Corsair Announces 8GB DDR3 Memory Modules

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I won't be making any upgrades soon (since I just build my current system last summer) but when I'm ready for a new system this might come handy.

I'm wondering if this would make their way into triple-channel kits, a board with 6 slots would make this into 48GB of Ram_Heaven :)

Why would ever need that I don't have a clue.... but it does sound promising.
 
For 80% of "enthusiasts" this(8GB module) is just way overpriced. Why spend $269 for one 8GB module when you can spend 1/5 of that and get 2x4GB? Don't get me wrong, I'm certain this ram will serve a purpose for many consumers, but for the average user, the price is just way too high. Plus, when you factor in 4 to 8GB is more than enough for gaming and whatnot, the price point just doesn't make sense.
 
I don't think its overpriced. 4gb modules used to be just as expensive. You cannot put out higher density ram at the cost of mass produced lower density ram. The cost of creating it is too high, but as production ramps up and 8gb becomes the normal it will drop like 4gb modules dropped.
 
Some enthusiasts use heavy coolers like Noctua N14 and Spire Thermax II Eclipse. Those Vengeance modules won't even fit into my build, that's why i bought Mushkin ram with low profile heatsinks.
 
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]I don't think its overpriced. 4gb modules used to be just as expensive. You cannot put out higher density ram at the cost of mass produced lower density ram. The cost of creating it is too high, but as production ramps up and 8gb becomes the normal it will drop like 4gb modules dropped.[/citation]

That makes all the sense in the world. However, I think for the average consumer, this higher density ram is [very] expensive. Especially when one is trying to budget for a new system; that extra $200 saved on negating higher denisty ram can be allocated towards an extra GPU, SSD, etc. Conversely, this won't be a major financial decision for those well-off. Nonetheless, I do agree with you in that "as production ramps up..modules drop"
 
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]Being that you can buy 8gb (2 x 4gb) for around $50, these are a bit to pricey if you ask me.[/citation] There are 8gb ECC registered modules for serverrs at $80
 
I was just thinking, anyone really putting that much RAM to actual use would want ECC wouldn't they?

(joke - "OMG, corsair knows something about Win 8 that we don't!")

And... if Apple includes RAM modules with these specs they would be about $800 a module.
 
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]I was just thinking, anyone really putting that much RAM to actual use would want ECC wouldn't they?(joke - "OMG, corsair knows something about Win 8 that we don't!")And... if Apple includes RAM modules with these specs they would be about $800 a module.[/citation]

Apple's RAM prices are simply ridiculous. Even the faithful can recognize that.
 
[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]All this complaint about the cost is kind of funny to me. I've been buying 8GB modules for my servers for months now at $350-400 each at DDR3-1066 speeds. $270 sounds pretty cheap to me for 8GB DDR3-1600 modules. The biggest modules are always much more expensive. When EDO RAM was big, 4MB and 8MB modules were semi-cheap with 16MB modules running more than ten times the cost of the 8MB modules. It just costs that much more to produce the chips. They aren't commodity yet.[/citation]

Same here. Many of our systems are running 8GB DIMM's and their ridiculously expensive. Over a year ago they were $700+ a piece, now their a few hundred each and looks to be going down.

People what you have to realize is that fitting that much memory onto a stick isn't cheap. That these are available for desktop use at such a low price is amazing in and of itself. I can see some AV workstations and professional systems using these. Maybe even a home grown VM lab for learning / professional development.

And FYI, very few consumer grade boards even support 8GB DIMMs. Typically only the higher end boards will be compatible, look for something that has four slots and specifically says max support 32GB. Some boards that support 8GB DIMMs only do so with two sticks present.
 
I'd still like to hear from the experts here. If you are in need and in the market for a 32GB+ workstation, aren't you looking for ECC?

My motherboard supports up to 32GB of RAM but I honestly always figured it was just a bullet point and marketing "spec" and single 8GB sticks of RAM would never be seen on sites like newegg or tigerdirect.

I'll wait to have 32GB of RAM when you can pick up a 4x8GB kit for about $150-200 lol... so yeah, not going to happen. The successor to DDR3 can't be too far around the corner, right?
 



Requirement for ECC depends on your applications and OS. All modern OS's use their own methods of memory consistency checking and integrity correction. So the need for ECC is often questionable. In the enterprise world it's seen as an additional layer of data integrity, and is relatively cheap for what it provides. In the consumer world I don't know if you'll actually see any difference in using it.
 
You really only need 8 GB of RAM if you're a gamer, and that's generous. I have 4 GB and I've never maxed out, but then again my processor cannot handle quad core games (it's a duo core 2). I don't know how much of a difference that would make. My system is 4 years old and back then, I didn't use as much RAM as I do today. Then again, I only had 2 GB then and a 32-bit OS. The upgrade sped things up, because of the extra RAM available.
 
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]You really only need 8 GB of RAM if you're a gamer, and that's generous. I have 4 GB and I've never maxed out, but then again my processor cannot handle quad core games (it's a duo core 2). I don't know how much of a difference that would make. My system is 4 years old and back then, I didn't use as much RAM as I do today. Then again, I only had 2 GB then and a 32-bit OS. The upgrade sped things up, because of the extra RAM available.[/citation]


I'm getting lazy in my old age, and so now very rarely go into services.msc to disable unneeded services, or use programs like ccleaner (msconfig) to disable or delete start-up items.

So I usually have 90-100 processes running at all times. As of this moment its 84 processes, using 3GB ram total, leaving me 13GB left. It was nice to be able to have Eve Online running and minimized to the taskbar while I loaded up a more action-oriented game, and tab back and forth at will, to keep up with the skill training ques, etc... I think 16GB is becoming the new 8GB.

What I really miss is the Windows XP feature of essentially creating multiple computers for specialized roles, from one system, and booting into whichever you needed atm. I always had a bear-bones setup with no internet/network, print spooler, etc, down to between 12-18 processes. I guess those days are over though without going too technical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom