Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Corsair Intros 3000MHz Vengeance Extreme DDR3 Kit

Last response: in News comments
Share
March 18, 2013 7:02:29 AM

I'd like to see a benchmark with an APU. Let's see how much faster memory really helps.
Score
15
March 18, 2013 7:06:46 AM

remember when RAMs were rated at CL2?

Pepperidge Farm Remembers
Score
21
Related resources
March 18, 2013 7:08:07 AM

^^
Even if it did, it wouldnt be economical. You can build a whole better system at the cost of the RAM itself. Still, it would be interesting to see the gains of such fast memory on an APU.
Score
5
March 18, 2013 7:09:48 AM

Give me 3000MHz at 1.5V - then that would be something.
Score
7
March 18, 2013 8:41:53 AM

MOAR SPEED!
Score
1
March 18, 2013 8:45:02 AM

wanderer11I'd like to see a benchmark with an APU. Let's see how much faster memory really helps.

Probably the gains are massive but @ this price they are pointless....
Score
7
March 18, 2013 9:02:35 AM

are you kidding me? With that price id rather get a 670 plus ram or whatever i can buy with the extra greens
Score
3
March 18, 2013 9:09:25 AM

With that price point I'd rather buy an ASUS GTX 680, 16GB of 1600Mhz RAM, and a lap dance.
Score
15
March 18, 2013 9:40:26 AM

Ball players need compz, too. This is for the same crowd that takes a pair of Samsung 512GB 840 Pros and throws them in Raid 0.

"Coarsair said these super-fast memory chips are hand-built"... uh huh. With inhuman soldering skills.
Score
6
March 18, 2013 9:44:56 AM

wanderer11I'd like to see a benchmark with an APU. Let's see how much faster memory really helps.



they already have on here and it does help a little bit but anything over 1866 there was only a slight boost in fps. its the lower latency settings that really give you a bigger boost
Score
2
March 18, 2013 10:04:09 AM

wanderer11I'd like to see a benchmark with an APU. Let's see how much faster memory really helps.

Remember ? I'm gonna go with "kinda, not really, who cares, save your money and put it towards GPU".
Score
1
March 18, 2013 11:09:00 AM

06yfz450ridrthey already have on here and it does help a little bit but anything over 1866 there was only a slight boost in fps. its the lower latency settings that really give you a bigger boost



Maybe its Super Human solders =) with computer precision
Score
4
March 18, 2013 12:00:00 PM

OMG 3000 MHz!!!, and your CPU still limits you to 1600 mhz.
Score
-3
March 18, 2013 12:45:05 PM

Well I can think of a lot of things to spend that kind of money on besides 8gig of ram!
Score
3
March 18, 2013 1:03:56 PM

Reduce the latencies first!!!! 12 is way too high. I want 1600MHz with a latency of 2 or 3, and once we get there, then we can start talking about more speed. They concentrate too much on speed when its the latencies that are making the speed increase somewhat less impressive in real life performance.
Score
3
March 18, 2013 1:10:01 PM

MORE POWER!!!!! *cue Tim Allen grunt*
Score
2
March 18, 2013 1:47:04 PM

wanderer11I'd like to see a benchmark with an APU. Let's see how much faster memory really helps.

AMD's APUs got benchmarked with RAM at least up to 2400MT/s and there was almost no improvement with going over 2133MT/s. It seems unlikely there would be much if any gains to be made from bumping rates to 3000MT/s on current APUs... certainly not any that could justify the huge price premium on those DIMMs.
Score
2
March 18, 2013 1:56:32 PM

06yfz450ridrthey already have on here and it does help a little bit but anything over 1866 there was only a slight boost in fps. its the lower latency settings that really give you a bigger boost


The "latency settings" generally do not give that much of a boost. That's why GPU memory is always focused on bandwidth over latency. Latency does matter, but it is almost always less important than bandwidth.

06yfz450ridrthey already have on here and it does help a little bit but anything over 1866 there was only a slight boost in fps. its the lower latency settings that really give you a bigger boost


According to Tom's, it's not until after DDR3-2133 where there is a serious cut-off in performance for the top Trinity desktop APUs gain and even then, it might have been a different issue than the GPU not being able to take advantage of greater memory bandwidth.
Score
2
March 18, 2013 2:08:56 PM

blazorthonNo, the "latency settings" do not give that much of a boost. That's why GPU memory is always focused on bandwidth over latency.

The importance of latency varies depending on workload-specific access patterns.

Most heavy computational workloads like rendering, transcoding, physics simulations, etc. lend themselves pretty well to long read/write stripes on RAM and will heavily favor bandwidth over latency like GPUs do.

Heavily conditional (branchy) code like compilers, control code for interactive applications, algorithms that rely on sparse arrays, trees and other branchy structures, cache misses are far more common and these scenarios will heavily favor low latency.
Score
1
March 18, 2013 2:27:30 PM

chicofehr said:
Reduce the latencies first!!!! 12 is way too high. I want 1600MHz with a latency of 2 or 3, and once we get there, then we can start talking about more speed. They concentrate too much on speed when its the latencies that are making the speed increase somewhat less impressive in real life performance.


Those are timings, not latency. The timings are not too high whatsoever. They're actually very low considering the frequency. At that frequency, those timings still mean lower latency than standard DDR3-1600 memory such as 9-9-9-24 and 8-8-8-24 timings. At almost double the frequency and considerably less than double timings, latency is lower.

Latency is found as a relationship between the timings and the frequency and timings must increase as the technology gets higher in frequency and complexity in the hardware. They probably can't make DDR3 CAS 2 or CAS 3 with a frequency as high as 800MHz such as what DDR3-1600 has, at least not with modern technology. So, no, the memory in the article would not at all be held back in latency because it is in fact lower latency than most lower bandwidth modules.

