DDR5 is here, first kits on sale in July

i will wait 6 months and then have a look where we are at with ddr5, its way too early to even think about it much right now when cpus dont even support it
 
BallistixOnZ490 said:
I'm hoping they will still put out low end Alder Lake boards that support DDR4 for my planned min spec upgrade. Needing DDR5 at launch prices might ruin that plan.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on the improvement that DDR5 and Alder Lake make. My assumption it that it'll be like DDR4 at launch and won't immediately over a huge benefit over the previous gen.
 
ocuk and another retailer have the team group ddr5 4800mhz kits up, i've looked closly and the new modules use the same 288pins like ddr4, could we see a bios update on older boards that would allow ddr5 to work?
 
Reality|Bites said:
Prices for a new DDR revision are always inflated for a few months.
DDR4 started out at £500 for 16GB or something crazy like that.
Click to expand...

a certain retailer has the same kit ocuk has for £259 for 32gb ddr5 4800mhz, if you go on the the actual page the price is missing but if you look around it does show up, tbh thats not a bad price concideing the capacity and speed
 
chroniclard said:
Does the high CL affect anything or do overall improvements negate that?
Click to expand...
Gaming performance is more memory access latency dependant than bandwidth dependant.
Also anything single threaded/lowly threaded needs low memory access latencies to run best.

And so far nothing points that DDR5's initial latencies won't be sucks donkey balls bad.
https://www.legitreviews.com/ddr5-6400mhz-memory-benchmarks-shown-on-intel-alder-lake-s_226693
I mean AMD's 70ns starting level with Zens was considered bad.
While Intel DDR4 platrforms routinely achieve sub 50ns latency!

So even if there was some slack from early BIOS that's just horrible.
And with Intel's huge R&D resources and all the manufacturing process involved delays that BIOS side should be in good shape by now.

Just for scale this would equal to CL20 at 2400MHz:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...00c40-4800mhz-dual-channel-kit-my-0an-tg.html
And that 20 cycles would be considered slow at lot faster 3600MHz
Actually it would need CL21 @ 4800Mhz to be at same level as fast DDR4.
 
Joxeon said:
I'd avoid this early stuff as its DDR5s equivalent of DDR4 2133, wait till the enthusiast kits come out that hit 8000mhz+ with decent subs.
Click to expand...
Early DDR4s had fast latencies compared to how slow latencies all these known to be coming DDR5s have.
That CL40 would be slow even at 6400MHz.
CL32@6400MHz would be comparable to normal good CL16 3200MHz DDR4.

It's like DDR5 has been designed by same "clock speeds cure anything" designers as Intel's NetBurst/Pentium 4 and AMD's Bulldozer.

In bandwidth limited work like anything massively multithreading stuff DDR5 is certainly going to bring clear boost.
But for gaming and anything primarily limited by speed of one or two threads... Better to do rain check on expectations.
 
Remember when DDR4 launched, DDR3 already went up to 2400 for highly priced kits, like the current 5000+ DDR4 kits.

DDR5 brings 5000+ clocks at 1.1v however, while DDR4 needs 1.5+v for that.

DDR3's final standard speed was 1600, vs 3600 for current DDR4, also timing and latency needs factoring in.

Several DRAM manufacturers are already working on 10000+ DDR5.

On the note of ram speeds, people once asked why we don't refer to them in Ghz like with CPUs.

Thats because the '10000' isnt the MHz of the ram, but its equivalent rate, which unless DDR5 uses some new technology is currently half of the advertised speed (e.g DDR4 3600 actually runs at 1800 MHz).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom