G.Skill's Ripjaws 4 DDR4 Memory Hits 3200 MHz, 64 GB
G.Skill officially announced its complete Ripjaws 4 DDR4 lineup.
We already sawG.Skills Ripjaws 4 modules listed on OCUK a couple of days ago, but now G.Skill has officially made the announcement, detailing all of the specifications and kit configurations.
The DDR4 modules are meant to be used with the upcoming X99 platform and Haswell-E processors and will run at 1.2 V for those operating at or under 2800 MHz, while those operating at 3000 MHz or higher will run at 1.35 V. Officially, 1.35 V is outside of the DDR4 specifications, but anyone running memory at these speeds won't be too concerned with the extra power consumption.
G.Skill's Ripjaws 4 modules will be available in frequencies ranging from 2133 MHz through 3200 MHz. They come with CL15 or CL16 timings, and DIMMs will be available in 4 GB and 8 GB variants. Mind you, you won't be able to buy individual DIMMs; kits will be available with capacities of 16 GB, 32 GB, and 64 GB, although some higher-frequency memory won't have all the kit options. The 16 GB kits will consist of four 4 GB modules, the 32 GB kits of either eight 4 GB modules or four 8 GB modules, and the 64 GB kit will come with eight 8 GB modules. All of the kits should be available with red, black, and blue heatspreaders.
No word on pricing or availability yet, though we do expect the entire platform, which includes the X99 motherboards and the Haswell-E CPUs, to hit shelves on August 29.
Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

From a business standpoint I can only assume its because they expect not to have to replace as much. Could be wrong.
3rd set? must be something on your end. i've been using 1 set for years and so have people i know. no issues.
3rd set? must be something on your end. i've been using 1 set for years and so have people i know. no issues.
Same here. I've been on my first set of G.Skill 4x2 GB 1600 MHz for 5 years without even a hint of problems.
Viable for who? As far as I am concerned even the cheapest 8 GB DDR4 kit currently available would be more efficient, faster, and cheaper than my 8 GB of DDR3 1600 that I bought 5 years ago. For me, it will be a serious upgrade for my next PC build. It is very "viable".
Viable for who? As far as I am concerned even the cheapest 8 GB DDR4 kit currently available would be more efficient, faster, and cheaper than my 8 GB of DDR3 1600 that I bought 5 years ago. For me, it will be a serious upgrade for my next PC build. It is very "viable".
Timing will be about twice DDR3 timing. This means the data will have a higher latency, thus slower. You compensate for this the same way it was compensated in DDR2 to DDR3, double the frequency. This means if you are running 1600mhz DDR3, you should be looking at 3200mhz DDR4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency
DDR3-2133 CL10 has lower latency (9.38ns) then DDR3-1600 CL8 (10ns). So DDR4-2400 with CL15 would be 12.5ns and DDR4-3200 with CL16 would be 10ns. Also having a higher voltage helps lower your CAS due to being able to charge / discharge faster. I'm willing to bet the reason for the higher latency on the lower models (12.5ns) is due to them wanting to maintain lower voltages (1.2v) and thus less power usage for low power devices.
Viable for who? As far as I am concerned even the cheapest 8 GB DDR4 kit currently available would be more efficient, faster, and cheaper than my 8 GB of DDR3 1600 that I bought 5 years ago. For me, it will be a serious upgrade for my next PC build. It is very "viable".
Timing will be about twice DDR3 timing. This means the data will have a higher latency, thus slower. You compensate for this the same way it was compensated in DDR2 to DDR3, double the frequency. This means if you are running 1600mhz DDR3, you should be looking at 3200mhz DDR4.
That is not how that works. Timings are measured in cycles which is a component of the bandwidth. DDR3 has a higher base clock then DDR2 and thus requires more cycles to charge / discharge the lines. There is a physical limit of about 7ns on really good silicon with most being in the 9~11ns range for charge / discharge times. No matter how much you increase the bandwidth or clock rate you won't be able to charge / discharge the capacitor banks faster then that.
And FYI, DDR2-800 CL5 had an absolute latency of 12.5ns while DDR3-1600 CL9 has an absolute latency of 11.25ns. The DDR3 actually has a lower latency then DDR2.
There is no point in it until they hit atleast 16 GB per stick and next I7 extreme won't support atleast 128 GB of ram.
3rd set? must be something on your end. i've been using 1 set for years and so have people i know. no issues.
Same here. I've been on my first set of G.Skill 4x2 GB 1600 MHz for 5 years without even a hint of problems.
Well these are not 4x2 GB they are 8x8 GB, more density more problems? I don’t think I’m holding it wrong.
I think a lot of folks don’t know their RAM is going bad. Apps like MemTest86 do not see an issue but Prime95 starts crashing and I get the file corruption. If I replace the RAM and all is good again... for about a year.
Viable for who? As far as I am concerned even the cheapest 8 GB DDR4 kit currently available would be more efficient, faster, and cheaper than my 8 GB of DDR3 1600 that I bought 5 years ago. For me, it will be a serious upgrade for my next PC build. It is very "viable".
I'm sorry, how is it going to be better? Just because it has a 4 at the end and not a 3 doesn't mean it's better. Current DDR3 will be better at 1600, as you can get CL of 8 or 9. It will absolutely in NO way be an upgrade. It'll actually be a downgrade in performance - technically speaking.