No offense, but you don't seem like you understand the topic enough to make claims such as yours.
Score
4
March 18, 2013 2:28:23 PM

InvalidError said:
blazorthonNo, the "latency settings" do not give that much of a boost. That's why GPU memory is always focused on bandwidth over latency.

The importance of latency varies depending on workload-specific access patterns.

Most heavy computational workloads like rendering, transcoding, physics simulations, etc. lend themselves pretty well to long read/write stripes on RAM and will heavily favor bandwidth over latency like GPUs do.

Heavily conditional (branchy) code like compilers, control code for interactive applications, algorithms that rely on sparse arrays, trees and other branchy structures, cache misses are far more common and these scenarios will heavily favor low latency.


When we're talking about GPUs, which we were, that some CPU workloads can favor below-average latency over above-average bandwidth seems irrelevant to me.
Score
1
March 18, 2013 3:04:55 PM

Remember that a CAS latency of 12 at 3000 MHz is still a shorter amount of time than CL7 at 1600 MHz. And at the end of the day, you have more bandwidth as well. 3 GHz is so ludicrously fast, however, that you don't need it. Want more bandwidth? Then maybe investing in a quad-channel platform like LGA2011 is a better idea. I believe some AMD processors have quad-channel as wel, but I've forgotten. Probably the Opterons.
Score
1
March 18, 2013 3:15:09 PM

mynith said:
Remember that a CAS latency of 12 at 3000 MHz is still a shorter amount of time than CL7 at 1600 MHz. And at the end of the day, you have more bandwidth as well. 3 GHz is so ludicrously fast, however, that you don't need it. Want more bandwidth? Then maybe investing in a quad-channel platform like LGA2011 is a better idea. I believe some AMD processors have quad-channel as wel, but I've forgotten. Probably the Opterons.


As I recall, AMD's Opterons with quad channel memory are their newer MCM models such as Magny-Cours, Interlagos, and Abu Dhabi.
Score
1
March 18, 2013 6:54:12 PM

with all these speed in DDR3, do we have any reason to switch to DDR4? I guess not much.
Score
0
March 18, 2013 7:07:53 PM

tomfreak said:
with all these speed in DDR3, do we have any reason to switch to DDR4? I guess not much.


If you'd rather pay almost $800 for 8GB DDR3-3000 over say $40 for 16GB DDR4-3000 or even faster and higher capacity for such a price, then there might be little reason for DDR4 for you ;) 

DDR4 is bringing the capability of extremely high capacities compared to what we have today at much lower prices for various reasons, perhaps none more impacting in this way than the chip stacking.
Score
2
March 18, 2013 9:52:08 PM

blazorthonIf you'd rather pay almost $800 for 8GB DDR3-3000 over say $40 for 16GB DDR4-3000 or even faster and higher capacity for such a price, then there might be little reason for DDR4 for you DDR4 is bringing the capability of extremely high capacities compared to what we have today at much lower prices for various reasons, perhaps none more impacting in this way than the chip stacking.
it is just an overclock DDR3, it is going to get cheaper anyway. 2133 was super expensive back then, 1600 was also very expensive.

other than APU/iGPU, I could not see a reason to switch over to DDR4 when 1 single stick of 1333 is capable to feed 4 Ivy bridge cores for most mainstream user.
Score
0
March 18, 2013 10:41:57 PM

tomfreak said:
blazorthonIf you'd rather pay almost $800 for 8GB DDR3-3000 over say $40 for 16GB DDR4-3000 or even faster and higher capacity for such a price, then there might be little reason for DDR4 for you DDR4 is bringing the capability of extremely high capacities compared to what we have today at much lower prices for various reasons, perhaps none more impacting in this way than the chip stacking.
it is just an overclock DDR3, it is going to get cheaper anyway. 2133 was super expensive back then, 1600 was also very expensive.

other than APU/iGPU, I could not see a reason to switch over to DDR4 when 1 single stick of 1333 is capable to feed 4 Ivy bridge cores for most mainstream user.


The point is mostly about cost and power consumption, as I've already said, not performance. The performance may even become more important with future workloads. As CPU utilization of many threads gets more common and CPUs get faster, better memory performance will get more important, especially if we end up making more use out of the integrated graphics and/or FPUs.

Ivy Bridge is hardly important for this since it will never support DDR4 anyway. Also, I 'd bet that DDR3-3000 will never be affordable. DDR4 will be out long before DDR3-3000 could become affordable.

The first DDR3-2133 2x4GB kit came out at about $200 IIRC and that was a time when RAM was much more expensive than it is now about two years ago. That's only a little over a fourth of this DDR3-3000 2x4GB kit. The two situations are fairly different. Even if we go regardless of the capacity, DDR3-2133 still wasn't this bad for its time when it first came out IIRC. Again, I also repeat that DDR3-3000 simply won't get that chance to become affordable anyway because DDR4 will hit well before there is both reason and capability to mass-produce DDR3-3000 and sell at mainstream pricing.
Score
1
March 19, 2013 7:32:14 AM

Nothing beats the looks of the Crucial Tactical Tracer , these sticks for being so fast look crapy
Score
1
March 19, 2013 2:13:21 PM

for that price i'll wait for DDR5 with intels 4th gen cpus, the voltage and timing will probably be 10-10-10-32 at 1.3V and sell for $200 per 8GB
Score
1
July 4, 2013 5:29:32 PM

desktops are dieing. So who cares. The laptops are throw away objects. 99% of folk don't have the tools to do reballing and other sh+t.
Score
0
July 4, 2013 11:44:48 PM

stalefish said:
remember when RAMs were rated at CL2?

Pepperidge Farm Remembers


Why did it take me this long to catch that Futurama reference? :lol:  :lol: 
Score
0
!