Mainstream DDR5 Memory Modules Pictured, Rolling Out For Mass Production & Coming To Intel & AMD’s Next-Gen Platforms Soon!

[CommanderAlex]

Great article, was going to write about it last night but decided not to...maybe a different title to give where credit is due to the original source though???

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, porina said:

Got a reference for that? I don't think I've ever seen that figure expressed in this context. I did wonder if the enterprise parts had full bandwidth both ways, and if so, the combined bidirectional bandwidth could equal that.

I did but I closed it and I suspect it was wrong. I missed it the first time on my more trusted source which is why I went looking elsewhere but I found what I was looking for on that trusted source.

 

Quote

The GMI2 interface extends the scalable data fabric from the I/O die to the CCDs, presumably a bi-directional 32-lane IFOP link comparable to the die-to-die links in first and second generation EPYC and Threadripper processors. According to AMD the die-to-die bandwidth increased from 16 B read + 16 B write to 32 B read + 16 B write per fclk.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/microarchitectures/zen_2

 

Quote

Due to the performance sensitivity of the on-package links, the IFOP links are over-provisioned by about a factor of two relative to DDR4 channel bandwidth for mixed read/write traffic. They are bidirectional links and a CRC is transmitted along with every cycle of data. The IFOP SerDes do four transfers per CAKE clock.

 

Since the CAKEs operate at the same frequency as the DRAM's MEMCLK frequency, the bandwidth is fully dependent on that. For a system using DDR4-2666 DIMMs, this means the CAKEs will be operating at 1333.33 MHz meaning the IFOPs will have a bi-directional bandwidth of 42.667 GB/s (= 16B per clock per direction).

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/infinity_fabric#IFOP

 

With the Zen 2 IF and memory improvement that means the read bandwidth is 50GB/s and write 25GB/s, I think that other source did 50x2 

[PianoPlayer88Key]

My big concern with DDR5 isn't so much getting much faster memory (although that would be nice too); but I really need much higher capacities.

 

 

 

An approximate reverse-timeline of the RAM usage of the main daily driver systems I've used at home):
(year-mo is start)

• 2019-05 = 64GB = DDR4-2133 in my Clevo P750DM-G laptop
• 2016-10 = 40GB = DDR4-2133 in my Clevo P750DM-G laptop (got it with 8GB in 2015-12)
• 2015-02 = 32GB = DDR3-1600 in my 4790K desktop (i7-4790K, Z97 Extreme6, etc)
• 2015-01 = 16GB = DDR3-1600 in my 4790K desktop
• ~2012-03 = 2GB = DDR2-667 in dad's Dell D830 laptop (Core 2 Duo T7250) (my 2008 desktop's motherboard had died, I didn't have the $ to build another PC)
• 2009-04 = 3GB = DDR2-800 in my A64X2-4K desktop (Athlon 64X2 4000+, GA-MA69G-S3H, etc) (actually had 4GB, but 32-bit Windows limited to 3GB)
• 2008-02 = 2GB = DDR2-800 in my A64X2-4K desktop
• 2002-02 = 256MB = DDR PC2100 in dad's Athlon 1.4GHz / K7T266 Pro2 desktop
• 1999-03 = 64MB = in dad's Pentium 166 desktop (older brother had bought it in 1998-02, then sold it to dad; bro's invoice mentions Simm 4Mx32-60 72-pin, 2 @ $32.5 for $65 total)
• ~1995 ~ 8MB? (or 4 or 16 idk) = in dad's 486DX4-120 desktop (one invoice on 1995-08-19 mentions "Qty 1: 1x36-70 (12) $141.00")
• 1989-01 = 640KB = in dad's 286-10 desktop

Basically the main jumps were:

• 1995 (vs 1989): 12.8x (8MB / 640KB -- I'm assuming 1995 was 8MB)
• 1999 (vs 1995): 8x (64MB / 8MB)
• 2002 (vs 1999): 4x (256MB / 64MB)
• 2008 (vs 2002): 8x (2GB / 256MB)
• 2015 (vs 2012): 16x (32GB / 2GB)
  • alternately: 2016/2012: 20x (40/2) or 2019/2012: 32x (64/2)

 

My current daily driver is the Clevo laptop with 64GB, and I still have and use the 4790K desktop across the room with 32GB.

 

I want my next system to have at least as big of a jump over my current one, as some of the bigger previous jumps I've had -- and that's BEFORE considering registered / buffered memory or more than 4 DIMMs.

