Adata XPG V1 2400 Vs. Crucial DDR4-2133: DDR4 At 32GB

Reviews
By
published

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Value Analysis And Recommendations

Based on the average performance of all modules at rated settings, a basic performance-per-dollar analysis doesn’t credit 32GB module sets for offering twice as much capacity as 16GB sets. That’s a shame, because some people actually need the extra RAM.

On the other hand, simply mentioning price puts things in better perspective. Selling for $450, G.Skill’s 16GB DDR4-3000 is only $10 dollars cheaper than Adata’s 32GB DDR4-2400. Better still, Crucial’s standard 32GB DDR4-2133 costs just $420. But wait, don’t we have a benchmark that actually shows the value of larger RAM?

Our Adobe After Effects has shown huge performance differences between 8 and 16GB machines using four-core processors, and one of our editors told me that the benchmark actually performs best at exactly 4GB per core. The problem with that analysis is that this six-core processor gets only 2.66GB per core. Then again, maybe the benchmark is limited to four cores. Or, maybe it just tops out at 16GB. Either way, our best benchmark for judging the value of extra RAM doesn’t do that job with more than 16GB installed.

And so, our benchmark suite leaves the choice of greater memory capacity up to the buyer, but we’re fairly certain that anyone who really needs more than 16GB already knows why.

Adata XPG Z1AX4U2400W8G16-QRZ

Crucial “Premium” CT4K8G4DFD8213

Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.
37 Comments Comment from the forums
  • alidan
    would be nice to see a ddr3 value set in there for comparison purposes, many of us will be jumping from 3 to 4 with our next builds... well ill be jumping ddr2 to 4, and seeing what the difference is there and when ddr4 really starts to overtake 3 would be a good help to us.
    Reply
  • T_h_e_S_k_u_l_l
    ...and the conclusion is that RAM in practice reached a brick wall , i.e. no real advantage for games.
    It also makes us wonder WHY we need DDR4 *NOW* in 1st place when there is very decent DDR3 at 2133 or even 24000mhz that is cheaper....only reason is power drain but even DDR3 2133 can be slightly undervolted...i did it w/o problems.
    Sure, it will still waste more energy, but DDR3 is cheaper and till you recover the difference, it will take a lot of time.
    Reply
  • Savvy_01
    The reason to upgrade to ddr4 isn't so much for a RAM upgrade, but for the CPU upgrade. After all, if you want to use the latest Intel CPUs, you need ddr4 RAM.
    Reply
  • alidan
    14831710 said:
    ...and the conclusion is that RAM in practice reached a brick wall , i.e. no real advantage for games.
    It also makes us wonder WHY we need DDR4 *NOW* in 1st place when there is very decent DDR3 at 2133 or even 24000mhz that is cheaper....only reason is power drain but even DDR3 2133 can be slightly undervolted...i did it w/o problems.
    Sure, it will still waste more energy, but DDR3 is cheaper and till you recover the difference, it will take a lot of time.

    if i remember right ddr4 came in at faster than ddr3 despite having higher numbers, with the exception of extreme ddr3 overclocks.

    and like the other person said, its less about the ram and more about the cpus, though the ram being faster is always a nice bonus.
    Reply
  • Cryio
    We see here DDR4 at 3000. But we already had DDR3 hit 3200, so I'm not impressed.

    Different voltages, sure, but the difference isn't that big.
    Reply
  • tigerwild
    If you are looking for a good set of test for Large RAM capacities, please take this into consideration for your tests:

    7zip compressing with max compression, 4 cores, max settings, it wants 22GB of RAM for compression. It is a better tool than WinRAR and WinZIP in its multi-threaded capability, it soaks up excessive amounts of RAM, gets amazing compression and it is freeware.

    But before you do this also setup a 4 to 8 GB RAMDISK, out of your 32GB available! For the RAMDISK set it thensave it as an image that get loaded with windows. Setup directories and a tiny 500MB windows swap file on it. Save the image with compression to your SSD (should shrink to less than a few MBytes) Change Windows temp directory variables, Mozilla Firefox cache variable to a directory on the RAMDISK, and set windows swap file mapped to the drive. Test the speed improvement for web browsing, installing and using large memory footprint programs, or just 7-zip a 20 Gig set of files for archiving!

