Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
AMD Data Storage Hardware Technology

G.SKILL Hits 4500MHz With All-New Trident Z DDR4-4333MHz 16GB Memory Kit ( 72

BrianFagioli quotes a report from BetaNews: G.SKILL is a respected RAM maker, and the company is constantly pushing the envelope. Today, it announced a new DDR4-4333MHz 16GB Memory Kit (2x8GB) -- the first ever. While that alone is very cool, the company is bragging about what it accomplished with it -- an overclock that hit 4500MHz using an Intel Core i5-7600K processor paired with an ASUS ROG Maximus IX Apex motherboard. Pricing and availability for this kit is unknown at this time. With that said, it will probably be quite expensive. What we do know, however, its that the insane overclock to 4500MHz is for real. This was achieved using timings of CL19-19-19-39 in dual channel, which resulted in read/write of 55/65GB/s and copy speed of 52GB/s.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

G.SKILL Hits 4500MHz With All-New Trident Z DDR4-4333MHz 16GB Memory Kit

Comments Filter:
  • by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Saturday April 15, 2017 @06:23AM (#54239157) Journal

    I had no idea.
    Also that's some criminally fast memory, shame they are only 8GB sticks and shame it's about 70% more expensive than it was 7 months ago.

    I'm literally not upgrading anything due to this, I can take 20% but this has become ridiculous. Count me out of the upgrade game.

    • by MeanE ( 469971 )
      You are not kidding! I had no idea. I am in Canada so the problem is also compounded by our decreasing dollar. The 64GB of memory I purchased a year ago is over double the price it was.
  • by Pikoro ( 844299 )

    Why does this have an AMD tag on it. It's an i5.

    • Probably because high-clocked DDR4 is relevant for Ryzen owners?
      • This kit is only going to get that speed on one very specific ASUS Maximus Apex motherboard, which is Intel specific.

        • by Khyber ( 864651 )

          Please. I can take the same memory to another motherboard and fuck with the bus manually to overclock it. Don't you know how to bit-bang-bus, old timer?

      • by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

        not really, ryzen doesnt scale well past a point, that point being around 2900-3200 ish

        • by wjcofkc ( 964165 )
        • That's not very different from the diminishing return of adding memory channels, but since "consumer" Zens have only two, anything requiring heavier memory traffic needs at least faster channels if it can't simply get more of them. Whether or not a particular workload benefits from either of these options is an entirely different matter.
    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      As for AMD benefiting from faster RAM, sure, but Intel does too, sometimes more.

    • Re:AMD? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wjcofkc ( 964165 ) on Saturday April 15, 2017 @08:55AM (#54239443)
      The very first sentence in the article talks about AMD Ryzen taking advantage of DDR4 on the AM4 chipset platform. The only reference to the i5 is a statement that an i5 platform was used to overclock the memory to 4500Mhz. At the end of the article the question is posed as to how much this type of kit will cost while also referring again the 4500Mhz overlocking.

      So it's basically awkwardly written article with a summary that is trying its best.

      I just wonder why they used an i5 setup for the overclocking and not an i7 (or Ryzen). I suppose there must be some super special i5 only motherboard out there that makes it possible? This should have be explained in the article.
    • There's been several videos/articles showing Ryzen (their new CPU) closing it's gaps with Intel when RAM was overclocked; even if you run the same overclock on Intel hardware.
      • by wjcofkc ( 964165 )
        Citation please.
        • Citation please.

          Every benchmarker on the planet. Go youtube em?

          But it is not the ram but WIndows 10 scheduler bug. Under WIndows 7 it doesn't have this problem. Basically what is hurting Ryzen and handing the crown to Intel for games is due to the CXX NUMA architecture which it calls Infinity Fabric.

          Basically a Ryzen is really a server oriented chip with 2 4 cores. Not 8. Cache is shared only on 4 cores each. Windows 10 spins all the freaking threads like a merry go round to the cores for power management so cell phones an

  • by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Saturday April 15, 2017 @06:53AM (#54239207)

    Back in the old days, RAM was clocked at the same speed as the CPU, so RAM could be accessed with a minimum of wait cycles. Then speeds diverged, making various levels of cache necessary.
    Does the advertised 4.2 GHz speed mean we're back to RAM that's synchronized with the CPU? Or is the issue more complex than that? The 19-19-19-39 timing mentioned suggests that it is, but TFA is light on detail.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Everything in computers is only fast when "streaming". It's the same for CPUs, RAM, graphics, network, mass storage: Everything is pipelined. Fast processing requires avoiding random access, because there's latency everywhere.

    • It's also 4.2 GHz "data speed" as multiple bits are sent on a single clock cycle, hence I think it's running at 1.05 GHz.

