[done] G.Skill's Ripjaws 4 DDR4 Memory Goes Up To 3200 MHz, 64 GB

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tanquen

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
226
0
18,680
0
Well, I'm on my 3rd dying set of G.Skills Ripjaws DDR3 F3-12800CL10Q2-64GBZL. Make sure it has the lifetime warranty. Over 25 years I’ve never seen that with RAM before, kinda scary.
 

childofthekorn

Honorable
Jan 31, 2013
359
0
10,780
0
Well, I'm on my 3rd dying set of G.Skills Ripjaws DDR3 F3-12800CL10Q2-64GBZL. Make sure it has the lifetime warranty. Over 25 years I’ve never seen that with RAM before, kinda scary.
From a business standpoint I can only assume its because they expect not to have to replace as much. Could be wrong.
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
777
0
18,990
1
Timings could be better, but capacity is nice at least. Really between the two I'd rather have more capacity at this point anyway.
 
Well, I'm on my 3rd dying set of G.Skills Ripjaws DDR3 F3-12800CL10Q2-64GBZL. Make sure it has the lifetime warranty. Over 25 years I’ve never seen that with RAM before, kinda scary.
3rd set? must be something on your end. i've been using 1 set for years and so have people i know. no issues.
 

zfreak280

Honorable
Oct 1, 2013
41
0
10,530
0
Well, I'm on my 3rd dying set of G.Skills Ripjaws DDR3 F3-12800CL10Q2-64GBZL. Make sure it has the lifetime warranty. Over 25 years I’ve never seen that with RAM before, kinda scary.
3rd set? must be something on your end. i've been using 1 set for years and so have people i know. no issues.
Same here. I've been on my first set of G.Skill 4x2 GB 1600 MHz for 5 years without even a hint of problems.
 

zfreak280

Honorable
Oct 1, 2013
41
0
10,530
0
First DDR4 worth buying. Need to cross the 3200mhz barrier to be viable.
Viable for who? As far as I am concerned even the cheapest 8 GB DDR4 kit currently available would be more efficient, faster, and cheaper than my 8 GB of DDR3 1600 that I bought 5 years ago. For me, it will be a serious upgrade for my next PC build. It is very "viable".
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4
First DDR4 worth buying. Need to cross the 3200mhz barrier to be viable.
Viable for who? As far as I am concerned even the cheapest 8 GB DDR4 kit currently available would be more efficient, faster, and cheaper than my 8 GB of DDR3 1600 that I bought 5 years ago. For me, it will be a serious upgrade for my next PC build. It is very "viable".
Timing will be about twice DDR3 timing. This means the data will have a higher latency, thus slower. You compensate for this the same way it was compensated in DDR2 to DDR3, double the frequency. This means if you are running 1600mhz DDR3, you should be looking at 3200mhz DDR4.
 

palladin9479

Distinguished
Moderator
Jul 26, 2008
3,239
0
20,860
45
Timings are proportionate with base clock rate. Since this is first generation of a new technology you can expect the CAS refresh to be more lose then what will come later once the process matures. Before directly comparing products always convert the latencies from clock cycles into nanoseconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

DDR3-2133 CL10 has lower latency (9.38ns) then DDR3-1600 CL8 (10ns). So DDR4-2400 with CL15 would be 12.5ns and DDR4-3200 with CL16 would be 10ns. Also having a higher voltage helps lower your CAS due to being able to charge / discharge faster. I'm willing to bet the reason for the higher latency on the lower models (12.5ns) is due to them wanting to maintain lower voltages (1.2v) and thus less power usage for low power devices.
 

palladin9479

Distinguished
Moderator
Jul 26, 2008
3,239
0
20,860
45


That is not how that works. Timings are measured in cycles which is a component of the bandwidth. DDR3 has a higher base clock then DDR2 and thus requires more cycles to charge / discharge the lines. There is a physical limit of about 7ns on really good silicon with most being in the 9~11ns range for charge / discharge times. No matter how much you increase the bandwidth or clock rate you won't be able to charge / discharge the capacitor banks faster then that.

And FYI, DDR2-800 CL5 had an absolute latency of 12.5ns while DDR3-1600 CL9 has an absolute latency of 11.25ns. The DDR3 actually has a lower latency then DDR2.
 

rokit

Honorable
Sep 27, 2013
155
0
10,680
0
At this point DDR4 = money on the wind. Its not faster it has the same capacity and even the same power counsumption if you want it to be alittle bit faster.
There is no point in it until they hit atleast 16 GB per stick and next I7 extreme won't support atleast 128 GB of ram.
 

Tanquen

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
226
0
18,680
0


Well these are not 4x2 GB they are 8x8 GB, more density more problems? I don’t think I’m holding it wrong. :) But what would I be doing to kill the RAM? No overclocking, I’m just doing what I’ve always done and never seen RAM die like this before. Others in the Newegg reviews said they had it die on them in a few months. I’m on my 3rd X79 MB upgrade, new Asus Deluxe and using default XMP settings. The PC is my work and HTPC so it gets a lot of use and I see the issue first in large 15-20GB ISO files. Everything looks and works fine for a little less than a year and then there will be corruption in the movies. I can only see it while watching the whole film as there will be just a few glitches in the video and it may be months before I watching the movie after copying it to the PC. Once it’s starts to die I can take the ISO files and make a copy and do a compare in ImgBurn and there will be random miss compares. I can put in my single 8GB test DIMM or copy the file to my old PC and copy as many times as I want then do the compare successfully.

I think a lot of folks don’t know their RAM is going bad. Apps like MemTest86 do not see an issue but Prime95 starts crashing and I get the file corruption. If I replace the RAM and all is good again... for about a year. :(
 

BleedingEdgeTek

Reputable
May 29, 2014
709
0
5,360
144
First DDR4 worth buying. Need to cross the 3200mhz barrier to be viable.
Viable for who? As far as I am concerned even the cheapest 8 GB DDR4 kit currently available would be more efficient, faster, and cheaper than my 8 GB of DDR3 1600 that I bought 5 years ago. For me, it will be a serious upgrade for my next PC build. It is very "viable".
I'm sorry, how is it going to be better? Just because it has a 4 at the end and not a 3 doesn't mean it's better. Current DDR3 will be better at 1600, as you can get CL of 8 or 9. It will absolutely in NO way be an upgrade. It'll actually be a downgrade in performance - technically speaking.
 

Tanquen

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
226
0
18,680
0


Same here but for the corruption in large 15-25GB ISO files. At first. :)
 
Tanquen,

Do you have the memory configured properly in BIOS/EFI?

Feel free to contact us directly for assistance because you definitely shouldn't have that problem.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About DDR4, it is better and faster than DDR3 in many ways. There are many misconceptions especially about timings being high so it's slower than DDR3.. no. Stay tuned for comparisons, it's a much different technology so you can't make a direct comparison with timing numbers and frequency alone.

palladin has the right ideas, and the "enthusiast" voltage is 1.35V, so you can expect lower timings with that value. ;)

Right now, we compare DDR3-1333 CL9 1.50V, DDR3-1600 CL11 1.50V, DDR4-2133 CL15 1.20V. (standards)
Soon we can compare more performance oriented kits with lower timings and higher voltage. Or if you overclock these current kits, you will see performance is greatly enhanced especially compared to DDR3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS