POST A COMMENT

35 Comments

Back to Article

  • hojnikb - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    3108 is S8, not S9.

    Both drives are meh. First, fury is using the old sandforce, which is a joke nowdays and they yet again downgraded their V line. First, they used much slower async micron flash (and not even renaming, which is a really bad practice) now they are using phison controller, which could end up even slower than sandforce.
    Yeah, unless this is significally cheaper than MX100, this won't make much sense.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Thanks for the heads up, fixed it. For some reason I had S9 in my head but of course it is S8 and not S9. Reply
  • hojnikb - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Yeah, S9 also isn't a good fit for such drive anyway, because its limited (according to phison anyway) to just 256GB, while V310 is suppost to have 960GB aswell :)
    Although i do wonder, when (if ever) are S10 (PS3110) drives gonna start showing up :)
    Reply
  • Flunk - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    It all depends on how cheap the Hyper X Fury is, it's still a heck of a lot faster than a hard drive and the SF-2281 performs better with cheap NAND than most controllers because of the compression. If it comes out at < $0.50 / GB it could be good for price-conscious builds. Otherwise I'm going to keep recommending the Samsung 840 EVO. Reply
  • BedfordTim - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    I am curious why you recommend the EVO. In the UK at least the MX100 if 25% cheaper, has power loss protection and is fast enough. Reply
  • hojnikb - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    maybe because it has samsung badge on it :)
    Or just old fame, as it was once price king. But not any more.
    Reply
  • dylan522p - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Then you are recommending a inferior drive. MX100 has higher quality NAND. More features and it's a lot cheaper while delivering the same performance. Reply
  • hojnikb - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Yeah, mx100, despite not being the fastest thing around, is simply steal at those prices. Too bad they dont offer 1TB version though. Reply
  • Flunk - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    That Phison controller is not one anyone should be buying, there is a better option at every price point those drives hit. Reply
  • name99 - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    "Desktop capacities will be limited to 8GB [for DDR4]"
    This seems like it's going to be a real problem.
    As I understand it, non-Xeon Broadwell's ship with dual memory channels. Given the point-to-point topology of DDR4, this means those machines can only support 2x8=16GB. That's fine for portable machines which are for the most part already built that way (only two slots, or no slots, only two soldered DIMMs) but 4 slots for desktop machines is very common, and I imagine quite a few people utilize that. I, for example, have my IB iMac pimped out with 24GB of RAM.

    I'm not sure how this will play out. (I have a feeling how it plays out long term, but not what happens over the next year or so as Broadwell ships).
    One possibility is that Intel gets enough pushback that they ship desktop i7's with 4 channels.
    Another is that Kingston simply finds itself unable to sell to the desktop market because that market (at least the high-end part) will only be interested in 16GB DIMMs.

    [Long term, I think the way this plays out is that the memory system becomes even more complex, with NUMA RAM becoming standard. DDR5 say will be soldered physically close to the CPU, to avoid even the capacitance of the DDR4 slots, but there will be slots available for something like DDR3 for capacity expansion. The question, then, is who controls this config.
    If Intel had ANY sense, they'd be working on this now, and they'd want the intelligence to manage moving data between the fast DD5 and the slow DDR3 to live in their memory controller.

    But Intel seem to be lacking a lot of common sense recently, so they may cede this to the OS which will manually move the data using the paging system --- which will work, but probably not be quirw as fast.]
    Reply
  • p1esk - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    I'm curious, where do you need more than 16GB of RAM?
    No matter what I do on my system, I can't get it to use more than 10GB.

    Admittedly, I haven't tried 4k gaming and video editing, but anything else?
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link


    Medical/GIS (anything involving volume datasets), defense imaging, photogrametric work,
    even heavy motion picture rendering. Guy at Sony told me one frame may involve more
    than 500GB of data, while modern GIS sets are probably over 1TB by now. RAM usage in
    the desktop/gaming/consumer world is a tiny slice out of the vast universe of computing.

    Ian.
    Reply
  • p1esk - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    No, I meant why would regular users, like people who comment here, would need more than 16GB of RAM in their desktops at home?
    Do you personally do any of "Medical/GIS (anything involving volume datasets), defense imaging, photogrametric work, even heavy motion picture rendering" ?
    Reply
  • name99 - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Because I run Mathematica and I want to be able to throw problems as large as I feel like at it and get them solved easily and rapidly, rather than having to think carefully about how to structure a problem to minimize RAM, or having to wait on paging.

    But what I want to do is unimportant. The fact that Apple (a company that's not all about advertising features that only a few high-end obsessives want) ships iMacs with 4 slots tells me that they feel there is a mainstream demand for 4 slots. And even when I bought the machine, 8GB DIMMs existed and were competitively priced relative to 4GB, meaning that if Apple thought everyone wanted no more than 16GB of RAM they could have shipped with two slots, the way most of their machines ship.
    Reply
  • emilemil1 - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Macs are commonly used for video editing, and video editing can easily eat up 16GB of RAM. For most people though, who's primary need for a desktop is gaming, that much would be far beyond overkill. Reply
  • Mushkins - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    Or the motherboard configuration they got the best contract on from the manufacturer was a standard layout that happened to have 4 slots like most motherboards do. Reply
  • euler007 - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    Working with point clouds I routinely max out the 32GB of ram on my machine. My hypervisors have 64GB and 128GB of ram and have 85-95% useage. Reply
  • dylan522p - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    You can still have 2 dimms per channel. Reply
  • name99 - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Not for DDR4. This is one of the significant changes to DDR4. That's my point. Reply
  • f0d - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    the ddr4 motherboards shown so far are 2 dimms per channel so it must be possible

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8133/computex-2014-x...
    Reply
  • Penti - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Either way, there will be 16GB DDR4-dimms too for the consumer market. Server market will have even higher capacities. Reply
  • name99 - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    I didn't say 16GB DIMMs won't ship. I said that, IMHO, Kingston only shipping 8, not 16, is substantially limiting its market, given that it is early adopters (who presumably are the sort who care more about buying DDR4 right now) who will be buying DDR4 for the next six months. Reply
  • Penti - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    We don't really know what they will ship. The market this year/early next is Haswell-E (as far as consumers are concerned) so they will probably try to get some of that market. Reply
  • Penti - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    As Haswell-E is quad-channel they have some leeway even with 8GB dimm's. So I guess they can sell them fine, to like gamers. Reply
  • name99 - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    What am I supposed to be looking at in this reference that proves (against everything else you can find on the net: (google "ddr4 one dimm per channel") that 2 dimms per channel are within spec? Reply
  • eanazag - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    The X99 is a Haswell based; similar to IVB-E where they are one series behind. The X99 will be similar to the server side and therefore not the best example of what a Broadwell system will bring to the table. Reply
  • f0d - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    if you look at the x99 motherboards that have been shown they have 8 memory slots on them and i doubt that haswell-e is going to be an 8 channel memory controller

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8133/computex-2014-x...

    intel must have something that allows them to use 2 dimms per channel and im guessing they will have this also for their dual channel controllers
    Reply
  • name99 - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    Does this mean that you can plug 8 DDR4 DIMMs in those slots and have it work?
    The slots may be there for supporting 8 DDR3 DIMMs. That would be my guess.
    Reply
  • name99 - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    Well, on reading the (tiny, blurred) text, they certainly seem to be claiming 8x DDR4 DIMMs. And they don't saying anything about them requiring to be FB.
    So WTF knows. Certainly this goes against what the specs appear to say.
    This slide, for example
    http://www.extremetech.com/computing/158824-haswel...
    explicitly states for Haswell-E: 4 channels, 1 DIMM per channel
    Reply
  • f0d - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    that article was a year ago and im guessing the spec for DDR4 wasnt finished then (it was a "leaked" slide so it could have just been fake also)

    i do agree that it WAS supposed to be 1 DIMM per channel but all information that is new (as in the last month or so) contradicts this, almost all the haswell-e motherboards that have been shown has 8 slots and i doubt that they are 8 channel memory controllers on them

    i think it was a last minute change to the DDR4 spec to allow more than one DIMM per channel

    a few others showing 2 per channel
    asrock
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8125/computex-2014-x...
    "We have quad channel memory, with X99 at two DIMMs per channel."

    EVGA
    http://wccftech.com/evga-x99-motherboard-prototype...
    Reply
  • Mushkins - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    I'm curious what makes you think desktop users will only be interested in 16GB DIMMS. Unless you're running a workstation for a specialized, RAM intensive task like video editing even 8GB is overkill. Most people aren't running this configuration.

    For gaming, most of the heavy lifting is done by VRAM right on the video card, the applications themselves are rarely pushing more than 4GB while running, making your typical gaming rig more than fine with 8GB of ram.

    For standard computing habits, we're barely at the point where 4GB is becoming "not enough."

    Considering RAM literally does nothing for your system if you're not actively using it and anything more than 8GB is still well into the overkill range for 99% of builds, I cant imagine a desktop board with only two RAM slots being a problem. Plus, remember that filling up all those slots reduces performance due to management overhead, so assuming all ratings are equal 2x8 will eke out a little more performance than 4x4. If anything, i'm surprised more desktop boards haven't dropped down to only offering two DIMMs, more than that is definitely in server or specialty workstation range these days and can be offered on more specialized boards.
    Reply
  • stickmansam - Tuesday, June 17, 2014 - link

    I hit about 7GB of usage with just my chrome 30+ tabs and a game open. If I didn't have swap, my system would crash

    Its a fallacy to think that "most people don't need more than x of y" because if more is available, more would be used
    Reply
  • Daniel Egger - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    Kingston has decent products but the SSDs are just plain crap. I had a V200 once, after 6 months of *very* light use (in a backup notebook I rarely use) it produced plenty of read and write errors so I had to recover the remains of the FS (about 5% permanent damage), had the thing replaced by a new one (took the dealer about 3 weeks to source a new one) put all the stuff back on, after 3 months the exact same thing happened again but unfortunately the dealer figured after another 4 months of putting me on hold that they couldn't get a new one so I eventually I got my money back.

    For regular SSDs I'll never buy anything else but Samsung and Intel again; I do have plenty of SSDs at home/family/office and those two brands never failed me even just once.
    Reply
  • Senti - Sunday, June 08, 2014 - link

    We have 5 HyperX'es at work and they all work well with no problems till today.
    I've heard bad words about Kingston SSDs, but I think all were limited to cheaper models only.
    Reply
  • serndipity - Monday, June 16, 2014 - link

    Kingston and PNY caught bait-and-switching cheaper components after good reviews.

    http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221524-ssd-sh...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now