I bought a 32GB kit of the Ballistix Sport VLP RAM when Haswell launched, hence those have been on the market for some time. They were also the second cheapest DDR3-1600 kit on Newegg at that time.
Not sure why they would need more tweaking, could you elaborate on why? Mine worked out of the box, and after that I left them on the XMP setting. The GB Z87 board even set the right 1.35 voltage to my surprise.
I picked these up for my ITX build using an AsRock Z87E. Ran into lots of problems with the system until I used the second XMP profile (1.5V instead of 1.35V). Others have reported similar problems with this board though, so I'm guessing it's something in the UEFI
I had that problem for a long while, until eventually they released a stable UEFI version for it. You should have no problem at 1.35V if you upgrade to the most recent one.
How much faster are they? I know the initial hype made it sound like they're 4x faster than DDR3 or something, but that was really compared to the *initial* batch of DDR, at much lower frequencies than it is today.
I think we're probably going to see the equivalent of DDR3 at 3200 Mhz at best when they first come out, if not lower than that. And it will probably cost at least twice as much as DDR3 at 2400 Mhz, while consuming roughly about the same power (at the higher speed).
According to wikipedia the first DDR4 modules will start at 2133 at 1.2V. So not as fast as current high end DDR3, but potentially cheaper (or price parity) and with lower power requirements.
Correct -- the modules on display at Crucial were DDR4-2133 1.2V, with the potential to go as high as DDR4-3200 for JEDEC spec, and probably quite a bit beyond that for unofficial speeds. We could also see lower voltage DDR4 modules, so maybe 1.1V or even 1.05V.
Would this lack of ambition, speed wise, suggest that future AMD APU's on a future plaftrom (FM3?), will require a wider memory bus (3x 64bit channels)?
Given that FM3 APU's are going to arrive with 6-8 cores, and 640-768 shaders, will a simple speed boost (i.e. slightly faster DDR4 modules), provide enough bandwidth to feed it properly?
Lack of ambition? This is how it's always been. When DDR2 came out, it was the same speed as top end DDR1 -- 333/400Mhz, when DDR3 came out it was the same speed as top end DDR2 -- 800/1066.
Just be patient, DDR4 will at first be more expensive and have little benefit besides the lower voltage/lower power. Over time it will be cheaper and faster, as the main production capacities are moved over to DDR4 from DDR3.
Quickly enough? Probably not. However AMD could re-introduce Sideport memory, but instead of using DDR3 memory on the motherboard they could throw GDDR5 memory at the problem.
But even if you compare low end DDR3 to high end DDR3, there is little difference is real world performance. And seeing how low end DDR3 is similar to DDR2, the upgrade was made simply to milk money. There wasn't a big enough difference in speed/performance to justify the upgrade back then and they are doing it again.
Thank god this is the last time we will see DDR, after this iteration (DDR4) it will be replaced with something else.
I'm pretty sure AMD will stick with DDR3 for at least another year -- they've traditionally let Intel lead the charge on memory transitions. Short-term, DDR4 isn't a huge bump in performance, but eventually it will scale far beyond where the best DDR3 modules are running. Adding more RAM channels also requires more pins on the socket and traces on the motherboard, so going triple-channel or quad-channel boosts memory bandwidth but also increases overall platform cost. This is why Intel continues to stick with dual-channel for their mainstream platforms and only the high-end platforms (LGA1366, LGA2011) have gone tri/quad-channel. Since AMD has more or less abandoned the race for the fastest CPUs these days, it seems even less likely that they'll be pushing tri-channel RAM any time soon. But...they might prove my guesses wrong.
that's what i think was wrong with some reporting in regards to ddr4: some writers make it seem as if ddr4 would just double the speeds of ddr3, when in reality they are much more likely to just take up where ddr3-specs stop.
DDR4 has one major disadvantage compare to DDR3. It can be only one module per channel. It means dual channel CPU will have only two stick of RAM. So upgrades of memory will be difficult. Need to buy all new RAM sticks.
Well, nothing has stopped manufacturers from only offering two slots on a motherboard before, and DIMMs can be rather large in capacity, but that does take away from being able to put lesser capacities in more slots to make up for it.
DDR4's main immediate benefit is a reduction in power usage; I doubt we'll see faster memory for a while and it certainly won't be cheap when it comes. An HTPC with two equal sticks of DDR4 could cut down on power nicely, but if you wanted more capacity, you'd need to replace the pair...
More than anything, I think this suggests DDR4 will start on servers and high-end enthusiast platforms where they can either go quad-channel, or use registered DIMMs to handle more than one DDR4 DIMM per channel.
Does anyone know the CAS timings we can expect from DDR4? Can we expect 9-9-9 for the 2400mhz ones, or are they expected to go up or down generally speaking?
You can expect all the timings to continue to be the same or go up significantly. Broadly speaking the difference between SDR, DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 has been in a faster data bus and more ram chip multiplexing on the dimm not in faster dram chips clock speeds. Since the clock speed of the dram chips is about the same as before but the data bus is running twice as fast it will take about twice as many clock cycles on the data bus (what the CL and other numbers in timing are) to cover the same amount of time on the ram chips.
So I guess my dream of getting some cas 1.5 memory someday, is out of the question? I can't remember if it was some Sdram modules or original DDR .. but I had some cas 2/2/2 stuff and I had always hoped I could get that down even lower for some 3dmark runs.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
29 Comments
Back to Article
Kougar - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
I bought a 32GB kit of the Ballistix Sport VLP RAM when Haswell launched, hence those have been on the market for some time. They were also the second cheapest DDR3-1600 kit on Newegg at that time.Not sure why they would need more tweaking, could you elaborate on why? Mine worked out of the box, and after that I left them on the XMP setting. The GB Z87 board even set the right 1.35 voltage to my surprise.
YazX_ - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
seems not all mainboards include XMP profile for them, Z67 and Z77, not sure though.MrSpadge - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
The memory provides the XMP profile so the mainboard uses it, not the other way around.cgalyon - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
I picked these up for my ITX build using an AsRock Z87E. Ran into lots of problems with the system until I used the second XMP profile (1.5V instead of 1.35V). Others have reported similar problems with this board though, so I'm guessing it's something in the UEFIjhoff80 - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
I had that problem for a long while, until eventually they released a stable UEFI version for it. You should have no problem at 1.35V if you upgrade to the most recent one.Krysto - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
How much faster are they? I know the initial hype made it sound like they're 4x faster than DDR3 or something, but that was really compared to the *initial* batch of DDR, at much lower frequencies than it is today.I think we're probably going to see the equivalent of DDR3 at 3200 Mhz at best when they first come out, if not lower than that. And it will probably cost at least twice as much as DDR3 at 2400 Mhz, while consuming roughly about the same power (at the higher speed).
hechacker1 - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
According to wikipedia the first DDR4 modules will start at 2133 at 1.2V. So not as fast as current high end DDR3, but potentially cheaper (or price parity) and with lower power requirements.JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
Correct -- the modules on display at Crucial were DDR4-2133 1.2V, with the potential to go as high as DDR4-3200 for JEDEC spec, and probably quite a bit beyond that for unofficial speeds. We could also see lower voltage DDR4 modules, so maybe 1.1V or even 1.05V.R3MF - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Re: DDR4-2133Would this lack of ambition, speed wise, suggest that future AMD APU's on a future plaftrom (FM3?), will require a wider memory bus (3x 64bit channels)?
Given that FM3 APU's are going to arrive with 6-8 cores, and 640-768 shaders, will a simple speed boost (i.e. slightly faster DDR4 modules), provide enough bandwidth to feed it properly?
Thanks
extide - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Lack of ambition? This is how it's always been. When DDR2 came out, it was the same speed as top end DDR1 -- 333/400Mhz, when DDR3 came out it was the same speed as top end DDR2 -- 800/1066.Just be patient, DDR4 will at first be more expensive and have little benefit besides the lower voltage/lower power. Over time it will be cheaper and faster, as the main production capacities are moved over to DDR4 from DDR3.
Jedibeeftrix - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
i'm speaking from the point of view of AMD's bandwidth requirements.i have no doubt ddr4 will get faster, but quickly enough...?
StevoLincolnite - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
Quickly enough? Probably not.However AMD could re-introduce Sideport memory, but instead of using DDR3 memory on the motherboard they could throw GDDR5 memory at the problem.
Babar Javied - Sunday, May 25, 2014 - link
But even if you compare low end DDR3 to high end DDR3, there is little difference is real world performance. And seeing how low end DDR3 is similar to DDR2, the upgrade was made simply to milk money. There wasn't a big enough difference in speed/performance to justify the upgrade back then and they are doing it again.Thank god this is the last time we will see DDR, after this iteration (DDR4) it will be replaced with something else.
R3MF - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Re: my question above -does the one dimm per channel of DDR4 make this possibility more likely in your opinion?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
I'm pretty sure AMD will stick with DDR3 for at least another year -- they've traditionally let Intel lead the charge on memory transitions. Short-term, DDR4 isn't a huge bump in performance, but eventually it will scale far beyond where the best DDR3 modules are running. Adding more RAM channels also requires more pins on the socket and traces on the motherboard, so going triple-channel or quad-channel boosts memory bandwidth but also increases overall platform cost. This is why Intel continues to stick with dual-channel for their mainstream platforms and only the high-end platforms (LGA1366, LGA2011) have gone tri/quad-channel. Since AMD has more or less abandoned the race for the fastest CPUs these days, it seems even less likely that they'll be pushing tri-channel RAM any time soon. But...they might prove my guesses wrong.Jedibeeftrix - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
cheers Jarred.fokka - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
that's what i think was wrong with some reporting in regards to ddr4: some writers make it seem as if ddr4 would just double the speeds of ddr3, when in reality they are much more likely to just take up where ddr3-specs stop.Tristimulus - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
DDR4 has one major disadvantage compare to DDR3. It can be only one module per channel.It means dual channel CPU will have only two stick of RAM.
So upgrades of memory will be difficult. Need to buy all new RAM sticks.
lmcd - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
And that is probably why we don't have DDR4 on Kaveri.silverblue - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Well, nothing has stopped manufacturers from only offering two slots on a motherboard before, and DIMMs can be rather large in capacity, but that does take away from being able to put lesser capacities in more slots to make up for it.DDR4's main immediate benefit is a reduction in power usage; I doubt we'll see faster memory for a while and it certainly won't be cheap when it comes. An HTPC with two equal sticks of DDR4 could cut down on power nicely, but if you wanted more capacity, you'd need to replace the pair...
R3MF - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
does this make it more likely that we'll see more memory channels in future AMD APU's (see my question to Jarred above)?JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
More than anything, I think this suggests DDR4 will start on servers and high-end enthusiast platforms where they can either go quad-channel, or use registered DIMMs to handle more than one DDR4 DIMM per channel.davidthemaster30 - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
I wonder if the Baliistix VLP will overclock as well a the Samsung Green RAM (MV-3V4G3D)?MrSpadge - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Hurray for low voltage DDR3-1600 with heat spreaders. Sure it's nice they're low profile, but they're absolutely not needed at all.Kakti - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
Does anyone know the CAS timings we can expect from DDR4? Can we expect 9-9-9 for the 2400mhz ones, or are they expected to go up or down generally speaking?DanNeely - Friday, January 24, 2014 - link
You can expect all the timings to continue to be the same or go up significantly. Broadly speaking the difference between SDR, DDR1, DDR2, and DDR3 has been in a faster data bus and more ram chip multiplexing on the dimm not in faster dram chips clock speeds. Since the clock speed of the dram chips is about the same as before but the data bus is running twice as fast it will take about twice as many clock cycles on the data bus (what the CL and other numbers in timing are) to cover the same amount of time on the ram chips.This article from when DDR3 launched can help add more detail if you're interested (the same logic applies as did with the DDR2-3 transition):
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Everything-...
just4U - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link
So I guess my dream of getting some cas 1.5 memory someday, is out of the question? I can't remember if it was some Sdram modules or original DDR .. but I had some cas 2/2/2 stuff and I had always hoped I could get that down even lower for some 3dmark runs.eeshgarg - Tuesday, February 4, 2014 - link
Why does the DDR3 not work properly when we reduce or increase the CAS Latency ?marcgr - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link
Those Crucial DDR4 modules are available for purchase on their website now. There's just one or two things that you have to watch out for... Read more: http://blogs.synopsys.com/committedtomemory/2014/0...