Yeah the 4400-19 kit will just be way too expensive. Most of these sets move in a similar latency range though.
I'm currently on 3200-14 from last years lineup, and upgrading for a couple hundred bucks just to boost banwidth by 10% or so is not really something to justify. Now if one were to build something fresh, these do offer nice new options.
I think the tRFC (Row Refresh Cycle Time) and all the various sub-timings they never mention is how they cloak the fact that these timings are nonsense, which also explains why pretty much every kit has the same performance numbers across the board in real application benchmarks.
16-16-16 @ 3600 Looks good and sells well. But those three numbers only tell a small part of the story. They're the glitter which blinds the consumer from the fact that in order to get there subtimings had to be ballooned so much that in the end, you get no performance increase.
I could be wrong here, but very rarely have i ever seen "faster RAM" make any impact on performance, and this theory could help explain that.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
11 Comments
Back to Article
willis936 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
And it will only be 60% of your high end CPU build cost.willis936 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Actually that 3600-16 kit has some impressively low latency for what will hopefully be the cheapest kit in this lineup.FwFred - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
The 4400-19 has lower latency when measured in ns.willis936 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Yes but will likely cost 50% more. I was pointing out that what will likely be the cheapest kit has one of the lowest latencies.nevcairiel - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Yeah the 4400-19 kit will just be way too expensive. Most of these sets move in a similar latency range though.I'm currently on 3200-14 from last years lineup, and upgrading for a couple hundred bucks just to boost banwidth by 10% or so is not really something to justify. Now if one were to build something fresh, these do offer nice new options.
alacard - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
I think the tRFC (Row Refresh Cycle Time) and all the various sub-timings they never mention is how they cloak the fact that these timings are nonsense, which also explains why pretty much every kit has the same performance numbers across the board in real application benchmarks.16-16-16 @ 3600 Looks good and sells well. But those three numbers only tell a small part of the story. They're the glitter which blinds the consumer from the fact that in order to get there subtimings had to be ballooned so much that in the end, you get no performance increase.
I could be wrong here, but very rarely have i ever seen "faster RAM" make any impact on performance, and this theory could help explain that.
TheITS - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
I wish memory latency would be advertised in nanoseconds and not cycles.AllIDoIsWin - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
*sigh* ... marketingTwingo - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
It used to be a long long time ago... maybe back before DDR?bigboxes - Friday, June 30, 2017 - link
Need moar LEDs!svan1971 - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link
Will their RGB lighting software that is still in "beta" and has been for 5 months still stuck for x299 as it has for z270?