 

For me, 512GB RAM would be a bare minimum, and I'd really like 1 or 2 TB RAM (more if I get registered ECC which I want support for, or 8 or more DIMM slots).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To try to make my post appear a little shorter, I've put the rest, including comments / quotes, in a spoiler.  (There's quite a bit in there...)

 

Spoiler

 

 

5 hours ago, SorryClaire said:

And built in ECC too, fuck me this bad boy is gonna be leaps and bounds faster & stronger than DDR4 in the later version.

 

3 hours ago, porina said:

Just remember not all ECC is equal. DDR5 will come with chip level ECC as standard, presumably to help with yields at higher speeds and capacity. much in the same way SSDs use ECC so minor defects can be tolerated. Module level ECC will still be a separate option.

Also ECC will be an absolute requirement for me.  I'm glad DDR5 at least supports some sort of ECC, although comments about chip vs module level ECC make me concerned about some platforms still not properly supporting it (like consumer Intel chipsets like my laptop's Z170 or desktop's Z97 don't support ECC on DDR4/3).

Also support for registered ECC would be really nice so I can have even higher capacities.  Any ideas of NON-MARKETING/SEGMENTING reasons why consumer platforms don't support registered ECC?

(Also I think I've heard somewhere that older consumer platforms, like 1990s era or so, did support some kind of ECC or parity, but I don't have sources on that, other than maybe remembering something the other Linus may have said in a post a while ago, but I don't remember where that was.)

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Abyssal Radon said:

Oh goodie, good thing I've been holding onto my 1st gen. DDR4 platform for all of these years lol. Well, assuming there aren't any hardware issues at hand, I'll be patient and grab some DDR5 ram along with whatever Intel or AMD releases that suits my need's. 10GHz ram speeds is ridiculous... 

 

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

You people and your modern systems 

 

3 hours ago, porina said:

I still have one DDR3 era system also with 2400 modules in them, but I don't think the rated latencies are that tight. Compare it with DDR4 of similar speed, that latency is tight though. Without looking it up, I think DDR3 did get defined to 2400, but probably not at those latencies  

My current desktop (i7-4790K, Z97 Extreme6) is near last-gen DDR3-1600, CL9, laptop (daily driver, Clevo P750DM-G, i7-6700K, Z170) is first-gen DDR4-2133 CL15.

I've been waiting for DDR5 to upgrade, as I don't like frequent motherboard replacements.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Also, without looking up the dates, DDR4 had a good run. I don't know if it stuck around longer than expected like PCIe 3.0, with 4.0 having a short existence and 5.0 already looming on the horizon.

 

I think DDR3 was out around 2008 or so, maybe 2009 or 2007, idk.  I built a DDR2 (800, CL5) system around Feb 2008, but I think DDR3 may have been trickling out around then, idk.  (My dad's 2002 system used DDR / PC2100, not sure of the timing.)

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

DDR5 also has 2 independent channels so effective memory access latencies are going to be lower which in many cases is more important than a wider bus with more raw bandwidth. And it's not like increasing ram bus width would be too much of an issue motherboard wise as you'd just remove the ability to use 4 slots on mainstream (2DPC) and when it comes to HEDT and server well those have been managing up to 8 channels per socket anyway so I don't think it'll be much of an issue really.

I've sometimes wondered why we don't see 3 or 4 DIMMs per channel, for higher capacities, at least on consumer platform.  (I think I've seen some DDR3 era server boards that had 24 DIMM slots with 2 CPU sockets, which if I'm doing the math right, would be 3 DPC. (24 dimms / 2 sockets = 12 dimms / 4 channels = 3 DPC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

I think it's just not that attractive to increase the bus width as it'll actually increase latencies and that is not appealing at all. Personally I think that is where HBM fits in and we shouldn't really try and blur those lines, however it's far to impractical to utilize HBM with CPUs and system memory as it is right now. Ideally memory pages could be moved to where it's best for the workload and with memory management hints assistance data loaded in to HBM in time for computation.

 

1 hour ago, porina said:

I look forward to the confusion that will bring when people talk about modules and channels... and as always if a particular workload is more affected by bandwidth and/or latency will vary, but bandwidth is the more easily addressable bottleneck compared to latency, which has remained roughly constant through the DDR generations. I think the splitting to twice as many half as wide channels might only benefit heavily random access workloads and it'll be interesting to see how that works. I'm sure the usual tech sites will try to do some kind of DDR4 vs DDR5 test, depending on what platform options are available at the time. Skylake supported DDR3 and DDR4 for example so there was some of that testing at the time.

 

I'd really hate to think of the impact using HBM would have on general CPU use cases. Latency is horrible by design (low clock, very wide bus), it is geared towards bandwidth. Too far in one direction for a general use case.

 

Early talk of DDR5 modules will likely be to JEDEC standard timings. The vast majority of enthusiast marketed DDR4 modules do not run at standard timings, but are set much tighter. So, again compare like with like. I'm sure enthusiast modules will follow with more aggressive timings.

Another thing ... any ideas why memory latency has generally gotten looser over the past several generations?
As mentioned earlier, my DDR4 is CL15, DDR3 is CL9, and DDR2 was CL5.
And I don't recall the specs for older RAM, like DDR, SDRAM, 72/30-pin SIMMs, or the DIP chips used on 8086 / 286 era motherboards.
Oh and I wonder how far we've come since then on bandwidths ... for example, is the fastest interface in the early 1980s (i don't think they had Level 1 CPU cache as we know it, but sequential on whatever it was), slower than slowest thing today in 2021 (random on a 5400rpm SMR hard drive or a DRAMless QLC SATA SSD with no SLC/MLC cache, or a basic internet / network connection, or USB drive, or ... hey I think you can still get 3.5" USB floppy drives but that's probably taking it TOO far)?

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, porina said:

Maybe it'll make some kind of sense if everyone ran CPUs with so many cores they start to look more like GPUs as we know them today.

 

THIS is another thing I'd like to see, too.

There are things I try to do on my current system that take many orders of magnitude longer to do than I would like, and I would like to slash that with my next system.

 

A couple examples:

• just loading some things, or doing some relatively simple tasks, can take several minutes or maybe almost an hour, whereas I'd like to be able to accomplish several of those every few seconds (doing multiple things at once).  (Yeah, I'm sure they'd be much faster today on an optimized system with a clean install of Windows / Linux, and only doing 1 task at a time, but I do a LOT of multitasking, and it's too much hassle to rip apart and rebuild my OS installs.)
• Transcoding videos: in one test I did a while back on my 4790K system, it took FOUR DAYS to transcode a 4-minute video to HEVC / H.265, q=0, all I-frames in Handbrake.  (Another test I did recently on the same system took 1 hour to transcode each minute of footage although I may have used different settings or a different version of Handbrake, and a screenshot from another test in-between said that it was 1 day in, about 5+ hours remaining, in transcoding a 2:36 video - both to maxed out H.265.)
• sometimes I've had LibreOffice Calc freeze up for hours at a time (like when accidentally calculating an ENTIRE 1048576 cell column), when I wish it could be done in only a few seconds or maybe a minute or two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Other than that like every DDR generation switch over, never buy in to the first product cycle iteration if you are looking for best performance as often it's only as good as or slightly worse than the best of the last generation. Just wait a bit and check reviews until you know it's better than what came before.

As mentioned earlier, I've been waiting for DDR5 to upgrade from my DDR3 desktop.  I'm planning to wait for the 2nd generation DDR3 though, not jump on the very first thing that comes out.

As of now, hoping to upgrade around late 2022 (for example November 25 if I can get some good deals).  A couple years ago, when I knew that AM4 was going to be supported through 2020, I had thought I might upgrade as early as 2021, but that's looking very unlikely now.

Also it's starting to look like it may slip into 2023 (or 2024 cause I wasn't really wanting to do a full system upgrade in "2023"), but if it slips TOO far, I'd be concerned about short platform longevity.
I basically want a long  CPU and RAM upgrade life on my next motherboard.  The last 2 desktops I built were built near the end of the cycle, and they didn't have hardly anything in the way of upgrades available, especially my Z97 system.

My 2015 desktop (and laptop) are both Intel-based systems (as well as my dad's 2008 laptop that I used from 2012-2014).  My 2008 desktop was AMD as well as dad's 2002 desktop, his 1999/1998 desktop was Intel, 1995 was AMD, 1989 was Intel.

 

I'm strongly leaning toward AMD on my next one.  I was originally thinking Ryzen / AM5, but I'm getting even more concerned that we won't have a unified socket.

