G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4-3000 (F4-3000C15D-16GTZ)

[HEXUS]

Coming

Read more.

[Cr@ig]

Looks like Ram has turned into a fashion show, with the prices to go with it. Sad

[Arulmani]

good one,but would expect a big improvement over the current ones.

[Tunnah]

I wanna punch myself in the face for saying this, but I would buy that RAM purely on its looks.

[Kovoet]

Got to be honest and agree with you on that one. Looks absolute stunning

[KeyboardDemon]

IIRC there was not much of a difference in performance between the different DDR2 and DDR3 at the time when they launched, or is it simply that my own memory has become a bit fudged with age?

[Tarinder]

It's a balancing act of latencies versus speed. DDR4 will come into its own as 3,000MHz-plus stuff becomes available at genuinely mainstream prices. Plus, soon enough you won't have a choice; it will be DDR4 or nothing.

What's more, the real driving force behind new memory innovation isn't, as previously, speed. Power efficiency is key, especially as DDR4 will find its way into lower-power platforms where every watt counts.

[Domestic_Ginger]

You're right KBD. I was very late to get ddr2; review showed an real gains over ddr3 and then t was much cheaper; much like ddr3 is now.

DDR2 was 5-5-5-15 for the good stuff at 1066mhz.
DDR3 settled out at 9-9-9-25 for 1600/1866. 2400 is 11 or 12?

Domestics top tip. Open the clips on the ram stots. Check the groove to make sure its going n tge right way round. Gently place your ram onto the slots holding the short edges. Push the ram into the slots by using one thumb on each end of the PCB as near to the clips as you can . g.skill kindly left a little bit of PCB bare!

[Roobubba]

It was the same with DDR vs DDR2 if I remember correctly, too. Plus in the old days, some chipsets/CPUs loved low latency above all else (Althon, anyone?) while others performed best with higher memory clocks, with almost no dependence on timings. It seems a bit more balanced these days, where there's a tradeoff between the two. If nothing else, it makes it more fun finding the sweet spot

[Platinum]

Ill stick with my 2400MHz Crucial kit, faster ram seems pointless at this point.

[HMind]

Bottom line is that faster ddr4 is/will be useless for anyone who isnt running an amd apu since that and world record breaking overclocking are the only 2 real use case scenarios that DDR4 will work well in. DDR4 isnt going to be of much use to those on the intel platform for a while, the 1st gen of amd apu's that can handle DDR4 however would see a better improvement than anything else.

[lumireleon]

moral of the story dont buy extra MHZ if at the end you will be using intel Hd

[ypsylon]

It was proven time and time again, that faster (MHz-wise) DIMMs for gaming make absolutely no difference whatsoever. This stuff is only for nerds running benchmarks. Benefits of that speed you will see in -for example- nuclear or molecular engineering/modeling, but then you need ECC memory, not ordinary "gaming" sticks because results may be flawed.

Still, manufacturers know that there is plenty of people with money to burn for the sake of fastest and latest, even if not a shred of performance is gained at the other end.

[zsde]

I wanna punch myself in the face for saying this, but I would buy that RAM purely on its looks.

and then what. Instead of using the machine for productivity, hopefully, that can recover the costs, you will be staring at your open case all day long? I suppose that is one option . From what I see, the same RAM manufacturer exploits the public at large once again and the Intel bandwidth limitation remains king. Stress your system all you can, if Intel was able to find that magic, they would most certainly take the bragging rights. I am waiting......