We compare DDR5 to the best DDR4 RAM on the market to see whether it's worth the cost of upgrading.
DDR5 vs DDR4: Is It Time To Upgrade Your RAM? : Read more
DDR5 vs DDR4: Is It Time To Upgrade Your RAM? : Read more
Exactly, there is almost zero "futureproofing", because of all of the above.There is no point in using DDR5 for "futureproofing" when you are going to ditch your overpriced DDR5 anyway because today's DDR5 will be considered garbage by contemporary standards in 2-3 years.
Get DDR4 today, set the money aside for your next CPU-MoBo-RAM upgrade a few years down the road where 32GB DDR5 6400-34 will be $150 value RAM.
"On-die ECC doesn't offer any protection for data in transit, which is why on-die ECC isn't a true ECC implementation....One can question on-die ECC's utility since errors are more prominent when the data travels over the memory bus. Furthermore, on-die ECC requires extra capacity to store parity, representing another added cost to DDR5..."
Most users don't upgrade every 2 or 3 years. If you're building a high end system (not 12600k or lower) and planning on keeping your system for 5 years, might as well go with DDR5 if you can afford it. The couple hundred dollars you save now isn't going to buy you a new high end system in 3 years. Everything has gotten insanely expensive. You bought a $500+ CPU, $1000+ GPU, $400+ motherboard, what's a couple extra 100 dollars for your RAM at that point? If you're building a budget system, DD4 is the obvious choice.There is no point in using DDR5 for "futureproofing" when you are going to ditch your overpriced DDR5 anyway because today's DDR5 will be considered garbage by contemporary standards in 2-3 years.
Get DDR4 today, set the money aside for your next CPU-MoBo-RAM upgrade a few years down the road where 32GB DDR5 6400-34 will be $150 value RAM.
No power user waits anywhere near five years to upgrade their system, and those considering a DDR5 upgrade now certainly fall into that category.Most users don't upgrade every 2 or 3 years. If you're building a high end system [and] planning on keeping your system for 5 years
Depends on your definition of power user. If you define it as someone who only buys top of the line, then I already addressed that in my original post.No power user waits anywhere near five years to upgrade their system, and those considering a DDR5 upgrade now certainly fall into that category.
The "power user" sitting in my chair right now would beg to differ.No power user waits anywhere near five years to upgrade their system, and those considering a DDR5 upgrade now certainly fall into that category.
No matter how much you "can afford it", it is still wasted money if it provides near-zero benefits in most of your everyday uses.Most users don't upgrade every 2 or 3 years. If you're building a high end system (not 12600k or lower) and planning on keeping your system for 5 years, might as well go with DDR5 if you can afford it.
Given your signature block indicates you're still using not DDR4, but DDR3, are you truly certainly you're classed in the same category as power-users considering the bleeding-edge upgrade to DDR5? Who else but them would this article be aimed at?The "power user" sitting in my chair right now would beg to differ.
What is a "power user"? There are plenty of engineers and scientists working on relatively crappy PCs because the projects they are working on require such massive scale compute that all of the real work gets delegated to server farms and supercomputers, so they only need their PCs to edit scripts and read results.Given your signature block indicates you're still using not DDR4, but DDR3, are you truly certainly you're classed in the same category as power-users considering the bleeding-edge upgrade to DDR5? Who else but them would this article be aimed at?
What is your definition of "power user"?Given your signature block indicates you're still using not DDR4, but DDR3, are you truly certainly you're classed in the same category as power-users considering the bleeding-edge upgrade to DDR5? Who else but them would this article be aimed at?
You're looking at as an absolute cost addition instead of total build cost percentage increase. Adding 5-10% more to your total build cost to get up to 20% performance increase in some situations is not blanketly a waste of money. The other issue is motherboard selection. If the motherboard you want is DDR5 based, that's what you're going with.No matter how much you "can afford it", it is still wasted money if it provides near-zero benefits in most of your everyday uses.
Exactly.The other issue is motherboard selection. If the motherboard you want is DDR5 based, that's what you're going with.
Fast enough DDR5 to ensure you get no performance regressions vs DDR4 adds closer to 20% to total build cost assuming you are able to get it at MSRP in the first place, more if you need it now and have to pay scalper prices to get it since most DDR5 isn't in stock through normal channels.You're looking at as an absolute cost addition instead of total build cost percentage increase. Adding 5-10% more to your total build cost to get up to 20% performance increase in some situations is not blanketly a waste of money.
All valid points, and all irrelevant to the issue at hand. An article evaluating a potential upgrade to that "bleeding edge of tech" is obviously oriented only to those individuals inclined to seek it.What is a "power user"? There are plenty of engineers and scientists working on relatively crappy PCs because the projects they are working on require such massive scale compute that all of the real work gets delegated to server farms and supercomputers, so they only need their PCs to edit scripts and read results. You don't have to personally be at the bleeding edge of tech to be a power-user....
If you throw out 7zip and Y-cruncher, the only two "productivity" categories where DDR5 clearly outperforms DDR4, there is near-zero benefit to DDR5 in this story's results and the conclusion that should be drawn from it is that first-gen DDR5 is not worth bothering with.All valid points, and all irrelevant to the issue at hand. An article evaluating a potential upgrade to that "bleeding edge of tech" is obviously oriented only to those individuals inclined to seek it.
Again, you're moving the goalposts with a potentially valid, but irrelevant point. The post to which I originally replied suggested that DDR5 should be purchased for no other reason than 'most users' only upgrade every 5 years. I was doing no more than pointing out the fallacy therein....the conclusion that should be drawn from it is that first-gen DDR5 is not worth bothering with.
Computers are used for more than gaming. It's long been known that most games are as sensitive to memory latency as they are overall bandwidth. Other workloads may or may not be.In this 41 games test ...[snip] ... I think DDR5 for now is more like a whim for tech snobs.
Oh, I didn't notice that. Good spot. That being said, I don't know how rank duality or x8/x16 banks affect Intel performance though. Still a good point to bring up, but I don't think it'll change things over the conclusion much: DDR5 is pointless for most cases and scenarios.Kind of stopped taking the comparison seriously when they purposely went with single-rank DDR4 to make it "fair" with the single-rank DDR5. Not market reality. The % differences they're showing are often less than the 3-5% difference found between 2-rank and 4-rank application benchmarks.
Isn't it a bit misleading? Is it time to upgrade you ram?! More like is it time to upgrade you platform. I'm not an idiot, i know that i can't pair my 8700k with ddr5 but some regular bloke who buys from Walmart will buy a shiny new ddr5 kit and spend a fortuneWe compare DDR5 to the best DDR4 RAM on the market to see whether it's worth the cost of upgrading.
DDR5 vs DDR4: Is It Time To Upgrade Your RAM? : Read more