RAM comparison Samsung M378B5273CH0-CH9 4GB vs Essencore Limited KD4AGU880-32A160U 16GB

Samsung M378B5273CH0-CH9 4GB vs Essencore Limited KD4AGU880-32A160U 16GB

Overall score

Samsung M378B5273CH0-CH9 4GB

Overall score

Differences Specifications Comments

Reasons to consider
Samsung M378B5273CH0-CH9 4GB

Reasons to consider
Essencore Limited KD4AGU880-32A160U 16GB

Below the latency in the PassMark tests, ns

31 37

Around -19% lower latency
Faster reading speed, GB/s

18.3 13.2

Average value in the tests
Faster write speed, GB/s

15.4 8.4

Average value in the tests
Higher memory bandwidth, mbps

21300 10600

Around 2.01 higher bandwidth

Complete list of technical specifications

Samsung M378B5273CH0-CH9 4GB

Essencore Limited KD4AGU880-32A160U 16GB

Main characteristics

Other

Description

PC3-10600, 1.5V, CAS Supported: 6 7 8 9 PC4-21300, 1.2V, CAS Supported: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Timings / Clock speed

7-7-7-20 / 1333 MHz 17-17-17, 18-18-18, 19-19-19, 20-20-20 / 2666 MHz
Ranking PassMark (The more the better)

2143 3601

RAM Latency Calculator

Calculate Ram speed clock interval in nanosecond format

RAM 1

CAS Latency (CL) *

Frequency (Mhz) *

Absolute Latency

0 ns

RAM 2

CAS Latency (CL) *

Frequency (Mhz) *

Absolute Latency

0 ns