Jump to content

Just another 2950X memory compatibility thread

just_bob

So far at work, we had 2950X running on X399 Aorus xtreme and that sweet 2933MHz CL14 Flare X 64GB kit. Boss decided it’s time to upgrade to 128GB kit. At first 128GB Flare X kit (1700€) seemed like the obvious choice, but he stumbled upon a good deal on 128GB kit of Ripjaws 4 2800MHz CL15 15-15-35 for just 999€. Both kits are on the mobo QVL. Sure Flare X is better and there’s that AMD-optimized sticker, but this kinda price difference raises some suspicions to say the least. Are we missing out something obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, just_bob said:

Are we missing out something obvious?

Probably it's just the high difference in binning, the Flare X apparently can do a higher frequency at a lower timing, which means Performance specially to AMD.

 

But if 64gb is simply not cutting out and you totally need the extra memory, sacrificing a bit of performance for a more attractive price tag might not be the worse thing ever

Personal Desktop":

CPU: Intel Core i7 10700K @5ghz |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock Pro 4 |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z490UD ATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: RX 6900XT Sapphire Nitro+ |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.

Luna, the temporary Desktop:

CPU: AMD R9 7950XT  |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock 4 Pro |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus Master |~| RAM: 32G Kingston HyperX |~| GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX (Reference) |~| PSU: Corsair HX1000 80+ Platinum |~| Windows Boot Drive: 2x 512GB (1TB total) Plextor SATA SSD (RAID0 volume) |~| Linux Boot Drive: 500GB Kingston A2000 |~| Storage: 4TB WD Black HDD |~| Case: Cooler Master Silencio S600 |~| Display 1 (leftmost): Eizo (unknown model) 1920x1080 IPS @ 60Hz|~| Display 2 (center): BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 1920x1080 TN @ 240Hz |~| Display 3 (rightmost): Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 3840x2160 IPS @ 60Hz 10-bit |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro (games / art) + Linux (distro: NixOS; programming and daily driver)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not buy multiple smaller kits of 32GB 3000/3200mhz? 

 

Its most of the time cheaper. That or singlesticks 16GB if that is cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Probably it's just the high difference in binning, the Flare X apparently can do a higher frequency at a lower timing, which means Performance specially to AMD.

 

But if 64gb is simply not cutting out and you totally need the extra memory, sacrificing a bit of performance for a more attractive price tag might not be the worse thing ever

I am aware of Flare X being the superior kit to the 4 years old Ripjaws 4 - I'm having issues imagining this performance being nearly close to being worth the 170% difference in price, so I'm wondering if and what am I missing out here.

22 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Why not buy multiple smaller kits of 32GB 3000/3200mhz? 

 

Its most of the time cheaper. That or singlesticks 16GB if that is cheaper.

It's not my call, boss wants to stick to the kits, but to be fair I endorse his approach as well. Also we have another rig that can take advantage of the current flare X kit, so we're in the market for a new one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×