AMD going DDR4 any time soon?

NirK · 5 Dec 2014 at 18:02

What is actually better about DDR4 other than the slightly lower voltage and higher speeds?

Current DDR3 can run the same speeds at lower latency so I don't see what is so great about DDR4 until maybe 3 years from now when it will be priced same as DDR3 but at higher speeds.

Kaapstad · 5 Dec 2014 at 18:06

Dave2150 said:
If Haswell-E and DDR4 are 'total crap' then I ponder the wording with which you'd describe the FX line of cpu's

Good value for money.

Silent_Scone · 5 Dec 2014 at 19:57

NirK said:
What is actually better about DDR4 other than the slightly lower voltage and higher speeds?

Current DDR3 can run the same speeds at lower latency so I don't see what is so great about DDR4 until maybe 3 years from now when it will be priced same as DDR3 but at higher speeds.

Isn't that a bit like saying what is better about a Zonda apart from the higher speeds and lower downforce...lol. I've listed quite a few above but people either don't understand or don't care, or both.
All you can say to that is don't quit your day job

Kaap, give it a rest you sound silly. Firestrike is the most random non conclusive test you could have possibly mentioned

Silent_Scone · 5 Dec 2014 at 20:01

Double

Svyper1 · 5 Dec 2014 at 20:31

Kaapstad said:
Good value for money.

** FACEPALM **

AMD cpus are not good "value for money".

basically fx8 is worse than i5 therefore by logic should be less money. But add to that, that AMD use more electricity and need better cooling that over time it will cost more...

There is no point buying a PC for 6months...

you want to overclock? kiss goodbye any "value for money"...

You WILL be spending more on an AMD product. Just because you dont see the cash leave your hand doesnt mean youre not spending the money.

Also how people buy there hardware is completely crap. Buying over the top unused features that make very little difference means that they are wasting money on a computer that can be made better simply for being realistic and adjusting the priorities.

Yet this logic is too much for the mainstream including you...

Kaapstad · 5 Dec 2014 at 21:30

Silent_Scone said:
Kaap, give it a rest you sound silly. Firestrike is the most random non conclusive test you could have possibly mentioned

Physics tests in the futuremark benches are very reliable.

You also get the same result if you use cinebench to measure memory performance.

Mainstream Haswell 4770k + DDR3 performs better than 5960X + DDR4.

DDR4 memory performance is poor end of.

You are the one who sounds silly defending something just because you bought into it.

Kaapstad · 5 Dec 2014 at 21:43

Svyper1 said:
** FACEPALM **

AMD cpus are not good "value for money".

basically fx8 is worse than i5 therefore by logic should be less money. But add to that, that AMD use more electricity and need better cooling that over time it will cost more...

There is no point buying a PC for 6months...

you want to overclock? kiss goodbye any "value for money"...

You WILL be spending more on an AMD product. Just because you dont see the cash leave your hand doesnt mean youre not spending the money.

Also how people buy there hardware is completely crap. Buying over the top unused features that make very little difference means that they are wasting money on a computer that can be made better simply for being realistic and adjusting the priorities.

Yet this logic is too much for the mainstream including you...

You don't know much about me do you lol.

setter · 5 Dec 2014 at 21:50

If AMD could get 2133mhz ddr3 working properly, that would be s bit of a late start. When you consider 2400mjz c9 is pretty standard on the Intel mainstream haswell setup. Which I own and tbh its a mediocre improvement over the old Bloomfield x58 1136 setup from a gaming point of view. AMD, great gpu's. CPU wise they're a not bad cheap option. For ultimate performance, save money and buy a secondhand Bloomfield or sandybridge. Better than any new AMD chip.

SlugForAButt · 5 Dec 2014 at 22:32

Svyper1 said:
** FACEPALM **
AMD cpus are not good "value for money"...SNIP...Yet this logic is too much for the mainstream including you...

Kaapstad said:
You don't know much about me do you lol.

T be fair, it's Svyper1 and he doesn't know much about anything really.
I haven't seen him for a while and thought we'd seen the back of him. He's an idiot.

EDIT: any perceived personal insult was not intended as a personal insult, just an observation.

gpuerrilla · 5 Dec 2014 at 22:52

Svyper1 said:
** FACEPALM **

AMD cpus are not good "value for money".

basically fx8 is worse than i5 therefore by logic should be less money. But add to that, that AMD use more electricity and need better cooling that over time it will cost more...

you want to overclock? kiss goodbye any "value for money"...

You WILL be spending more on an AMD product. Just because you dont see the cash leave your hand doesnt mean youre not spending the money.

Misinformed post.

If an fx8320 isnt good value for money then the understanding is about as accurate as the English used. :cool:

A refresh into power consumption would be a good start, but you were on the right track about overclocking - either brand eat the juice when you overclock, intel are not suddenly more efficient when you push them too!

setter said:
AMD, great gpu's. CPU wise they're a not bad cheap option. For ultimate performance, save money and buy a secondhand Bloomfield or sandybridge. Better than any new AMD chip.

Sensible post.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 6 Dec 2014 at 01:31

The server versions of Carrizo will support DDR4:

http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/amd_opteron_server_roadmap_2015.jpg

That slide was from a picture taken at a presentation made in late 2013.

NirK · 6 Dec 2014 at 01:32

Silent_Scone said:
Isn't that a bit like saying what is better about a Zonda apart from the higher speeds and lower downforce...lol. I've listed quite a few above but people either don't understand or don't care, or both.
All you can say to that is don't quit your day job

But that is my point... DDR4 is not actually faster, it is the same speeds as DDR3 with worse timings. As I said it might be good in a few years when faster speeds are as cheap as DDR3 is now. The only interesting thing in this thread is the HBM.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 6 Dec 2014 at 01:33

NirK said:
But that is my point... DDR4 is not actually faster, it is the same speeds as DDR3 with worse timings. As I said it might be good in a few years when faster speeds are as cheap as DDR3 is now. The only interesting thing in this thread is the HBM.

Agreed - DDR3 was the same when it was first released as DIMMs IIRC.

Orangey · 6 Dec 2014 at 01:40

Seems to always be the way. There will always be someone who needs some aspect of the new tech, that creates an initial market and an introduction period which is frustrating for regular users.

Kaapstad · 6 Dec 2014 at 05:27

NirK said:
But that is my point... DDR4 is not actually faster, it is the same speeds as DDR3 with worse timings. As I said it might be good in a few years when faster speeds are as cheap as DDR3 is now. The only interesting thing in this thread is the HBM.

+1

The timings at the moment are shocking for DDR4. Even if you try tuning DDR4 you don't see big gains like you do with DDR3. Even doing something simple like changing the command rate to 1T will crash the system with DDR4.

Svyper1 · 6 Dec 2014 at 14:44

Th0nt said:
A refresh into power consumption would be a good start, but you were on the right track about overclocking - either brand eat the juice when you overclock, intel are not suddenly more efficient when you push them too!

I wasnt speaking of overclocking intel's. Theres no point unless its at the end of its tech lifespan.

to "be better" than the i5 the fx 8 has to be overclocked to extremes. In which case watercooling is required and the electricity usage goes through the roof.

fx8 110 + 100 + xtraPSU = 220 + PSU difference

i7 = 240 - 270

just get i7 and save a load of moeny over time

ALXAndy · 6 Dec 2014 at 14:49

Svyper1 said:
I wasnt speaking of overclocking intel's. Theres no point unless its at the end of its tech lifespan.

to "be better" than the i5 the fx 8 has to be overclocked to extremes. In which case watercooling is required and the electricity usage goes through the roof.

fx8 110 + 100 + xtraPSU = 220 + PSU difference

i7 = 240 - 270

just get i7 and save a load of moeny over time

Not true. When heavy multitasking comes into play and you run loads of apps at the same time the FX8 is faster, period.

At stock the DC Intels have a half decent clock, but because of that extra overclocks are marginal.

As for electricity? if you're really bothered about an extra £30 or so a year then I pity you. Maybe a visit to the food bank is in order?

Svyper1 · 6 Dec 2014 at 15:01

ALXAndy said:
Not true. When heavy multitasking comes into play and you run loads of apps at the same time the FX8 is faster, period.

At stock the DC Intels have a half decent clock, but because of that extra overclocks are marginal.

As for electricity? if you're really bothered about an extra £30 or so a year then I pity you. Maybe a visit to the food bank is in order?

really mate?

very very few people multitask to the point of bottlenecking 4 cores. i5 is totally worth it if you understand that each app runs better with the better single core performance...

If you are in the IT trade i wouldnt care for your reasoning for the £30 per year as companies have hundreds and hundreds of PCs running at least 40 hrs per week

the saving of more efficient cpus is in the 10's of thousands

ALXAndy · 6 Dec 2014 at 15:07

Svyper1 said:
really mate?

very very few people multitask to the point of bottlenecking 4 cores. i5 is totally worth it if you understand that each app runs better with the better single core performance...

If you are in the IT trade i wouldnt care for your reasoning for the £30 per year as companies have hundreds and hundreds of PCs running at least 40 hrs per week

the saving of more efficient cpus is in the 10's of thousands

Got data to back that up? because right now I'm running about 12 apps on my Intel 8 core and every core is being used by OSX.

If you want to save money on a server you would be running a Opteron any way, so not sure why you've bought that into it?

I don't care how much you twist, or what you bring into it the fact is I am clearly right and you are wrong. GAMES these days do not care about anything much CPU wise and going from an AMD to a Intel will net you practically nothing.

BTW that £30 a year is if you load your CPU 100% for every minute it is switched on. You are comparing apples to dogs any way, given nobody ever seems to take overclocked figures into consideration on the Intels. They only compare the stock power use of the Intel to the overclocked power use of the AMD.

It's cheating, something you don't seem to care about.

Svyper1 · 6 Dec 2014 at 15:19

ALXAndy said:
something you don't seem to care about.

** FACEPALM **

here we go again lol

saying youre right doesnt make you right infact you dont understand how cpus work.

Ill dumb it down for you:

each core basically acts as a lane for traffic to go from A to B.
each lane has a car of data spread as evenly as possible across all lanes.

The information that each lane can pass is like the speed limit of of the road

the more cars drive down the motorway the more cars are then spread across each lane.

when each lane has so many cars it cannot take more you get a traffic jam.

conclusion:

just becasue you are using all of the cores doesnt mean you have bottlenecked the cpu.

which means

you are wrong