Comments Locked

7 Comments

Back to Article

  • ddrіver - Thursday, November 16, 2017 - link

    Yeah, no thanks. Product for sheep. At 4333 it's way over spec and very likely to fail. You lose one chip and you throw away the entire 8GB module. Doesn't sound smart. But that's modern engineering for you.
    Working with 4GB modules was too much granularity for the user. It would allow replacing 4GB at a time. That's not good for the bottom line of companies, is it?
  • yuhong - Thursday, November 16, 2017 - link

    I wonder why they didn't use 16GB modules, which would be easier on the memory controller since it is only 1DPC.
  • ImSpartacus - Friday, November 17, 2017 - link

    They probably couldn't get to those speeds with denser 16GB modules.

    Generally you see the fastest speeds with less dense RAM in a given generation.
  • jabber - Friday, November 17, 2017 - link

    but...but...the cost...the hours getting this to run stable for that extra 1fps will be totally worth it.
  • DanNeely - Friday, November 17, 2017 - link

    This is just high clockspeed ram on a post P4 Intel platform we're talking about. 1 frame per minute, if not per hour is more like it. Other than for competitive overclockers no even vaguely modern Intel platform offers significant gains from crazy fast ram. AMDs Ryzen and APUs; but the former probably only benefits because its intercore communication runs at the speed of the ram bus; and for the APUs crazy fast ram is about feeding the GPU not the CPU.
  • jabber - Saturday, November 18, 2017 - link

    Yes indeed. I wonder why they don't just label ram up to 2666 as just "Intel RAM" and anything higher than that "AMD systems need bother only".
  • K_Space - Tuesday, November 21, 2017 - link

    So what would actually happen if someone tries to run this on X370 board? I presume the compatibility requirement doesn't -strictly- rule out a Ryzen system?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now