Is No-One Excited for DDR4?

Nope because of the price premium it's sure to carry. And the marginal benefits (MHZ and CAS are comparable to current DDR3 for initial release, based on what I've seen so far).
 
nope mobo upgrade cpu upgrades and to only get the marginal benefits.
 
Nope. Dont really care for things that only show up on synthetic benchmarks. Its also slated to cost 33% more than ddr3. Im going to go ahead and let you guys take the "L" on this one.
 
Tsumi said:
Nope because of the price premium it's sure to carry. And the marginal benefits (MHZ and CAS are comparable to current DDR3 for initial release, based on what I've seen so far).
Click to expand...

This
 
I'm itching for a CPU upgrade, and definitely going Haswell-E, so I'm kind of excited I guess. Crucial was reported to either be showing off DDR4-3000 or at least will be offering it in August/September (I can't remember, but I think it was on WCCFTech). 32GB of quad-channel DDR4-3000 sounds pretty appealing to me.
 
33% more is actually not a bad price imo. If the performance reflects the priceincrease I will be going for the new 2011 socket with the 6-core (not ready to put down more than 1000€ for an 8-core...).
 
If the performance reflects the priceincrease
Click to expand...

If history repeats itself initial DDR4 modules will be slower than DDR3 and cost more. Just like DDR2 was slower than DDR1 and DDR3 was slower than DDR2 after release.
 
I've been interested in it for quite a while now - mainly for the density increase, not so much speed. It baffles me that RAM standards themselves seem to set relatively low limits on maximum stick size. As far as I'm concerned you should have been able to do 64GB+ in a DDR2 machine as long as the manufacturing ability to make such memory dies exist. It's absolutely crazy to have to update a system solely because the memory standard inside of it doesn't allow for large enough memory sizes, even when large memory sizes could be manufactured.
 
Sure I am. I love progress but I have not been an early adopter in a long time so it will be at least a year till I get such a system.
 
What's the new max stick size? Hopefully we will be able to get >8GB sticks.
Click to expand...
Initially 16 GB per dimm however DDR4 is supposed to be 1 dimm per channel if you do not use switching circuitry on the motherboard.
 
I'm excited for DDR4 to come out so that I will have something to read about as the new standard will bring competition to the market over size, timing, and frequency. But, as drescherjm said, the launch models won't have many drooling.
 
Nope. I went from 800 MHz DDR2 to 1600 KHz DDR3 and noticed no difference at all. I'm sure there were boosts that would've shown up in benchmark graphs but there was nothing changed that I could perceive in actual real world use. Maybe it's just because I only use my PC for heavy gaming, internet and light photo work and there are some applications out there that I would've felt the difference but DDR4 isn't anything I'll be worked up about and probably won't be buying for a while.
 
silk186 said:
I'm excited for DDR4 to come out so that I will have something to read about as the new standard will bring competition to the market over size, timing, and frequency. But, as drescherjm said, the launch models won't have many drooling.
Click to expand...

Competition is created through competing companies, not through the creation of a new standard. DDR4 won't introduce any new competition that doesn't already exist in the DDR3 market, unless some new companies start selling DDR4 (not likely).
 
Tsumi said:
Competition is created through competing companies, not through the creation of a new standard. DDR4 won't introduce any new competition that doesn't already exist in the DDR3 market, unless some new companies start selling DDR4 (not likely).
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any improvements from DDR3 as it is a very mature product. DDR4 on the other hand will have lots of room to improve which allows for competition.
 
drescherjm said:
If history repeats itself initial DDR4 modules will be slower than DDR3 and cost more. Just like DDR2 was slower than DDR1 and DDR3 was slower than DDR2 after release.
Click to expand...

This, it will be no better than DDR3 for a while. It's one of those things that will get faster with time but I don't see the point right off the bat (and an 8 core CPU will be horribly expensive).
 
silk186 said:
I haven't seen any improvements from DDR3 as it is a very mature product. DDR4 on the other hand will have lots of room to improve which allows for competition.
Click to expand...

DDR4 will be manufactured exactly like DDR3, adhering to a certain JEDEC spec. Any "improvements" comes from binning.
 
I'm more interested in faster SSD's. Drive technology's slowness has been the bane of my existence since the 90's. We're finally seeing a big leap in speed. lets just hope we aren't stuck at 500mb/s rates for a long time. Yes PCI-e based units are faster, but I want consumer level prices at those speeds.
 
Last edited:
Ruffy said:
I'm more interested in faster SSD's. Drive technology's slowness has been the bane of my existence since the 90's. We're finally seeing a big leap in speed. lets just hope we aren't stuck at 500mb/s rates for a long time. Yes PCI-e based units are faster, but I want consumer level prices at those speeds.
Click to expand...

That'll take time. In the mean time, use RAID if you really need higher sequential speeds. Low queue depth random reads/writes (typical consumer usage needs) don't even exceed SATA II, let alone come close to maxing out SATA III. Enterprise has the money to buy the expensive stuff, so that hardly matters either.
 
I have never been excited about new RAM, its just something I buy when a CPU upgrade means its time to do it. Unfortunately for the industry, mobile and consoles that have resulted in completely stagnant application drive there is no reason to upgrade CPUs even if there was some software push you would still have the problem of intel producing CPUs that don't warrant a purchase when older CPUs can simply OC and be nearly as good as new ones. so there is no reason to care about DDR4.
 
Not only am I not excited about DDR4 I just did the unthinkable and pulled the trigger on some Mushkin 2800 Redline... Frikkin Masterpass code.
 
I believe we will have 32gb sticks (More gb per stick) but that's about the only thing to get excited for, from what i hear anyways.
 
What do you do that you need RAM to be faster? Seriously, does anyone do anything where DDR3 faster than 1333 MHz actually matters?
 
I won't be getting a new rig until Broadwell and Windows 9. (Full system, I'm in wait mode).
 
evilsofa said:
What do you do that you need RAM to be faster? Seriously, does anyone do anything where DDR3 faster than 1333 MHz actually matters?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... well 1333 is actually worse on Haswell than 1600 in general, but that's kind of a newer phenomenon, I guess. I was more just curious if DC had a better IMC. It didn't occur to me that moving to 2800 might be any worse... looks like 2400 is the sweetspot and anything above is a waste of money. The difference between 2400 and 1333 in games can be pretty massive, though. The 2800is the topspeed, I'm more interested in trying to get 2400Mhz running at CL9 or something crazy.
 
I'm not. I know some people here are excited for X99 which uses DDR4 though. I'm just going to end up using Z97 due to cost.
 
Bluesun311 said:
Hmmm... well 1333 is actually worse on Haswell than 1600 in general, but that's kind of a newer phenomenon, I guess. I was more just curious if DC had a better IMC. It didn't occur to me that moving to 2800 might be any worse... looks like 2400 is the sweetspot and anything above is a waste of money. The difference between 2400 and 1333 in games can be pretty massive, though. The 2800is the topspeed, I'm more interested in trying to get 2400Mhz running at CL9 or something crazy.
Click to expand...

Okay, I see it now:

http://anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell

On Haswell, memory speed matters a lot, just as you describe, for IGP gaming (no video card, CPU only for graphics). With a single video card, it matters not at all, and for multiple video cards, 1333 MHz isn't enough but 1600 MHz is.
 
It's for giggles, Sofa. You're right, of course. But I have seen other tests that show more dramatic differences. In that article they are using 6000 series AMD Gpus no? And either 1 or 3 which seems weird. The article has this "read all about it! Faster ram is slower!" Kinda slant to to it. I'm sure it's legit but overclocking is kinda like mountain climbing. They are both expensive pointless and can be exhilarating for some other idiot.
 
I am totally pumped, since x99 and DDR4 will make x79 prices drop as people upgrade, so I can then get a fast 8core Xeon and motherboard for less.
 
Given the rate at which I have been upgrading systems lately, I am looking forward to DDR5.
 
I am cause that means I can finally justify a complete system upgrade. I only upgrade my whole system with new ddr releases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top