Question CUDIMMs anyone?

[thegreatdelcamo]

As I progress in my research for a new build, I come to the question of CUDIMMs. Clocked, unbuffered, inline memory, which is apparently helpful for the new Arrow Lake desktop processors.

I'm considering this build:

• ASUS ROG Maximus 890Z Apex MB
• Most likely the Core Ultra 7 265K
• Install two Nvidia GPUs (4080 Super and 4070Ti) to run three 4K screens and one more at 1080p)
• NZXT C1500 PSU

I need RAM, one SSD, and an AIO. This will be installed, I think, in the new be quiet! Light Base 900 FX PC Case

So, the topic or RAM comes up and the new CUDIMMS.

Is there anything I should be considering? I see that Tom's suggests "If you're looking for the best compatibility, DDR5-5600 is drop-in compatible with AMD Ryzen 9000 (Granite Ridge) processors and DDR5-6400 CUDIMMs for Intel Core Ultra 200S (Arrow Lake) processors." And yet, I don't see any CUDIMMS at that low speed. Most are of this ilk, or faster:

"G.SKILL Trident Z5 CK Series (Intel XMP 3.0) DDR5 RAM 48GB (2x24GB) 8200MT/s CL40-52-52-131 1.40V"​

Thoughts? Experience? I think I have to be missing something...

 

[Lafong]

My first thought:

If you are building with a 700 dollar motherboard and 2000 dollars plus worth of video cards, I'd guess you wouldn't be happy with 6400 speed RAM, regardless of so called "worth it" questions.

I suppose you'd have to speculate about how well any given high-end CUDIMM RAM package will run on any particular motherboard.

 

[thegreatdelcamo]

first thought:

If you are building with a 700 dollar motherboard and 2000 dollars plus worth of video cards, I'd guess you wouldn't be happy with 6400 speed RAM, regardless of so called "worth it" questions.

I suppose you'd have to speculate about how well any given high-end CUDIMM RAM package will run on any particular motherboard.

Thanks for the reply. You may find it interesting to know that I'm not trying to eek out the last bit of speed. This is a golf simulator, and the speed at which GSPro runs is mostly based on the GPU. The motherboard was chosen because it is the ONLY one I can find that will handle two GPUs AND have unblocked PCIe 4.0 slots for other things my simulator needs (POE run cameras and additional USB). It hurts that it's so expensive... a lot.

I'm using two GPUs because I have them and I have four monitors running, two at full 4K, and the 4080 Super, by itself, is taxed to handle all that. I could go with a 4090, or a 50 series, but I already have two GPUs that should handle this.

So, my question was mostly related to getting more information about CUDIMMS. Microcenter doesn't even have a category for them yet. Same with Amazon. And I'm not finding a lot of information. The quote from Tom's is about all I've been able to find.

Frankly, I'd prefer to go AMD (as I think Intel may not be in business for long, without a merger or bailout), but I like all the PCIe lanes in Arrow Lake, and again, this MB is the only one that seems like it will fit the stuff I want.

 

[logainofhades]

I am trying to understand why you want the 265k to begin with. Arrow Lake was a bit of a disappointment, and pairing that chip with such an expensive motherboard doesn't make any sense.

 

[geofelt]

Some thoughts:
If you do not need maximal cpu performance, then the common ram at 6000 speed should suffice.
The purpose of cudimms is to run at much higher speeds. And, at a higher cost.

If you buy a 890Z motherboard at half the price, you can get a dp and a hdmi connection, able to run 4k @60hz. That eliminates the space need for a second discrete graphics card.

I happen to like the new ultra processors.
Old benchmarks for gaming were not impressive.
But, I think that is because the original tread director was not so good in allocating processing to the new processors without hyperthreading.
There have been updates to address this.

The 265K apparently runs cool. A good air cooler will be sufficient.

 

[thegreatdelcamo]

I am trying to understand why you want the 265k to begin with. Arrow Lake was a bit of a disappointment, and pairing that chip with such an expensive motherboard doesn't make any sense.

The motherboard is chosen because it's the only damn one I can find that will allow two GPUs without crowding out other PCIe slots. I don't need a fancy MB. I just need one that works for my situation. And this one happens to be the only one I know of.

 

[logainofhades]

Any reason you are compelled to use Arrow lake otherwise?

 

[thegreatdelcamo]

I am trying to understand why you want the 265k to begin with. Arrow Lake was a bit of a disappointment, and pairing that chip with such an expensive motherboard doesn't make any sense.

Thanks for the reply.

Rational for the 265k is the following:

1. Intel fixed the lane issue (four 5.0 added) and the self-destruction issue.
2. It's a good all-rounder and sufficiently fast for anything I'll do. My main use is a golf simulator and GSPro is based on the GPU.
3. Exceptionally good performance for cost of the Arrow Lake choices.
4. No AMD motherboard that I can find will fit two GPUs without blocking needed PCIe slots. My preference would be the upcoming 9900X3D.
5. Others have noted that, with the fixed lane issue, Arrow Lake has more 4.0 PCIe lanes that I can use than AMD.
6. Lanes are relevant to me: I currently have 11 USB things connected to my MB; I want to be able to add a POE card for high-speed swing cameras; I want the ability to use a gen 5 SSD as a boot drive without whacking the available lanes to the GPUs. GSPro golf courses tend to take a while to load, and so a fast SSD is an option I want to consider.

Make sense?

 

[thegreatdelcamo]

Some thoughts:
If you do not need maximal cpu performance, then the common ram at 6000 speed should suffice.
The purpose of cudimms is to run at much higher speeds. And, at a higher cost.

If you buy a 890Z motherboard at half the price, you can get a dp and a hdmi connection, able to run 4k @60hz. That eliminates the space need for a second discrete graphics card.

I'm trying to lessen the load on the 4080 so it can focus exclusively on GSPro at 4K. When it's taxed by running two 4K displays PLUS two more displays, the game gets choppy. One solution has been to hook the launch monitor software to the integrated graphics; and this works. But even with that display taken off the 4080 Super, that GPU is still driving two native 4K displays plus another set to 4K so that being mirrored things are not all wonky.

If you are describing a way to hook effectively three 4K displays running different programs on one DP line, without choppy game play, I'm all ears. But I'm thinking I could benefit from either a much bigger GPU or to use the two GPUs that I already have.

I happen to like the new ultra processors.
Old benchmarks for gaming were not impressive.
But, I think that is because the original tread director was not so good in allocating processing to the new processors without hyperthreading.
There have been updates to address this.

The 265K apparently runs cool. A good air cooler will be sufficient.

I'll go with an AIO just to overkill cooling. I appreciate quiet and PSUs and fans running well below capabilities.