Price Check Q3 2016: DRAM Prices Down Over 20% Since Early 2016
by Anton Shilov on July 25, 2016 12:01 AM ESTThe Pickup of DDR4 vs DDR3 Slowdown
Mainstream DDR4 memory modules are getting more affordable every day. There are some exceptions, due to product transitions and other reasons, but we could observe that since January all DDR4 memory modules rated for 2133 to 3000 MT/s data-rates got at least 20% cheaper. Some dual-channel kits reduced their price by 40% and some by 50%, which is well ahead of DDR4 memory chip price declines. Due to increasing competition, module manufacturers simply have to cut their prices in a bid to maintain market share (and some large customers demand a good market share). When it comes to higher-end DDR4 kits, especially those with 3600+ data-rates, then we can notice that they are getting more affordable as well but perhaps not very rapidly due to their difficulty in manufacturing. Moreover, the price decline is step by step, and can be difficult to predict.
As for DDR3 modules, their prices have come down since early 2016 as well, primarily due to DRAM ICs getting cheaper. When it comes to a 16 GB (2×8 GB) dual-channel DDR3-1866/DDR3L-1866 kit, the price iscomparable to the price of a DDR4-2133/DDR4-2400 kit, and sometimes even to DDR4-3000. Such products from well-known brands cost around $70 and sometimes DDR4-based kits are a cheaper than DDR3-based kits.
Given the prices of DDR3-2133 and DDR3-2400 kits (~$100), it is evident that fast DDR3 modules are not maintaining their previous cost gap: at present they cost more that 16 GB DDR4-3200/CL16 kits. While comparing prices or performance of DDR3 and DDR4 solely based on their data-rates is ill advised, we can do on a larger scale to a certain degree. In previous reviews, for performance comparisons, the metric of data-rate dividied by CL (CAS Latency) is a broad enough calculation to group similar performing kits, and with two similar kits the higher frequency is often the higher performer. Even though the lower latencies of DDR3, the performance of DDR4 memory sub-systems at 3000 to 3200 MT/s should be higher than performance of DDR3 at high frequencies as a result. As it turns out, for enthusiasts seeking for high performance and who are willing to pay for it, it makes more sense to get DDR4 instead of DDR3 nowadays anyway due to system compatibility and predicted future releases. Keep in mind that manufacturers will reduce production output of DDR3 in the coming quarters, and as a result even if DRAM IC prices decrease, fewer will be made and as such prices may remain flat or increase over time, which will make upgrades expensive.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
invasmani - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
The majority of American's that actively live in the northern states most impacted by the Keystone pipeline deal were in favor of it. It's the fault of Obama and democrats who tried to make it into a big environmental issue despite the fact that a pipeline is much safer than railroad transport.catboy - Tuesday, July 26, 2016 - link
tipoo is correct. Corporations scam Canadians with outrageously unfair prices just because they can. Here is a news report about that fact:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/country-pricing-a-ca...
Of course, that report is not about hardware, but Canadians get price gouged on hardware in the same way as they do on all other products.
I recommend for Canadians to stop buying products from Canadian sellers whenever possible. If enough Canadians do that, then corporations will end the practice of price gouging Canadians.
doggface - Tuesday, July 26, 2016 - link
Same thing happens in Australia. $160 in USD = $350-$400 in AUD.The manufacturers price items much lower in the US to get the buzz from websites like these. Then mark it up in lower volume countries.
Another example. $US600 for GTX1080 = $AUD1150
Sure. Our dollar is lower. But it doesnt account for the massive discrepency. We call it the Australia tax
Arnulf - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
I find it intriguing that Samsung has been producing complex circuits on 14 nm node for some time now yet they are only switching to 18 nm for DRAM production (which should be more dense).DanNeely - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
Somewhere around half a DRAM die is made up of analog components used to terminate signals on the database; and unlike the digital circuits in the ram cells themselves analog components scale minimally with process shrinks. As a result DRAM gets less of a benefit from process improvements than things like CPUs/GPUs/Flash that are almost all digital components on the die. The analog penalty has gotten worse with each new generation of DDR because to keep the data bus stable at higher frequencies the termination components need to be moved closer to the DRAM; leading to a steady migration of them from the mobo to the dimm to the dram chips themselves.p1esk - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
Source? Everything is analog of the circuit level.DanNeely - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
It was something I read back when the DDR4 spec was first released so I'm having trouble finding it (will look more later); but analog components are things that aren't transistors eg resistors, capacitors, inductors (also power transistors which need to be a certain size to carry the amount of current that they do or a lot of RF components; but neither of them are a factor here). Physical size is a major component in how they perform. ex Make a capacitor half as large and all other things equal it's capacitance is only half as great.It's one of the factors behind why the minimum size dimm goes up every time there's a new process. The lower capacity dram chips see the least shrinkage because the largest fraction of their die is signal termination components that don't shrink much.
yuhong - Tuesday, July 26, 2016 - link
I guess that is why they often eventually drop things like x4 configurations when moving older DRAM like 1Gbit DDR2 to newer processes.jardows2 - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
I built my current computer in 2102, and purchased 8 (2x4) gigs of DDR3-1600 RAM. Thinking I could eventually upgrade to 16 gigs if needed, but then memory prices shot up. I can finally purchase the same RAM I did 4 years ago at a slightly lower price, instead of a significantly higher (at times was double what I paid) price!bananaforscale - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
I built mine in late 2011 and bought 4x4 GB of DDR3-1600. Decided to upgrade the memory past winter, the price per GB was still about the same for the DIMMs I used, but doubling the amount and buying faster memory wasn't that much more expensive -> went from 16 GB 1600 to 32 GB 2133 (except the CPU only supports 1866 but whatevs) and distributed the old memory among less important hardware.