High-Density DDR3: Five Dual-Module 8GB Kits Compared

[BigStack]

Since it doesn't appear you can edit a typo. Not the "8GB" at the end of my post should be "4GB"

Duh.

 

[tomaz99]

It may be a noob question, but other than having available slots 'just in case' why not use 4x2GB?

I don't recall ever adding more memory...usually once I start needing more memory it's time for a new system.

 

[BigStack]

I seem to remember that using 4 slots was less efficient than two slots for the same amount of memory.

 

[El_Capitan]

[citation][nom]BigStack[/nom]I seem to remember that using 4 slots was less efficient than two slots for the same amount of memory.[/citation]
If that were true, then servers would be a lot less efficient than workstations.

 

[wintermint]

Has anyone heard about A-Data? I live near Fry's Electronics and they have ddr3 A-Data ram there D:

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]What ever happened to the Socket 1366 component reviews? All I see here anymore is the 1156 components. I realize that it's more "mainstream", but those of us who made the plunge into the "enthusiast" platform want to know more! How about the "Five Triple-Module 12GB Kits Compared"? ugh...[/citation]Shift in focus until Intel releases new products for the 1366 platform. I don't think I'm supposed to discuss anything specific, but if you care to google it you'll get a better idea of when Tom's Hardware will shine the light back in that direction.

[citation][nom]rpmrush[/nom]I still haven't seen any need to run more than 2GB of ram even when gaming and benching in Vista. For those with 12GB, your just filling up your X58 board cuz you can. There is zero need for anything beyond 4GB in the current 32bit environment. Even with a 64bit OS (I have Vista 64bit and Win 7 64 bit) the majority of all programs are 32bit. For those who actually utilize 64bit programs, well 8-12GB might be useful. Anyone with 64 bit Win7..load up 64bit Internet Explorer and open 10 different tabs and watch your ram get filled up..lol[/citation]Actually, we did a test a while ago that showed for 64-bit windows, our benchmarks could push you over 4GB. For triple-channel platforms, the "perfect" choice to cover every possible scenario became 6GB.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]wintermint[/nom]Has anyone heard about A-Data? I live near Fry's Electronics and they have ddr3 A-Data ram there D:[/citation]

Tom's tests A-Data, whenever A-Data is willing and able to send something that matches the test category.

 

[sabot00]

Who said 4GB is largest per stick?
Kingston 2x8 GB (16GB)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134650&cm_re=16_gb_ram-_-20-134-650-_-Product

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]sabot00[/nom]Who said 4GB is largest per stick?Kingston 2x8 GB (16GB)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] -_-Product[/citation]

Incompatible, those are FB-DIMMs.

 

[Guest]

Why not test with Linux? Instead of Microsoft's "anti-feature" limited PAE, Linux gives you real PAE in 32bit mode (give it 8gb, it will see ~8gb of it), and no artificial limits in 64bit mode per pricing tier.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]linux_pae_FTW[/nom]Why not test with Linux? Instead of Microsoft's "anti-feature" limited PAE, Linux gives you real PAE in 32bit mode (give it 8gb, it will see ~8gb of it), and no artificial limits in 64bit mode per pricing tier.[/citation]

Why? It's already 64-bit Ultimate so there aren't any limits applied. Every tester already has his own software so any additional test cost nothing for additional licenses. In other words, the software is already there for testing games and stuff that actually require Windows, and there's absolutely zero reason to go through the hassel of switching.

 

[vaughn2k]

I have a G.Skill, I think its really impressive.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Q: Do ECC memory work in ordinary P55 boards?
Asking because currently only Kingston provides 4GB modules in Denmark, and their ECC memory is $50 less expensive than their non-ecc modules

 

[geok1ng]

nice review, but once again a fail of epic proportions.
People who need/seek high density memory modules ARE going to put the maximum possible memory on their systems, hence the need to test 4x4GB on dual-channel mobos and 6x4GB on triple channel mobos.
And for the scepticals: the common and fair use of massive amounts of RAM is soo simple and as the XP-AT days: RAM drives.
Imagine your favorite game installed on a RAM drive on OS startup! Imagine all textures and loadings times reduced to the RAM's latency?

 

[MU_Engineer]

[citation][nom]verrul[/nom]dont expect more than 4gb anytime soon there really is no need in a system to run more than 4 to begin with you really dont see any speed improvements past 4 and no program is built to handle that size of memory block currently. Sure there are the occasional special systems that use more than 4gb but not for a single program. Besides that there is the TDP and FCC inforced efficiency ratings they have to come in under ram is an energy hog for an overclocker[/citation]

Most people use 4 GB pretty much as a minimum for a system today. A modern Windows OS will use something around 1 GB just for itself, plus you have several hundred MB used for antivirus programs, not to mention other resident programs, services, and having multiple programs open at once. Also, the unclaimed-by-applications memory is used for disk caching to greatly speed up subsequent file I/O operations. Most tests have showed that less than 4 GB in a modern Windows system leads to a lot more disk I/O and general slowdowns compared to 4 GB or more. The fact that a bunch of gamers who overclock their systems heavily still go with a 4x2 GB setup despite having to run at a 2T command rate and having a lower maximum RAM speed than guys using 2x2 GB setup should tell you something.

The real story here is that memory makers have started to mass-produce and sell 2 Gbit memory ICs. Each rank (eight memory ICs, or nine with ECC parts) now has 2 GB of capacity and unbuffered desktop DIMMs (limited to two ranks) now can have 4 GB of capacity instead of only 2 GB with the previous 1 Gbit technology. We've been using 1 Gbit parts for a few years now and we're overdue for an upgrade in memory IC capacity. I am surprised the article didn't mention this fact.

 

[MU_Engineer]

[citation][nom]BigStack[/nom]Is there any reason they couldn't produce 3GB modules? Does the math not work or something?[/citation]

Yes. Putting 3 GB on a DIMM requires the use of either three ranks of 1 Gbit memory ICs or one rank of 2 Gbit ICs and another of 1 Gbit ICs. Three ranks of memory won't run in a desktop system as you would need memory registering to run more than two ranks of memory. I do not think that memory controllers are currently equipped to deal with different-sized memory ICs on the same module either.

I'm looking at an 1156 build, so I'd be doing either two or four DIMMS. 4GB should be sufficient, but I wouldn't mind 6GB. 8 seems overkill.I think 3GB modules would sell at least as welll, if not better, than 8GB.[/citation]

If you want 6 GB, why not just get 2x2 GB and 2x1 GB? It gives you your 6 GB of RAM and would be a lot less expensive than parts that use 2 Gbit ICs (the current 4 GB DIMMs.) The only problem is that you need to run at a 2T command rate, you will need to remove some of your RAM to upgrade the memory later, and it's not much less expensive than getting four 2 GB modules.

 

[MU_Engineer]

[citation][nom]sabot00[/nom]Who said 4GB is largest per stick?Kingston 2x8 GB (16GB)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] -_-Product[/citation]

Those are quad-rank DDR2 FB-DIMM memory modules. They will work in most Intel LGA771 server boards and in the Skulltrail setup, but that's about it. You wouldn't want these memory modules anyway as they actually need the heatspreader to keep from burning up, they're poor performers, and they're also a dead memory format. Think of FB-DIMMs as the RDRAM version 2.0. Intel has abandoned them for normal registered DDR3 for future servers.

 

[pnyhater]

Well for those who don't know, it is currently impossible to run out Vista/Win 7's RAM limit for 64 bit or even 32 bit. 64 bit I recall can run up to 128GB of RAM but only recognizes 8, nice little fact ain't it?

PS: 8GB of RAM is a waste. You will never need that much RAM anytime soon.

 

[kevinherring]

[citation][nom]pnyhater[/nom]Well for those who don't know, it is currently impossible to run out Vista/Win 7's RAM limit for 64 bit or even 32 bit. 64 bit I recall can run up to 128GB of RAM but only recognizes 8, nice little fact ain't it?PS: 8GB of RAM is a waste. You will never need that much RAM anytime soon.[/citation]
Only home basic and starter have an 8GB limit. Home Premium is limited to 16GB, and the rest 192GB.

At work on my development box I frequently find 4GB RAM too little. With visual studio open, a DB, a couple of VMs, I often get paging. Just because YOU don't need 8GB, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else has the same requirements. Not everyone who reads this site is only interested in getting the highest FPS in Crysis....

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]MU_Engineer[/nom]Most people use 4 GB pretty much as a minimum for a system today. A modern Windows OS will use something around 1 GB just for itself, plus you have several hundred MB used for antivirus programs, not to mention other resident programs, services, and having multiple programs open at once. Also, the unclaimed-by-applications memory is used for disk caching to greatly speed up subsequent file I/O operations. Most tests have showed that less than 4 GB in a modern Windows system leads to a lot more disk I/O and general slowdowns compared to 4 GB or more. The fact that a bunch of gamers who overclock their systems heavily still go with a 4x2 GB setup despite having to run at a 2T command rate and having a lower maximum RAM speed than guys using 2x2 GB setup should tell you something.The real story here is that memory makers have started to mass-produce and sell 2 Gbit memory ICs. Each rank (eight memory ICs, or nine with ECC parts) now has 2 GB of capacity and unbuffered desktop DIMMs (limited to two ranks) now can have 4 GB of capacity instead of only 2 GB with the previous 1 Gbit technology. We've been using 1 Gbit parts for a few years now and we're overdue for an upgrade in memory IC capacity. I am surprised the article didn't mention this fact.[/citation]
Thanks. I think most of the advanced readers know that memory supports eight IC's per side and can work out most of what you said from there, so the article instead addresses this change at a more basic level that everyone can understand. Increase in 2Gb IC production->Mass Availability of 4GB DIMMs, is there really any need to say the first part since anyone who understands it can easily extrapolate it from the second?

 

[anon11112]

this is funny reading everyone complaining about the price of ram. I still remember a time when we use to get all horny when Ram prices dropped to 1 Dollar a MB LMAO

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Nobody will use more than 12GB of memory, 16GB should be enough for anyone.[/citation]
Could be, but I kinda doubt it. The other day I used explorer to look for some images. Explorer found a bit over 86000 jpg images, and used 5.4GB memory doing so. Now imagine I was running dragon age origins in the background, and had photoshop open because I was messing with some textures in the game, and ofcourse a memory editor, cause who can be without one. That on top of all the other stuff I'm always running (msn, antivirus, chrome, ie8 etc) would leave little room left for windows to use as disk cache - and remember that windows 7 is really excellent at using memory for cache. Then I would imagine that 12GB is only adequate, not nessecarily all you'll need. And what if you've got serveral games open at once? Happends to me sometimes - wow and something else mostly, but anything is possible I suppose.
I put 12GB in my parents pc, and while I think it's overkill right now, I don't think it'll be that in 2 years time - and they're not the kind to upgrade as long as the old system works.

[citation][nom]anon11112[/nom]this is funny reading everyone complaining about the price of ram. I still remember a time when we use to get all horny when Ram prices dropped to 1 Dollar a MB LMAO[/citation]
Yeah I remember buying 16MB fastpage ram at $270 for my 486 once, so I suppose in context these kits are rather cheap

 

[El_Capitan]

8 GB RAM is only a waste for people who don't know what to do with it.

 

[xtc28]

nah! NOT ME! TOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!

 

[capt_taco]

Well, that's still way more than I'd like to pay for 8GB of RAM, but it still is fun to window-shop.

I guess as long as most people don't actually NEED 16GB of RAM in their system, 4GB sticks are going to remain a luxury item, and priced like one.