Samsung has quietly added 32 GB unbuffered DDR4 memory modules to its lineup of products. The UDIMMs are based on the company’s 16 Gb chips, which were introduced earlier this year that are already used for 32 GB SO-DIMMs as well as 64 GB RDIMMs.

Samsung’s 32 GB UDIMM is rated to operate at DDR4-2666 date rates at the DDR4 standard voltage of 1.2 V. Samsung does not disclose timings, but since the company sells its own memory modules mainly to large PC OEMs, it is highly likely that the 32 GB UDIMM uses the standard JEDEC latencies for DDR4-2666 (i.e., CL17 17-17 or higher).

32 GB UDIMMs will enable system integrators and PC enthusiasts to build PCs with 128 GB of memory using motherboards with four DDR4 slots. Now it's worth noting that current mainstream CPUs and motherboards are only validated for 64 GB of memory, but eventually we'll either see current platforms validated for the larger DIMMs, or the next generation of platforms will support them from the start.

Samsung’s 16 Gb DDR4 memory chips are made using the company’s 10 nm-class process technology and, according to the company, modules that use these DRAMs are more energy efficient than DIMMs of the same capacity that rely on a larger number of 8 Gb devices.

Since Samsung already lists its 32 GB unbuffered DIMMs featuring the 16 Gb memory chips, it is highly likely that these modules are already available to at least some of its customers. Pricing of the modules is unknown, but a 32 GB DIMM costs around $300 these days.

Note: Image is for illustrative purposes only.

Related Reading:

Source: Samsung

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • MadAd - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    How small these are with the amount of wasted space are yet another sign the PC industry needs to move away from full size ATX (with only a passing nod to uatx-matx) and refactor motherboards onto a smaller footprint. Even on uatx full size ram slots look so out of place, but I can understand why they are hesitant to use so-dimms.
  • MadAd - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    doh, i meant even on ITX full size ram slots look so out of place.
  • peterfares - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    It's disappointing that so few mini ITX with SODIMM slots are available. I'd totally build a mini ITX system for my next if only I could find one with the socket and features I want with 4x SODIMM slots instead of 2xDIMM slots.
  • edzieba - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    ASRock's X299E-ITX/ac? quad-SODIMM, 3x m.2 slots, and LGA2011 v3 all on an ITX board (plus all the amenities like Type-C, dual-LAN, etc).
  • peterfares - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Yeah, that board is interesting but I want a mainstream board. The new i9-9900K with soldered IHS is going to have great OC headroom. The 7820X has gotten really cheap though (just $400 at Microcenter) and that is also an 8-core but it uses the toothpaste TIM.
  • saratoga4 - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    That is because you're looking at a dual rank DIMM using 16gbit dies. Half of the spaces are empty because they're not needed for the 32GB UDIMM; they would be for a 64GB RDIMM. You can get smaller DIMMs, that is what a SO-DIMM is for, same technology but half the RAM chips per module.
  • thetuna - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Maybe they need the space for traces? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    "Note: Image is for illustrative purposes only."
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Yup. Go to the samsung page, and they've got an image of a 2 rank dimm that fills the space fully. Unfortunately at a skewed angle and not much good for an article lead image.
  • Dragonstongue - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    mehh is a memory maker, not matter how "advanced" and cost reduced it is for THEM 9/10 they do NOT pass these savings on to consumers, if anything they use this as an "excuse" to charge more such as single side DIMM with same amount of memory and so forth.

    DDR3 came out the gate at crazy pricing, DDR4 was supposed to be notably less costly to produce and yet pretty much sat at around the same pricing overall (DDR4 started off real decent pricing, did not last long)
    DDR5 is likely to follow the same trend as well, start off slightly cheaper and then jump through the roof pricing wise.

    I personally do not understand memory pricing, seems every "new" generation that becomes far less costly to produce with likely very awesome yields becomes more expensive $/gb with very few exceptions that is IMO of course.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now