(I remember when I was first hearing about AM4, they were talking about unifying AM3 vs FM2+, 1 socket covering both .... but then TR4, TRX40, SP3, etc. also exist so....  )

 

One thing I would love to be able to do would be invest in a fairly nice (~$200-400 or so) motherboard, then start off with like a $40-100 Athlon / Sempron / Ryzen 3 APU (cause I blew the rest of my budget on other things), then maybe a year or 2 later upgrade to a ~$250-350 Ryzen 7 or 9 .... then every few years or so after that, upgrade again (with maybe a Threadripper thrown in here and there) .... then the final upgrade would be a few years after the platform's EOL, when I would have gotten the top-of-the-line (or a step down) Epyc (or 2 if I had a dual-socket motherboard) via fire-sale on eBay, then hang onto that until DDR7 or DDR8 is out.

It wouldn't be the first time I blew my budget and had to defer some purchases.  When I built my current desktop in January 2015, I had to wait until November 2016 to get a GPU (GTX 1060 3GB) so had to use the iGPU.  With my laptop (December 2015), I prioritized storage capacity (2TB HDD) / upgradeability (2 2.5" 9.5mm bays, 2 M.2 slots), so had to settle for an i3-6100 and 8GB RAM until October/November 2016 (i7-6700K, 40GB RAM).  I more recently upgraded to 64GB RAM, and the 2TB HDD started giving me issues so that got replaced with a couple 1TB SSDs.... I now have a 1TB & 2TB Silicon Power P34A80 NVMe, a 1TB WD Blue 3D 2.5" (boot) & 2TB Seagate Barracuda 2.5" SSDs in there.

 

I basically hate replacing motherboards any more often than I have to, in part because of the extensive labor involved especially when you have a lot of things connected to it.  (I wish CPU sockets and DIMM form factors could be standardized, like we've had with PCI Express, USB, SATA, 4-pin Molex, QWERTY, etc.)  I'd prefer to replace my then-purchased 12-year-warranty Seasonic Prime PSU a few times because it died of old age (death during warranty = "infant mortality" - i've used many older non-computer products that outlived their warranties like 10-20x or more, maybe 50x+), before I replace the motherboard.

 

I'd also like an OS that supports much longer uptimes, and a platform that's better at recovering from crashes, or from hangs / freezes.  Maybe a core or 2 could be reserved for administrative tasks, so that when the system locks up, you could still go in and kill the offending task, or undo actions, or whatever.  Then hopefully I could avoid this situation I recently had.  (I ended up rebooting, and losing a few months worth of untitled projects.  (untitled = unsaved, cause I didn't know what to name them cause ... aaahh ... too much clutter on my PC and brain!)

 

Also I'd really like the upgrades to be much bigger per generation than they have been in recent years.  (I have a hunch the 1980s to early 2000s were faster per generation than even recent upgrades since AMD tried to light a under Intel's .

 

I had been thinking my next desktop should be as much faster than my 4790K, as my dad's 486DX4-120 was faster than his 286-10, but even that might not be enough.  (Also there was a big price/performance improvement too ... idk how much his 286-10 CPU cost by itself in January 1989 - the board+CPU+RAM+case+PSU+keyboard combo was $939, but the AMD DX4-120 was $102 in October 1995.)

If I calculated based on comparing #s of generations....

 

     0. i7-4790K (Haswell Refresh / Devil's Canyon) ~ 8086

1. Broadwell ~ 286
2. Skylake ~ 386
3. Kaby Lake / Zen ~ 486
4. Coffee Lake / Zen+ ~ Pentium
5. Coffee Lake Refresh / Zen 2 ~ Pentium II
6. Comet Lake / Zen 3 ~ Pentium III
7. Rocket Lake / Zen 3+ ~ Pentium 4
8. Alder Lake / Zen 4 ~ Core2
9. ? Lake / Zen 5 ~ Nehalem

Basically if my next upgrade could be as big of a jump as Nehalem over 8086 (or Sandy Bridge over 286) that'd be nice.

 

Also, as mentioned earlier, I need support for a LOT of RAM ... like a few TB or so, although I'll probably start with only 256 or 512 GB.  Some thing I'm seeing make me concerned that DDR5 modules would top out at 128GB per unbuffered DIMM, which would mean only 512GB on a 4-slot consumer board.
I may end up going HEDT / server platform anyway though, but if I did I'd want support for like 16 or 32 TB RAM (or more) when / if I upgrade to that several years down the road.
I do *NOT* want whatever happens to be already available when the platform is released, to be pretty much the max it  can take (or only a tiny bump more ... like my Z97 Extreme6 would support the i7-5775C, but it's not really an upgrade over the 4790K, and the 32GB RAM it supported at launch was the max it ever supported).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Franck]

5 hours ago, Chiyawa said:

Hmm... 10GHz might be far fetch. Even the consumer CPU's memory controller can hardly reach that insane frequency.

 

With that said, I think 10GHz is probably not going to happen any time soon (if not ever in DDR5). But depends, maybe DDR5 life cycle last a decade, and then we can see more and more DDR5 RAM running at 10GHz. Still, for our current situation, it doesn't really give us a lot of benefits.

Your maybe too young to remember ram used to always be 15x - 20x the FSB. And the problem is not the speed as much as how many can access and request information. With more and more core the problem become more apparent.

[CTR640]

I'm a stinky peasant with DDR3 and at what speed? I have no fucking idea lol

[RejZoR]

EVERYONE: 10 GHz DDR5

JEDEC: 3200 MHz will do

 

[da na]

Here I am with my DDR3 1333...

Also is it just me or are the actual chips on there tiny?

[TheCoder2019]

Just now, wat3rmelon_man2 said:

Here I am with my DDR3 1333...

Also is it just me or are the actual chips on there tiny?

They're... small.

 

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

EVERYONE: 10 GHz DDR5

JEDEC: 3200 MHz will do

 

yeah I'm fine staying DDR4

[pas008]

15 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

EVERYONE: 10 GHz DDR5

JEDEC: 3200 MHz will do

 

wasnt it 400 for the controllers

then 800 ddr2

then 1600 ddr3

now 3200 ddr4

so maybe 6400 for ddr5?

everything else higher was/is considered overclock

maybe that was my personal preferences of sweet spot along with timings 

hard to remember lol

 

[RejZoR]

13 minutes ago, pas008 said:

wasnt it 400 for the controllers

then 800 ddr2

then 1600 ddr3

now 3200 ddr4

so maybe 6400 for ddr5?

everything else higher was/is considered overclock

maybe that was my personal preferences of sweet spot along with timings 

hard to remember lol

 

Those are mostly overclocked numbers. DDR2 was like 533MHz, DDR4 started at 1066MHz, my guess is, DDR5 will start at around 3600MHz. Per JEDEC anyways. XMP will probably be 4000 and more as standard. Easier to reach since entire platform will be built around it including memory controllers. Same memory controllers are mostly struggling with 3600MHz on DDR4...

[cookiePerimetre]

I was considering upgrading my build right now, I think I will hold until next gen and DDR5

[pas008]

39 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Those are mostly overclocked numbers. DDR2 was like 533MHz, DDR4 started at 1066MHz, my guess is, DDR5 will start at around 3600MHz. Per JEDEC anyways. XMP will probably be 4000 and more as standard. Easier to reach since entire platform will be built around it including memory controllers. Same memory controllers are mostly struggling with 3600MHz on DDR4...

yeah i was talking the controller limits until its considered overclock from amd/intel and not motherboard vendors limits either

yeah i was way off

good thing i have my preferences on when i move to next platform lol

 

 

[RejZoR]

2 minutes ago, cookiePerimetre said:

I was considering upgrading my build right now, I think I will hold until next gen and DDR5

You'll wait for a bit while. There are no DDR5 platforms yet and expect massive DDR5 shortages as well as very high prices. DDR4 was also very expensive in the beginning. And we didn't have a stupid pandemic at that time...

 

DDR4 is quite mature now and modules are relatively cheap and still obtainable. I grabbed 32GB in 2x16GB kit last year in december without any issues when I was building the system in my signature.

[cookiePerimetre]

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You'll wait for a bit while. There are no DDR5 platforms yet and expect massive DDR5 shortages as well as very high prices. DDR4 was also very expensive in the beginning. And we didn't have a stupid pandemic at that time...

Yes of course, I will wait for the hype to die down a bit. My build is still doing great so I don't have a problem with waiting longer.

[RejZoR]

47 minutes ago, cookiePerimetre said:

Yes of course, I will wait for the hype to die down a bit. My build is still doing great so I don't have a problem with waiting longer.

I was also waiting for AMD AM5 and DDR5, but then I figured, with this pandemic and DDR5 being just in the beginning of life cycle, it'll be hard to get and super expensive. AM4 and DDR4 on the other hand, both very mature technologies. I usually change systems every 5-6 years so I'll go into DDR5 when it'll be already very mature and very obtainable.

[da na]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Those are mostly overclocked numbers. DDR2 was like 533MHz, DDR4 started at 1066MHz, my guess is, DDR5 will start at around 3600MHz. Per JEDEC anyways. XMP will probably be 4000 and more as standard. Easier to reach since entire platform will be built around it including memory controllers. Same memory controllers are mostly struggling with 3600MHz on DDR4...

DDR2 got up to 1066, but 800 was the most common/compatible

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, wat3rmelon_man2 said:

DDR2 got up to 1066, but 800 was the most common/compatible

800 and 1066 MT/s, not MHz.

To find the real frequency of any DDR RAM, divide the "rated" frequency by two.

By this logic, 800 MHz DDR2 ran at 400 MHz, 400 MHz DDR ran at 200 MHz, and so on.

[Sauron]

I just hope this drives DDR4 prices down  

[starry]

Christ Im still on DDR3

[RejZoR]

5 minutes ago, wat3rmelon_man2 said:

DDR2 got up to 1066, but 800 was the most common/compatible

No, I was stating the JEDEC clocks. Those were always pretty low and is what's considered rock stable for commercial use. Clocks we use on desktop "gamer" systems for RAM is something you never see on servers or professional workstations.

[Delicieuxz]

April 3, 2020 article: SK Hynix: We're Planning for DDR5-8400 at 1.1 Volts

 

Don't know if that implies that they have been planning to have 8400 Mhz RAM available already at DDR5's launch-date.

 

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I was also waiting for AMD AM5 and DDR5, but then I figured, with this pandemic and DDR5 being just in the beginning of life cycle, it'll be hard to get and super expensive. AM4 and DDR4 on the other hand, both very mature technologies. I usually change systems every 5-6 years so I'll go into DDR5 when it'll be already very mature and very obtainable.

Looking at this comparison, I don't think that DDR4 prices were so bad at launch that I'd let it affect my purchase decision unless I was on a tight budget.

 

 

I think that when a high-end system these days (not counting the monitor) is already (unfortunately) costing close to $2,000, maybe up to an extra $100 from new RAM prices doesn't seem that remarkable.

 

9 minutes ago, starry said:

Christ Im still on DDR3

Same. With Skylake +++++++, I never felt compelled to spend the money to upgrade my overclocked Sandy Bridge system. Zen 3 was the first time I felt it would net a large performance increase. But with DDR5, USB4, and PCIE5 all right around the corner, and with AMD saying they expect as big a performance increase from Zen 4 and Radeon 6000 as there was from Zen 3 and Radeon 5000, I chose to wait through one more hardware gen.

 

I hope that Zen 4 launches this year.

[cj09beira]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

They are G.Skill TridentX and were literally the most expensive at the time. There are actually some faster, at least Mhz wise, G.Skill DDR3 but they weren't out at the time. I'm actually impressed by them since they are in Quad channel mode so my IMC on my 4930k must actually be half decent even though it OC's like crap.

 

If you're interested: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/173/1532071930/F3-2400C10Q-16GTXTridentXDDR3-2400MHz-CL10-12-12-1.65V16GB-(4x4GB)

 

https://www.gskill.com/products/2/165/173/TridentX (All the way up to 3100Mhz, DDR3)

i used to run 1600mhz kingston kit at 2400mhz cl 13 ddr3 was quite fun

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

I was also waiting for AMD AM5 and DDR5, but then I figured, with this pandemic and DDR5 being just in the beginning of life cycle, it'll be hard to get and super expensive. AM4 and DDR4 on the other hand, both very mature technologies. I usually change systems every 5-6 years so I'll go into DDR5 when it'll be already very mature and very obtainable.

getting it while cheap and mature is probably the best bet, its my plan as well so i might be biased

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yes, but... way back when I just threw money at it. Those are the default XMP settings for it, profile #1. Profile #2 is command rate 1, instead of 2, which is actually perfectly stable as well but I cbf changing it lol.

 

I could get these to much better since the memory modules are water cooled but the gains really just aren't worth the effort anymore.

Honestly I feel like manual ram overclocking is always the worst when it comes to stability testing. It can be stable in all the stress tests and 99% of normal use but still end up crashing at some point for who knows what reason. Sure it only happens maybe once a month because it is so rare but honestly that is enough for me to not want to do manual overclocking again. Would rather just setup xmp and call it a day. 

[Ydfhlx]

10 hours ago, PeachGr said:

The latency is going on higher numbers.

On that advertising, it was cl40

Remember that latency measured in miliseconds is CL/speed, so a DDR5 CL40 4800 is comparable to DDR4 2933 CL24 - so for a "stock" module it's comparable.