G.Skill Beats Itself With 3200 MHz Ripjaws V 128 GB DDR4 Memory Kit

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jay E

Reputable
Jan 6, 2016
8
0
4,510
0
If you got the need/want for this much memory and you can throw down 1k bucks like it's no one's business. Then yeah.....It's no ones business. Congrats on being able to.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,140
3
19,815
14
Hell yeah!
100 GB ram drive and 28 GB for actual programs :) Why not!
Who need SSD... Well actually SSD is nice, but there is huge possibilities, even if you don't run many virtual machines, or do some serious video editing.
But yeah, video editing will definitely be more fun, with that much memory!
 

atheus

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2010
669
0
19,160
90
How much easier it would be to go with an extreme edition design if they would just release them on the current gen mainstream architecture.
 
How much easier it would be to go with an extreme edition design if they would just release them on the current gen mainstream architecture.
Intel prefers the older one because it's more mature. That makes sense for a number of reasons. The EEs are just rebranded Xeons and the people whom buy EEs are mostly either people who can recoup the large price hike from cheaper CPUs because their income depends on how fast their CPU can crunch numbers and people who just have enough disposable income to throw it around like that. Both types of people are more than a little annoyed when their expensive computer crashes.

Skylake, as I'm sure you've noticed, has made quite a name for itself in lower stability, especially with heavier workloads. Intel won't be using it in high-performance high-reliability designs until they can iron out some of the major problems. Instead, they sell it to customers who are much less likely to have issues with Skylake as it is.

Besides, the only time this was a problem was with Guftown versus Sandy Bridge because other than that, none of the new archs were much faster than their predecessors.
 

Haravikk

Honorable
Sep 14, 2013
317
0
10,790
1
I cant wait for people to cry "who needs that much ram!!!!!!"

I do. Video editing. Virtual Machines. RAM drives. Who cares?
The quantity isn't the problem as such, it's more a question of "why would you put that much RAM in a system and not use ECC RAM?", if you're serious about using that much RAM then the avoiding errors is much more important than raw speed.

If you don't care about errors, then you're either a monster, or don't actually need that much RAM for what you're doing.
 


ECC is only needed for critical systems that are on 24/7 for at least several weeks at a time. For workstations, ECC is typically an unnecessary expense. Those machines may need large quantities of RAM and they may benefit from high speed RAM, but they are not necessarily vulnerable to RAM errors.

For example, one pixel being slightly off will rarely have a significant effect on a video frame because it's a small piece of the screen and is only present for a small fraction of a second. Besides that, although errors happen, they aren't even a daily occurrence in a way that matters. I can have my laptop open for weeks at a time and not have an issue that affects how its used. I use my desktop for virtual machines and ECC would be a needless expense for that too. The absolute worst case scenario is that I need to restart a VM or the whole system and it has never had a memory error cause that in the five years its been running.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS