-2-2 I have may be TCC5. It behaves a lot like my friends TCCD, but 3v helps. Does ddr600 @ 3v pretty easily. 2.5-3-3-7, but will NOT run 2-2-2 no matter what.

[Reefa_Madness]

I havent looked under my heatspreaders, but if what Im reading is true, then the mushkin XP 2-2-2 I have may be TCC5. It behaves a lot like my friends TCCD, but 3v helps. Does ddr600 @ 3v pretty easily. 2.5-3-3-7, but will NOT run 2-2-2 no matter what.

According to the OCZ reps that had been posting in the "Vent" thread that was closed, they were claiming that TCC5 actually runs tighter timings better than TCCD.

I would think being able to do DDR600 at 2.5-3-3-7 would be of more value than being capable of 2-2-2 at 200, or at least in my book.

[andyOCZ]

According to the OCZ reps that had been posting in the "Vent" thread that was closed, they were claiming that TCC5 actually runs tighter timings better than TCCD.

I would think being able to do DDR600 at 2.5-3-3-7 would be of more value than being capable of 2-2-2 at 200, or at least in my book.

Hi, I don't think we said tighter timings were had with TCC5, but that most of the TCCD we were getting did not do 2-2-2 at 200mhz reliably. The TCC5 was yielding well at 2-2-2, so it was being used. It also "bins" extremely well and our fastest module are using TCC5. We are using the "F" revision.

[uscfan]

Seems like TCC5 does just about as good as TCCD, anyone have anymore results with TCC5? OCZ likes it

[dippyskoodlez]

I would think being able to do DDR600 at 2.5-3-3-7 would be of more value than being capable of 2-2-2 at 200, or at least in my book.

Thats why I still have it, and resisted RMA

[Reefa_Madness]

Hi, I don't think we said tighter timings were had with TCC5, but that most of the TCCD we were getting did not do 2-2-2 at 200mhz reliably. The TCC5 was yielding well at 2-2-2, so it was being used. It also "bins" extremely well and our fastest module are using TCC5. We are using the "F" revision.

My bad...I think that I really meant to say what you just said, but didn't say it exactly how you said it, even if that was what I meant to say.

I tried to make this post confusing...did I succeed???

And thanks for letting us know which revision you use. Is there truth to the "F" being better than the "E" (it appears that way), or is it that the newer stuff is being tested on A64s and just performing better than when the earlier stuff was tested on Intel rigs? It just seems that the newer A64 rigs will get more out of ram than an Intel rig.

[nugzo]

310 HTT (DDR620) 2.5-4-3-8 memtest 5 stable for hours but will not run SuperPi
275 HTT (DDR550) 2.5-3-3-6 Completely stable (Best Overall Benchies)
290 HTT (DDR580) 2.5-4-3-8 Completely stable
200 HTT (DDR400) 2-2-2-2 Completely stable

3.0-3.1v

Again this is Stuff called SuperTalent. It is rated PC3700 3-4-4-8. i had never heard of them untill i picked these up. Super Talent Link

[g0dM@n]

Anyone know about the PDP Patriot XBL... is that definitely TCCD, or is it maybe TCC5? I never ripped off the heatsinks, and I'm actually now thinking about doing it.

I was told that the TCC5 does tighter timings than TCCD at lower fsb, but needs looser timings at higher fsb than TCCD. I guess it's kinda like how BH UTT does tighter timings at lower voltages than CH UTT, but at higher voltages CH UTT wins... just a rumor. I have had better yields with CH UTT over BH UTT, but in comparison to sammy chips I don't know if my patriot is TCCD or TCC5, so I cannot compare them directly. It seems to do tighter timings at high fsb when I up the voltage up to 2.9-3.0v. Gskill and other TCCD don't seem to really do much better with voltages about around 2.7-2.8v. Maybe all this time that people have been doing well on the so-called TCCD at 3.0-3.1v actually have TCC5???

[LikwidKool]

Here's what I heard. I took some parts out as they had to do with certain modules, but here is the gist about tcc5 and tccd.:

There's absolutely zero difference between tested TCC5 and tested TCCD.

Anyway, overall it doesn't matter what chips they are, as they are exactly the same chips. Samsung just relabels them and doesn't test them as high on the chip level tester. It's the same process, same die, same package as far as we know.

Hope this helps to clear some things up.

[Reefa_Madness]

After spending the last couple of days running down all the different threads and discussions on this topic...that is my understanding as well. Same thing, just not TESTED by Samsung to DDR500 anymore.

All indications are though, that you still want the "F" revision over the "E".