    I do all of these things regularly with my setup, and having a lot of FAST RAM really helps in my experience! I save on wear and tear off my SSD's write lifetime by setting up a cached image of the RAMDISk to the SSD. It is a compressed image (800KB) gets loaded at startup, inflated size is over 4 GB with appropriate directories in it. Windows gets a GREAT speed and responsiveness jump.

    Most people don't believe in setting a swap file to a RAM disk because it seemingly defeats the purpose (swapping RAM to RAM-ha ha!). But in my experience with memory hungry applications, two factors come into play that make it advisable on a Windows platform; 1-with the swap file in place on a RAM DISk (and with hibernate manually disabled) windows will not 'lock up' if your system needs more memory. This will happen if you DO NOT have a swap file and run out of RAM. Instead it will auto expand the swap file to the OSes current needs. This is accompanied by a mere warning that you didn't start with enough swap disk allotted space, rather than a blue screen of Windows Death! I make this happen by setting my SSD drive to have a 50MB swap file, and the RAMDISK to a 500 MB swap file. 2-as long as Windows has a swap file it does a better job of file caching all around. I usually augment this with registry entries that keep executable and DLL files cached for extended use.
    Reply
  • oyoy
    So, working with all Adobe / Discreet products won't show any performance gain when upgrading 16 to 32 (or 64) ram? I have waited two years and I'm so confused right now.
    Reply
  • AJSB
    oyoy,
    If you are happy with performance of your CPU and amount of RAM there is no reason to upgrade either the amount of RAM or its type.
    AFAIC, i will continue to use my G.Skill 8GB 2133MHz kits because in all my tests i don't see inm anyway any program really using it in amounts to justify a change...but again, this is for *my* uses.

    You should check the amount of RAM used by your system be it gaming, be in in "productivity" applications, i recommend the freeware Open Hardware Monitor.
    Reply
  • AJSB
    alidan,
    There is NOTHING in the specifications of DDR4 that makes it faster than DDR3 if both are running at same frequency.
    ANY *real* increase in performance when both using *same* clock freqencies must be attributed to CPU or Chipset differences.

    Only real advantage of DDR4 is power drain...that's *ALL*.

    However, even that gap could be minimized if DDR3 manufacturers reduced the voltage of DDR3 (witch they are doing) and in special if they used the DDR3L,etc. specifications.

    All this is/was possible, it's only a question of WILL from them.

    Why do you think DDR4 was all this time in "development" ? Because there was no perceived reason to do so....and the numbers in this test shows that the increases of frequency, even going from 2133 to 3000mhz don't reflect in increase of performance.
    *IF* there is no increase of performance going from 2133 to 3000, *why* dump DDR3 that can achieve same performance at lower price ?
    Only reason would be power drain but even that could be minimized via more DDR3 standard compliant voltages, DDR3L,etc. or undervoltage.

    There must a LOT of performance increase in DDR4, in special timings but also even greater frequencies AND CPUs/APUs that really can use that RAM performance, to it be really a significant improvement in games,etc.

    Even in APUs (from AMd or Intel no matter Intel APUs are not called that way) DDR4 brings VERY LITTLE , near ZERO improvements.
    MUCH more radical improvements would be large amounts of RAM in the SoC to work as a RAM video (but that would be too expensive) or color compression new techniques that start to happear already in NVIDIA and AMD most recent cards.
    Any of those options would increase the graphics bandwidth of the APUs to a much higher level than any DDR4 , even at 4000MHz, could do...and at a fraction of the cost in the case of color compression.


    AFAIC, for *now* is a complete WASTE of money to make an upgrade because of significant costs (RAM plus CPU plus MoBo) for reduced, or even i dare to say, insignificant improvements in performance.



    Reply
  • Crashman
    14832114 said:
    We see here DDR4 at 3000. But we already had DDR3 hit 3200, so I'm not impressed.

    Different voltages, sure, but the difference isn't that big.
    Be impressed with what happened here not because of the RAM, but because of the CPU. It's not supposed to support higher than DDR4-2666, and the Haswell's DDR3 memory controller had better high-frequency stability than the one in Haswell-E :)


    Reply