16GB DDR3 RAM memory module for desktop pc?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965
I noticed the new FM2+ / FM2 motherboards for AMD APU's support four 16GB memory modules for a total of 64GB.

I have googled every possible term and phrase related to a 16GB memory module without finding any 16GB memory modules suitable for use in an AMD APU based pc. It appears as if the available 16GB modules are designed for use in enterprise servers. There are plenty of memory modules for servers but they are very expensive. In addition, user reviews seem to indicate the server memory modules are not compatible with a desktop pc.

Can anyone provide any information about this?

Some of you might be wondering why I want 64GB of memory in a desktop pc. I want to test larger capacity virtual memory ramdisks for an article.
 
Solution
Tradesman1
The MC (memory controller) is suppose to be able to support up to 16GB DIMMs, which has been planned by many, and there are sticks in the Buffereed ECC type, but with DDR4 already coming into play, most manufacturers are bypassing the 16GB UDIMMs as there has been little to no call for them - INtel looked at the same w/ socket 2011 - there are/were mobos made that were to support up to 128GB of DRAM 8x16GB
Sort by date Sort by votes
K

Kurdain1

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2007
154
2
18,715
Just reference your motherboard users manual or look it up on the manufacturers website, it will tell you exactly what memory is compatible with your motherboard. There are tons of memory makers out there, you should have no problem finding what you need.

What make and model motherboard is it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890
Large server DIMMs usually have buffer or register chips between the CPU and DRAM dies to reduce the load on the control and address pins to which all DRAM chips are connected, which makes one 16-chips DIMM look like only one single load to the CPU. Standard DIMMs have no buffers for these to save cost, latency and power so the CPU has to directly drive every control and address pin on every DRAM chip of each DIMM so each single DIMM looks like 16 loads on the RAS#, CAS#, A0-A14, etc. lines to the CPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

The motherboard manufacturer or model does not matter much since OP said he's using an FM2+ motherboard which means RAM support capabilities are dictated pretty much strictly by the CPU and FM2+ CPUs only support plain RAM... no registered or buffered DIMMs.

To get 16GB per DIMM, OP would need 16x 1GB DRAM DDR3 dies. Such DRAM dies do not currently exist on the market so 16GB non-registered/buffered DDR3 DIMMs are currently only hypothetical. Samsung did recently announce 1GB (8Gbits) chips but those are LPDDR4 and therefore of no use to OP.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965
Kurdain1 - I think there is a misunderstanding.

When companies started manufacturing AMD APU FM2 / FM2+ motherboards they included memory support for 16GB DDR3 memory modules. If the motherboard had four memory slots you could install four of those 16GB modules for a total of 64GB of memory. Last year manufacturers stated their APU boards would support 16GB DDR3 modules when they become available. It is a year later and it does not appear as if there are any 16GB DDR3 memory modules suitable for use in consumer oriented pc's.

The FM / FM2+ motherboard brand and model is irrelevant. All the new boards claim to support 16GB modules. Unfortunately the modules do not seem to be available.

The very first thing I did was visit a dozen or so memory company web sites. Each time I found 16GB modules they were server memory modules and were not compatible with AMD FM2+ / FM2 motherboards. For example, the Crucial web site has a memory / motherboard compatibility app. When I used it to check compatibility it didn't matter which FM2+ / FM2 motherboard I selected. The answer was always the same. The 16GB modules for enterprise servers were not compatible with the consumer oriented motherboards. Same thing happened with other memory companies that had 16GB modules.

InvalidError - Exacto Mundo!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tradesman1

Tradesman1

Legenda in Aeternum
Jun 5, 2013
67,883
40
126,960
The MC (memory controller) is suppose to be able to support up to 16GB DIMMs, which has been planned by many, and there are sticks in the Buffereed ECC type, but with DDR4 already coming into play, most manufacturers are bypassing the 16GB UDIMMs as there has been little to no call for them - INtel looked at the same w/ socket 2011 - there are/were mobos made that were to support up to 128GB of DRAM 8x16GB
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

You have no "shortage of configurations" for AMD either... as long as those configurations do not include registered or buffered DIMMs which are only supported by server CPUs - and even among server CPUs, it is usually only the multi-socket variants that support those extra features. You cannot use buffered or registered DIMMs with i7 either. And as far as official specs goes, Intel's mainstream CPUs do not support 16GB DIMMs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
K

Kurdain1

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2007
154
2
18,715
Oh I see.
Duh.
The only 16GB modules available are server modules, so it's a supply issue not an FM2+ issue.
I was thinking it was some special requirement for the AMD board, I was backwards I guess.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965


The solution was simple for me once I did some research. Common sense prevailed.

I won't be doing any experiments with large Ramdisks on an AMD FM2+ Kaveri system loaded with 64GB of DDR3 memory because 16GB memory modules for desktop pc's are not available.

I won't be building a server just to be able to do the experiments.

I'm not a gamer. I use my computers for work at home. I do digital image editing, video processing, and web site development and management. My primary pc is my ancient but highly reliable Intel Core i7 860 system that has never failed me. I have decided to upgrade it but not just yet. I will probably wait until next October. I want to see how the new SATA standards and SATA Express work out. I've already seen 4 or 5 ATX and Micro-ATX Intel socket LGA 1150 boards equiped with the new M.2 NGFF header. I also saw one board with a SATA Express header. However, I seem to recall reading an article that mentioned Intel's next chipset will not be supporting SATA Express.

I've been reading numerous APU, CPU, and motherboard reviews. For mainstream professional use Intel performance appears to be the way to go. When I use the advanced search feature at newegg I wind up looking at the Intel Core i7 4XXX Haswell cpu's and the ASRock Fatal1ty Z87 Killer ATX motherboard that has the features I want without going overboard with a lot of extras that I'll never use. The lower price of the motherboard makes up for the higher price of the cpu.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965
Last Saturday morning I was checking the newegg special promotions when I noticed they had the Intel Core i7-4771, 4770, and 4770K on sale. Between the sale prices and the coupon codes the 4771 was least expensive at $299.99 and free shipping. The 4771 was supposed to replace the 4770 and I wasn't interested in overclocking so I purchased it. In addition the ASRock Fatal1ty Z87 Killer ATX motherboard was on sale for $114.99 and free shipping so I purchased it also.

Before purchasing I did some research about the new SATA standard that was adapted and SATA Express. I confirmed than Intel will not be supporting SATA Express in their next chipset. I also confirmed that consumers won't be seeing much in the way of new PCIe 2.0 x8 or x4 ssd's. Mobile computer sales have surpassed desktop pc sales. The trend will continue. As a result the ssd industry is focusing on mSATA and the M.2 ssd's for mobile computers instead of ssd's for desktop pc's.

I normally hang out in the ssd section where I answer member questions. Yesterday morning I noticed that one individual had a system with 64GB of memory. The first thing that came to mind was that it probably was an Intel server. However, I noticed the individual also had three GTX 770's in an SLI configuration. When I asked about it the individual stated he was not a hardcore gamer or an extreme overclocking enthusiast. Instead, he did a lot of work with videos. He didn't mention his motherboard so I went back to newegg and used their advanced search feature to search for Intel motherboards with 64GB memory capacities. The results included Intel LGA Socket 2011 X79 motherboards. That also probably meant a Sandy Bridge E or Ivy Bridge E cpu. A check of technical reviews of X79 boards and corresponding cpu's revealed the newer 4771 with a Z87 board performed as well as or sometimes better than those older models and the total cost was at least $300.00 less.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965
I noticed all of that. The extra features definitely got my attention. For a very brief moment I had a glorious vision of building an incredible speed demon with a top of the line video card, a PCIe 3.0 x 16 ssd (which doesn't exist for consumers), and 64GB GB of memory of which 50GB was allocated for a RAMDISK. The vision quickly faded when I checked prices.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H

Heinrich17

Honorable
Jan 16, 2014
69
0
10,660
The only price difference is really the CPU. You can go with a 4820K and that problem is solved. The 2011 build will cost about the same as the 1150 build. I built mine with a 4930K and total cost was $2100 for a complete build (32GB of Ram). A Haswell build using similar components would cost $1850. I get two more cores, which makes a difference in After Effects.

In october they should be releasing LGA 2011-3. That would introduce 8 Core CPU and DDR4. Depending on RAM prices and motherboard prices, it may be the way to go. I think the 4820K equivalent will be hex core so you would possibly be paying the same going for an LGA 2011-3 vs an LGA 1150. Just speculation.

In terms of video editing, I have a feeling that FX 8320 is the way to go. I have not tested it myself, however I am noticing that other than After Effects, nothing comes close to utilizing the 4930K. I get anywhere from 9% - 40% utilization. The software itself has some limitations whether it be in plugins or effects or formats, but you will most likely NOT get full utilization of your system for video work unless you deal with 4K material. The actual editing portion is more GPU dependent, but even still, when rendering, you may be disappointed.

Do not rely on benchmarks for comparing systems. They seem to be used in situations where the only possible bottleneck would be the CPU. In those types of tests, the better the CPU, the faster the system. However some of my renders have been brutally slow with my 4930K and no faster than my Q6600 build. It depends on how you edit, but there is likely going to be some type of software or format bottleneck (anything .mov for example use 32bit servers which cripple your system performance).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965
Heinrich17 - The original objective was simply to locate DDR3 16GB memory modules for an inexpensive AMD APU system so larger capacity RAMDISKS could be tested. I have several pc's in my home office and one them is an AMD APU system. Unfortunately 16GB modules for AMD APU systems are not available. We then explored other options. Intel would be a more sensible choice but the Z87 boards are limited to 8GB memory modules. We also discovered Intel X79 boards are another option only because they are available with 8 memory slots instead of the typical 4 slots found on most consumer ATX boards. Both Intel options would require purchasing a cpu and a motherboard. The X79 option is more expensive than the Z87 option.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965
The saga continues.......

I check well over 100 web sites for ssd and psu reviews almost daily. I missed a few days early last week. As a result I missed a news report published by AnandTech indicating that DDR3 1300 and 1600 16GB memory modules for consumer desktop pc's should become available in April. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7742/im-intelligent-memory-to-release-16gb-unregistered-ddr3-modules

The modules work flawlessly with AMD APU systems. Unfortunately, they don't work with Intel based systems unless 16GB memory support is enabled in a memory section of the system BIOS. It is just a very tiny snippet of code. A project engineer at Intel tried it and the module worked. For unexplained reasons Intel decided not to support the 16GB modules although 16GB modules are included in the International Standards for DDR3 memory for consumer desktop systems.

The company is currently in negotiations with several well known memory companies.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H

Heinrich17

Honorable
Jan 16, 2014
69
0
10,660
That's good news. I swore I read something about 16gb sticks but couldn't find the article to back it, so I figured i probably erred and mistook registered for unregistered. Good find! Makes those am3+ asrock and fm2+ boards a little better
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyLucky

JohnnyLucky

Illustrious
May 30, 2007
10,902
10
42,965
It's Alive!

After getting the Intel 4771 and ASRock motherboard I still had to purchase memory. I wound up ordering 32GB of G.SKILL Trident X Series DDR3 1600 with 7-8-8-24 timing. I also purchased a Samsung 840 256GB ssd. It was one of the easiest upgrades I've ever done - almost plug and play. I'm still using an HIS 6850 graphic card. I'm thinking I might as well replace it with something newer.

My eyeballs can definitely notice an improvement in performance, especially when working with digital images and videos.

The next step is experimenting with RAMDISKS. The only downside is that the RAMDISKS will have to be limited to 24GB instead of 50GB.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification about the lack of 16GB memory modules.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

ginomarcel

Reputable
Jun 8, 2014
1
0
4,510


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom