D1v1n3D :
I bet they still pull more volts then the claim and use more power then they claim...
If the modules pull more voltage than stated in their XMP, that's the bias of the motherboard, not the module.
D1v1n3D :
... and are still not as fast as a really low latency DDR3
In which way? At lower frequencies, DDR4 does tend to have higher latency ( at least it's more common for DDR4-2133 and DDR402400 modules to have higher CAS than their DDR3 counterparts ) but that's hardly conclusive. I easily found DDR4-2400 CAS 13 modules for the
last SBM. And they easily provided 40% more bandwidth than the DDR3-1600 CAS 9 modules I used the quarter before. So what does it matter if the latency is 0.75ns slower than DDR3 if the overall bandwidth and performance are so much higher?
However that's the mainstream stuff. This is high-end. I have one of these TridentZ kits. DDR4-3200 CAS 14. If you want me to do that math for you, that's the same latency as a DDR3-1600 CAS 7 kit ( which is the exact definition of your "low-latency DDR3" ). Except that DDR3 kit can't get 58.5 GB/s bandwidth like I can out of these puppies.
Again, based on what? The DDR4 modules I bought were literally a few dollars more than the DDR3 I purchased three months before them. If you're building a new computer now, you won't save any appreciable money sticking with DDR3.
D1v1n3D :
DDR4 in theory was good but actual testing done by toms proves DDR4 is worse then DDR3 in almost every aspect.
And what testing do you refer to? I've done some of that "actual testing done by Tom's" and I have yet to experience DDR4 performing worse.
D1v1n3D :
I'm talking about shorther in length not in height you know similair to a sodim
If you want DDR4 in SO-DIMM format, I can't fault you there. It'd be a nice option. However, perhaps you better fault motherboard manufacturers for not offering that option, rather than blaming RAM makers for not offering a product that isn't even supported in the DIY market.