G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200, C14, 32GB, Quad-Channel Kit Review

[Crashman]

G.Skill’s F4-3200C14Q-32GTZKW memory kit is black and white, but are the performance advantages of its DDR4-3200 C14 timings as stark as its appearance? We take a closer look.

G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200, C14, 32GB, Quad-Channel Kit Review : Read more

 

[IceMyth]

Hmm, for double and quad channels do we need a MB that supports that?

 

[Crashman]

Hmm, for double and quad channels do we need a MB that supports that?

You don't need to run it in quad-channel mode, and you'll probably get better overclocking by putting all four modules on a dual-channel board.

 

[joex444]

I'm guessing the author's previous knowledge about games which are memory bound are coming from dual channel platforms with memory bandwidths in the 30GB/s range. This would clearly explain why, once moving to Broadwell-E with 60+GB/s, there's no evidence of a memory bound game.

Looking at the bandwidth over the other DDR4-3200 kit, it's a 1.7% bump and a 4.0% drop in latency. Looking at WinRAR with a 25 second average runtime and the ability to measure to within 1 second, that's 1 part in 25: 4%. There was no point in running that benchmark since you need at least a 4% performance difference to pick up any hint of a performance difference and the synthetics show a 1.7-4% difference meaning we should expect real-world improvement to be somewhere in between as nothing is either fully bandwidth bound nor fully latency bound.

The second to last chart is an absolute disgrace comparing different size memory kits with absolute prices then coming to the startling conclusion that 32GB costs much more than 16GB. This is like complaining a 4TB drive at $120 costs more than a 1TB drive at $50, ignoring the fact that four 1TB drives would be $200.

 

[Crashman]

I'm guessing the author's previous knowledge about games which are memory bound are coming from dual channel platforms with memory bandwidths in the 30GB/s range. This would clearly explain why, once moving to Broadwell-E with 60+GB/s, there's no evidence of a memory bound game.

Looking at the bandwidth over the other DDR4-3200 kit, it's a 1.7% bump and a 4.0% drop in latency. Looking at WinRAR with a 25 second average runtime and the ability to measure to within 1 second, that's 1 part in 25: 4%. There was no point in running that benchmark since you need at least a 4% performance difference to pick up any hint of a performance difference and the synthetics show a 1.7-4% difference meaning we should expect real-world improvement to be somewhere in between as nothing is either fully bandwidth bound nor fully latency bound.

The second to last chart is an absolute disgrace comparing different size memory kits with absolute prices then coming to the startling conclusion that 32GB costs much more than 16GB. This is like complaining a 4TB drive at $120 costs more than a 1TB drive at $50, ignoring the fact that four 1TB drives would be $200.

First of all, you downvoted me for stating the facts that a quad-DIMM kit will also run on a dual-channel board, and overclock better?

The second-to-last chart only gives readers a frame of reference for the last chart so that those who don't like doing math in their heads can still see what's going on. That's hardly as egregious as downvoting a correct answer 😀

 

[Nintendork]

So unless we ran the Bristol Ridge APU, even DDR4 2133 CL8 offers absolutely nothing to a el cheapo ram without head spreader gizmos.

 

[AciMars]

Totally wrong game benchmark, Grid game has NO EFFECT using faster ram. Use GTA V BENCHMARK..