      So let's say a 1ns cycle time and the timings suggest latency might be a bit under 20-40 ns although who knows how the numbers have to be added up or not.

      It adds up I think, consider the distance traveled, memory controller and CPU memory hierarchy the CPU-to-RAM latency may be something like 50 to 70 ns very roughly.

      L1 cache still is well over 10x faster.

    • Then speeds diverged, making various levels of cache necessary.

      It is not the difference in clock rate that necessitated the use of cache, it is the latency. The physical constraints of having memory located on a DIMM external to the CPU result in unavoidable latency. Once you implement a cache to get around the latency, the CPU speed and memory speed are no longer linked. Introducing memory that runs at the same speed does nothing to change this - you are still using a cache to avoid the latency.

  • I'm waiting for the prices on DDR3 memory modules to drop. On a related note, prices on DDR2 memory modules have dropped since the introduction of DDR4 memory modules. Hmm...
  • A small correction (Score:5, Informative)

    by Artem Tashkinov ( 764309 ) on Saturday April 15, 2017 @08:37AM (#54239395) Homepage

    G.Skill does not manufacture the memory dies, it purchases the memory dies and assembles them into a DIMM memory module ready for sale to customers - Wikipedia.

    Which means that technically they are assembling memory modules, instead of producing them from start to finish.

    There are just four companies in the world which actually produce memory chips and they are: Micron (Crucial), Samsung, Hynix, and Toshiba.

  • I recently built a new computer, something I don't do very often (every 5 years~ and I got lazy last time and got a prebuilt, so it's been a while).

    First, RAM speed barely makes a difference for most people since not everyone is editing videos all day (and in games it barely does anything).

    Then, these kits only reach these speeds with the timings properly setup, on the right motherboards/cpu combo (even if all your hardware is advertised as being compatible with the speeds). Often only if you only use 2 chi

    • I think you have it wrong, video encoding only cares about megaflops pretty much while games react more to memory latency, or more precisely the whole { L1 + L2 + L3 + memory }.

      Of course, the über RAM is silly with as you say the extreme frequencies hardly properly working but eventually when RAM will cost say (dummy prices) $103 for DDR 2133, $103 for DDR 2400 and $107 for DDR 3200 you should take the 3200 pretty obviously.

      • by Shados ( 741919 )

        Fair enough :) Thus the n00b trap (I'm a noob), where it's pretty hard to figure out what it will actually do.

        When I was looking at benchmark for DDR4 RAM, most showed no real improvement in most games, but some drastic improvement in certain high end photoshop or 3d rendering tasks ::shrugs::

        Either way, you really have to know what you're doing if you're buying something above 3200~

        • Games differ a lot between them, they can also be where you need a +5% performance the most (even though you can really barely see it)

          Yes "useful" photoshop-like tasks vary as well. Benchmark quality and selection varies.

          Also generally, for games you might want 4 or 6 cores at 4GHz (or more Hz if possible and cheap), if you're a professional doing media or server/dev things you might like 16 cores at 2.7GHz better (say), have more memory channels and you don't give much of a shit about RAM speed.

    • RAM speed does make a difference in some games; Arma 3 will run about 20% faster using DDR4 3000 RAM versus DDR4 2133. Fallout 4 is also rather sensitive to memory speeds as well. Still, going beyond 3200 mhz RAM seems to have some seriously diminishing returns, and isn't worth it.
  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Saturday April 15, 2017 @12:20PM (#54240011)

    Wake me up when RAM speed has any noticeable effect on real world performance.

    Besides,all they're doing to get this, is overclocking standard slower speed memory on a tester then binning the individual chips accordingly. You aren't getting RAM that was actually made to go this fast, whcih brings a LOT of reliability questions up.

    Personally I'd rather have good reliability than a slightly higher score on benchmarks that you'll never notice in real life.

    • Say, you run games on a Ryzen CPU, on a 1080p 144Hz or higher monitor so small framerate difference don't go to waste.
      You can notice it in very specific situations like that.

      With early motherboard revisions, early BIOS, first gen CPU you might be almost certain the stupid overclocked speeds won't run though.
      This story about 4500 MHz RAM is really pointless right now, the only way it's interesting is it signals that in the long run, you might/should have reliable and fairly affordable memory at 3600 or even

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      RAM speed affects Ryzen quite a bit. For some reason parts of the CPU internal bus are linked to RAM clock speed, and benchmarks show quite big gains in some applications.

      • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        Thanks. I just read that as yet another reason to avoid AMD.

      • THat is due to the WIndows 10 schedular bug which clears out the L3 cache forcing it to constantly reload. Intels share the same L3 cache for all cores. If that bug is fixed ram speed on AMD won't be so critical

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure