POST A COMMENT

20 Comments

Back to Article

  • willis936 - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    They're definitely a crowd favorite at this point. Interesting to see that everyone's first wave of DDR4 has such high latency. Every kit I've seen so far will likely be 65-90 ns of latency. Not a huge deal because on X99 quad channel I expect these kits will be tearing out 60-90 GB/s. Reply
  • Samus - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    GSkill makes incredibly good memory. I prefer it over even Crucial. I've always had great luck with Mushkin, too, but their flair has been missing since the SD-RAM day's. Reply
  • fluxtatic - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    Every PC in my house has GSkill RAM. When I upgraged from 4GB to 8 at work, it's GSkill. I've got another 8GB Sniper kit coming Monday.

    And black's enough for me - the blue and red have their place (and I've got both), but I don't always want to color-coordinate my PC. Give me black and I'm good.
    Reply
  • bigboxes - Monday, August 25, 2014 - link

    In the end, it doesn't really matter since I don't have a Window in my case. Useless heatsinks, graphics and marketing mean nothing to me. I will just base my purchase on reviews, specs and price. Reply
  • nevcairiel - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    DDR3 1600 CL9 had an effective latency of 11.25ns. DDR4 3000 CL15 is at 10ns.

    While the DDR4 modules available in the first badge are obviously not the most high end we will eventually see, its not a step down from mainstream DDR3 at the very least.
    Reply
  • willis936 - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    That isn't the effective latency. Run a benchmark right now and you'll see the effective latency. I've never heard of main memory having sub 40 ns latency. It just doesn't exist. Reply
  • willis936 - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    I do see what you're referring to. Typical high end non-enthusiast kits that have been around for over a year have been 2133-CL9 for lowest latency which works out to 8.43 ns. The lowest latency kit on this page is your cited 3000-CL15 with 10ns. The slowest on this page is the 2133-CL15 with 15 ns of latency. The latency nearly doubles for a lower priced, equal capacity DDR3 kit that's been around for a while (something like the F3-17000CL9Q-16GBZH). You gain the lower voltage if that's a big deal to you (which it isn't in this market segment). It's the cost of new technology. Reply
  • Lonyo - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    Once upon a time we had DDR-3200 GB/s.
    Now we have DDR4-3200 MHz. How things have advanced.
    Reply
  • Pix2Go - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    Once upon a time, we had 64k x 1 DRAM. How things have advanced. Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    Once upon a time we had sound waves traveling down tubes of mercury. How things have advanced.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory
    Reply
  • Jambe - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    TIL about delay line memory.

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Samus - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    What's interesting, though, is we've gone from timings such as 2-2-2 to timings such as 15-15-15!

    I know clock speed is more important, but this ridiculous latency is starting to feel like a Netburst pipeline...
    Reply
  • Lonyo - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    2-2-2 at 3200GB/s is 16-16-16 at 3200MHz, latency has remained mostly static because it's based on cycles and not time.
    2 cycles at 400MHz is the same delay as 16 at 3200MHz (8x the speed, but 8x as many cycles of latency).
    Reply
  • gonchuki - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    If only manufacturers and review sites published latencies in ns (or μs?) instead of clocks we would actually be able to easily compare memory settings side by side. I know the final latency is up to the memory controller, but it's still good to know what's the potential of a certain memory kit when configured in a certain combination of clocks vs. timings Reply
  • RazrLeaf - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    If G. Skill could do a white....and in <35mm XD Reply
  • VoraciousGorak - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    I second this! Would look gorgeous in my white Prodigy. Reply
  • jwcalla - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    I remember when memory used to be cheap. Reply
  • Samus - Friday, August 22, 2014 - link

    Cheap, and low quality. Remember it was all the Chinese "Mom and Pop" factories flooding the market with crap that actually lowered prices! It works for awhile, though, to force the Tier 1 manufactures to drop prices and be competitive. Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    Please show us "chinese crap" DDR3 that was cheaper than or worth considering over a ~$50 16GB Crucial back in 2012.

    Fail troll is a fail troll.
    Reply
  • semo - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    I think he means the time when RAM production was ramped up in anticipation of Vista/W7. Factories have switched to flash priduction and some players have exited the market. We now have an oversupply of flash so cheap SSDs and memory cards are common today. Can't have cheap flash and RAM at the same time.

    The manufacturers will figure out how to raise flash prices eventually as well
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now