The best performing quad-channel kit we’ve tested, G.Skill’s Trident Z F4-3200C14Q-32GTZKW appears a reasonable value when compared to other premium DDR4.
Pros
+
Great timings
+
Broad tuning capability
+
Slightly superior bandwidth
Cons
-
Price
-
Height of 44mm may interfere with some CPU coolers.
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.
Introducing Trident Z 3200 at CAS 14
The differences between G.Skill’s model F4-3200C14Q-32GTZ and competing samples need not be black and white. After all, the same memory is available in black and red or silver and white. G.Skill differentiates these colors in the model number by adding KW to the black and white set, and SW to the silver and white set. Without those extra letters, buyers can expect the black and red set. The rest of the model name is fairly self-explanatory, with its Q indicating quad DIMMs.
That means the full part number, including color code, of today’s test candidate is F4-3200C14Q-32GTZKW. You won’t find these at Newegg yet, as G.Skill appears to be waiting for a little more press coverage before launching the new color. Specifically, the firm appears to be waiting for this review.
As with the colors you can already buy, this black and white kit is spec’d at DDR4-3200 CAS 14-14-14-34, using XMP programming to enable its non-stock 1.35V. Some motherboards will let you enable XMP using a button or switch, but most require you to enter firmware to enable this manufacturer-defined overclocking profile.
Prior to enabling XMP mode, motherboards will boot normally with the F4-3200C14Q-32GTZKW kit running industry-standard DDR4-2133 CAS 15 timings. Though motherboards that lack XMP technology could potentially be configured manually, most boards that allow manual adjustment also have XMP.
Since it’s a quad-channel kit, G.Skill requested that we break out the old LGA 2011 hardware and update it with one of Intel’s recently-launched Broadwell-E processors.
Test System Configuration
Swipe to scroll horizontally
CPU Cooler
Swiftech Apogree GTX liquid cooling with MCP655-B Pump and 3x120mm radiator
Sound
Integrated HD Audio
Network
Integrated Gigabit Networking
Broadwell-E overclocking difficulties include its horrific thermal output and, in many cases, severe memory overclocking limits. We told G.Skill what was going on with our test system, yet the firm persisted in its Broadwell-E requests. Perhaps they’re more interested in showcasing its stock bandwidth and latency tuning potential?
DDR4 Rated Specification Comparison
G.Skill Trident Z 32GB F4-3200C14Q-32GTZKW
G.Skill Ripjaws V 16GB F4-3600C17Q-16GVK
Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M4B3200C16
Breaking out a new processor would mean retesting some old modules, just to set a performance baseline. The firm’s Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 kit helps us separate processor limits from memory limits, while Corsair’s Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 offers more direct competition with its matching DDR4-3200 data rate.
I'm guessing the author's previous knowledge about games which are memory bound are coming from dual channel platforms with memory bandwidths in the 30GB/s range. This would clearly explain why, once moving to Broadwell-E with 60+GB/s, there's no evidence of a memory bound game.
Looking at the bandwidth over the other DDR4-3200 kit, it's a 1.7% bump and a 4.0% drop in latency. Looking at WinRAR with a 25 second average runtime and the ability to measure to within 1 second, that's 1 part in 25: 4%. There was no point in running that benchmark since you need at least a 4% performance difference to pick up any hint of a performance difference and the synthetics show a 1.7-4% difference meaning we should expect real-world improvement to be somewhere in between as nothing is either fully bandwidth bound nor fully latency bound.
The second to last chart is an absolute disgrace comparing different size memory kits with absolute prices then coming to the startling conclusion that 32GB costs much more than 16GB. This is like complaining a 4TB drive at $120 costs more than a 1TB drive at $50, ignoring the fact that four 1TB drives would be $200.
I'm guessing the author's previous knowledge about games which are memory bound are coming from dual channel platforms with memory bandwidths in the 30GB/s range. This would clearly explain why, once moving to Broadwell-E with 60+GB/s, there's no evidence of a memory bound game.
Looking at the bandwidth over the other DDR4-3200 kit, it's a 1.7% bump and a 4.0% drop in latency. Looking at WinRAR with a 25 second average runtime and the ability to measure to within 1 second, that's 1 part in 25: 4%. There was no point in running that benchmark since you need at least a 4% performance difference to pick up any hint of a performance difference and the synthetics show a 1.7-4% difference meaning we should expect real-world improvement to be somewhere in between as nothing is either fully bandwidth bound nor fully latency bound.
The second to last chart is an absolute disgrace comparing different size memory kits with absolute prices then coming to the startling conclusion that 32GB costs much more than 16GB. This is like complaining a 4TB drive at $120 costs more than a 1TB drive at $50, ignoring the fact that four 1TB drives would be $200.
First of all, you downvoted me for stating the facts that a quad-DIMM kit will also run on a dual-channel board, and overclock better?
The second-to-last chart only gives readers a frame of reference for the last chart so that those who don't like doing math in their heads can still see what's going on. That's hardly as egregious as downvoting a correct answer :D
