Kingston Claims Fastest 128 GB DDR4 Memory Kit

[N.Broekhuijsen]

Kingston decided it was time to play the game of thrones, taking the crown for the fastest 128 GB DDR4 memory kit.

Kingston Claims Fastest 128 GB DDR4 Memory Kit : Read more

 

[childofthekorn]

16GB modules...yum.

 

[TallestJon96]

I've got 4gb of sweet 1333 ddr3 that will clearly destroy this

 

[chicofehr]

I want a 4x16GB kit

 

[TechyInAZ]

Wow! Who use's that much ram besides servers and VM machines?

 

[fuzzion]

but we agreed, no game of thrones spoilers!

 

[dstarr3]

Man, I would love that. Think of all the RAMdisk fun a person could have with 128GB of RAM.

 

[dstarr3]

Also, "Yeah, this isn't a kit you'll buy just for bragging rights." You underestimate some fools and how hasty they are to part with their money.

 

[cats_Paw]

Im still doing fine with 8Gb of ram... Why would I want 128?

 

[SuperVeloce]

Im still doing fine with 8Gb of ram... Why would I want 128?

Yes, your usage case is the only one that matters on the planet.

 

[Narcissistic_Martyr]

I've got to be honest, I don't see the use case for this product. Yeah it's a nice halo product. However, the only people who'd really benefit from 128GB of fast RAM would also want ECC.

 

[Omegaclawe]

I've got 4gb of sweet 1333 ddr3 that will clearly destroy this

I seriously doubt it. Not only does this kit move more than twice as much data per DIMM, it's quad-channel capable... I suppose you could do the same with yours if it's four Separate DIMMs, but the motherboard you're using is incredibly unlikely to support more than dual channel.

Also, the equivalent timings here as compared to 1333 memory is 7-7-7-16. Not the best latency possible, but certainly not bad, and when you've got similar timings, that speed boost can make a pretty big difference.

But the biggest factor is simply that, with a mere 4gb, even running, say, chrome, your computer is going to be doing a good amount of swapping with the hard drive, causing lag spikes and hurting the average latency on the memory significantly. It doesn't even meet the minimums for modern games.

With that in mind, even I would be hard pressed to use all that memory (128GB!) at once without running a bunch of servers or something. It's clearly overkill.

 

[Arabian Knight]

is this a Joke ?

Last time I checked , the i7-5820K internal memory controller supports only 64GB of RAM ONLY

Link :

http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

The only way to get more than 64G of ram is by using Xeons and those must use Registered ECC RAM ... and those do not support OC , which means the 3000MHZ wont work at that clock even if they are RDIMMs.

is this a joke Tomshardware ? this is not professional at all.

 

[ahnilated]

You all do realize that they "can" build a 128G single chip. Look at the specs, they have already announced that they could. Now that isn't saying they would be cheap just that it is possible with DDR 4.

 

[Arabian Knight]

You all do realize that they "can" build a 128G single chip. Look at the specs, they have already announced that they could. Now that isn't saying they would be cheap just that it is possible with DDR 4.

single chips Xeons already can use 768 GB of RAM

http://ark.intel.com/products/82767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v3-20M-Cache-3_20-GHz

this is a 10 cores single CPU

and even Old Xeons using DDR3 could use 768G

the i7 is Just a downgraded Xeon chip , many options taken out like ECC and more memory

 

[ahnilated]

You all do realize that they "can" build a 128G single chip. Look at the specs, they have already announced that they could. Now that isn't saying they would be cheap just that it is possible with DDR 4.

single chips Xeons already can use 768 GB of RAM

http://ark.intel.com/products/82767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v3-20M-Cache-3_20-GHz

this is a 10 cores single CPU

and even Old Xeons using DDR3 could use 768G

the i7 is Just a downgraded Xeon chip , many options taken out like ECC and more memory

I don't have a clue in your point. I know Xenon chips can use a lot more memory. Server chips always have been able too. My point was in people drooling over multiple chips to = 128G ram compared to 1 single 128G chip that could be produced today. I am not saying the processor or motherboard could address this today or there would be a need in the user world, just that it could be done today.

 

[mapesdhs]

ANSYS users would love 10x that much with a single CPU, though they'd probably prefer ECC. Modern GIS needs 1TB+ for full datasets. Full oilrig model I talked a guy at BP about way back would need 10TB.

All depends on the task. In some cases, we're years away from the tech needed to hold a complete dataset within main RAM, for many tasks it's borderline (eg. 4K/8K editing), for most (including home users) the existing tech is usually plenty atm.

AE needs lots. If this means X99 can have 128GB with one CPU then good, though the specs lists do look at bit odd on the Ark.

OTOH the one time I tried oc'ing a CPU with Kingston DDR3/2K RAM, it was really badly unstable (new kit sent to me by Kingston btw). Switched to Mushkin/GSkill, worked much better. I don't think I'd buy Kingston RAM now, prefer GSkill.

Ian.

 

[Arabian Knight]

You all do realize that they "can" build a 128G single chip. Look at the specs, they have already announced that they could. Now that isn't saying they would be cheap just that it is possible with DDR 4.

single chips Xeons already can use 768 GB of RAM

http://ark.intel.com/products/82767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v3-20M-Cache-3_20-GHz

this is a 10 cores single CPU

and even Old Xeons using DDR3 could use 768G

the i7 is Just a downgraded Xeon chip , many options taken out like ECC and more memory

I don't have a clue in your point. I know Xenon chips can use a lot more memory. Server chips always have been able too. My point was in people drooling over multiple chips to = 128G ram compared to 1 single 128G chip that could be produced today. I am not saying the processor or motherboard could address this today or there would be a need in the user world, just that it could be done today.

I dont get your point at all .

why do you need a single chip 128G ? what is the point ? the DIMMS can hold upto 32 chips each . so for 128G they just need a 32x4G chips ... 4G chips can give you 128G Dimms.

Actually we do have 64G Dimms today.

and I never seen 128G single chip anyways

128G chip would make a 4 TERA DIMM .. impossible lol

 

[ahnilated]

You all do realize that they "can" build a 128G single chip. Look at the specs, they have already announced that they could. Now that isn't saying they would be cheap just that it is possible with DDR 4.

single chips Xeons already can use 768 GB of RAM

http://ark.intel.com/products/82767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v3-20M-Cache-3_20-GHz

this is a 10 cores single CPU

and even Old Xeons using DDR3 could use 768G

the i7 is Just a downgraded Xeon chip , many options taken out like ECC and more memory

I don't have a clue in your point. I know Xenon chips can use a lot more memory. Server chips always have been able too. My point was in people drooling over multiple chips to = 128G ram compared to 1 single 128G chip that could be produced today. I am not saying the processor or motherboard could address this today or there would be a need in the user world, just that it could be done today.

I dont get your point at all .

why do you need a single chip 128G ? what is the point ? the DIMMS can hold upto 32 chips each . so for 128G they just need a 32x4G chips ... 4G chips can give you 128G Dimms.

Actually we do have 64G Dimms today.

and I never seen 128G single chip anyways

128G chip would make a 4 TERA DIMM .. impossible lol

You are talking about something TOTALLY different than what I am. I am talking about a 128G memory stick, max you can go with DDR4. You are talking about a 128G memory chip which numerous of those would go on a stick.

 

[Omegaclawe]

So... where the confusion probably comes from here is that Samsung announced that they had made a 128Gb (note the lowercase 'b') RAM chip. Notably, 128Gb is 16GB. Also note, in these chips, we're talking in the vicinity of ~140 billion (minimum would be 128 billion, but these memory chips do more than just store these days) transistors... compare that to the number of transistors in a Titan X (~8billion) or an 8-core Haswell-E (~2.6billion). Heck you could scale this up if you wanted to, it'd just be prohibitively expensive (as these chips likely already are) on account of how few error free chips you'd get per printing.

But yeah, you could do a 128GB DIMM with chips currently available on the market... but there's little reason to. The systems that need that much RAM already have the slots for many, many DIMMs. Worked for a place that had a server with a max RAM capacity of 4TB... not that they had that much in there, but you get the idea. 16GB DIMMS for that.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

Unfortunately, using 8 sticks means having to use 2T Command Rate. Also, the overclocks on the CPU will become unstable much more easily with 128GB of memory to address over two clock cycles. No thanks. This memory kit is exclusive to multimedia workstation PCs and not gaming systems.

 

[mapesdhs]

Using 2T vs. 1T isn't relevant for the vast majority of usage cases. It's highly unlikely you'd ever notice the difference. I built a 3930K/4.7 system with 64GB @ 2T, runs perfectly ok, no discernible loss of performance in any context.

As for oc instability, anyone who cares more about absolute max overclocks vs. stability is unlikely to care that much about mega RAM configs anyway.

Ian.

 

[Arabian Knight]

Unfortunately, using 8 sticks means having to use 2T Command Rate. Also, the overclocks on the CPU will become unstable much more easily with 128GB of memory to address over two clock cycles. No thanks. This memory kit is exclusive to multimedia workstation PCs and not gaming systems.

Those are for Xeons only .. not for overclocking. you cant overclock a Xeon.