Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

New DDR3 Memory Touted As Fastest In the World 62

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that a relatively unknown Taiwanese company just rolled out what they claim is the world's fastest DDR3 memory kit. "Gingle DDR3 1800 memory module features high performance (1800MHz on P45/ 2000MHz on 790i), lower latency (8-8-8-24), and lower power consumption (1.84V~1.94V)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New DDR3 Memory Touted As Fastest In the World

Comments Filter:
  • Reliability? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Friday September 19, 2008 @02:19PM (#25074731) Journal
    Who cares if it's fast? I want RAM that is reliable first, fast second. I'll be damned if I ever buy overpriced junk that claims to have amazing times, next to no delay, etc. if at the end of the day it fails to read the data sent to it back correctly my kernel crashes in spectacular ways.
    • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Friday September 19, 2008 @02:32PM (#25074991) Homepage Journal

      No matter how hard I try, I can only get my kernel to crash in mundane ways. What's your secret?

      • by fok ( 449027 ) on Friday September 19, 2008 @02:44PM (#25075189) Homepage
        Bad RAM, apparently...
      • buy overpriced junk

        Chances are, by the way he sounds: I assume hes buying the "cheapest/most reliable" RAM. Not realizing that the cheapest is probably not going to make it the most reliable.

        • No, for years I used to buy the stupidly expensive, best spec'd, RAM I could find. I've now moved to one step above bulk economy OEM RAM, and haven't had a single problem since.

          Conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the over clocking crowd will think crappy RAM failing is due to them reaching the limits of what the chip could take in voltage and speed. So execs will sell crap to them implying it works well, sell it with no warranty, and laugh all the way to the bank. Sadly they've all been just a shitty c
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Walt Dismal ( 534799 )
            I generally have no problem overclocking RAM, using a Tesla coil. For at least 15 us.
            • Oh, I know what you mean. I fabricated this neat thing that was like a MOSFET array on a Type I superconductor, using some ideas from core memory to handle the reading/writing of the B-fields. I couldn't afford enough liquid He to run it for very long... :(

              But then I got this great idea of poking a little in one of the sector 34 pipelines at the LHC and draining off some of theirs into a thin-film-silvered (for >98% FIR reflectivity) vacuum flask. I don't think anyone noticed, though.


              I got some

          • Kingston ValueRAM for the win.

            and even GSKILL

            Are all notorious for putting out useless overpriced, shiny, flashy, crap that isn't reliable. Sure, all companies do this to some extent, but the above are completely infatuated with it (top two) or are continuously pushing in that direction (bottom three).

            Heatpipes for my SLI RAM? 2.2 volts? AWESOME!

            I assert that the quality of RAM is inversely proportional to the value of the rebates.

            • by pdusen ( 1146399 )
              What planet do you live on?
              • Planet "thoroughly test your RAM at its rated specs, and use RAM that conforms to proper DDR /2/3 voltage specifications, and ignore RAM that has LEDs and words like "platinum" "dominator" or "OMG""

                • by pdusen ( 1146399 )
                  I can personally attest to the reliability of Corsair and Mushkin RAM, having used them both in numerous builds. And judging from the huge followings of the other brands on your list, I don't know how you can possibly dismiss them as "Crap that isn't reliable."
            • Agree. Bought 2 Corsair 1GB DDR333 SODIMMs for my laptop. Both failed memtest after 2 hours and were RMAed (by Canada Computers). Both replacement Corsairs passed the "week of memtest" test.
              All the Kingston RAM I have (original, not RMA) never failed a week of memtest.

          • I'll concur with that. I bought nice expensive RAM for the first time in my life for my latest motherboard. Twice. Both sets resulted in crashes and memtest failures.

            I went back to the store the third time and told me to give me some RAM that didn't have a name. They said "how about Crucial?" I said "Is Crucial the name of the memory?" They said yes, so I said no, how about another one. Finally they sold me some cheap cheap Wintec stuff with no heat spreaders and it's been rock solid for a year now.

  • ...when I'm upping my FSB to 900mhz...oh wait.

    Unless there is a massive reduction in CAS latency or something (much more than this), "fast" memory speeds mean absolutely nothing. This is nothing but a slashvertisement. Wake me up when it's $40.

    • Cue complaints about metric prefixes in 3 ... 2 ...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by VeNoM0619 ( 1058216 )

      Unless there is a massive reduction in CAS latency or something (much more than this), "fast" memory speeds mean absolutely nothing to me TODAY. This is nothing but a slashvertisement. Wake me up when it's $40.

      text added
      Just because one piece of hardware is pushed beyond necessity doesn't mean it's useless. Wait for the other components to require faster memory (for games/servers OR game servers :P).

      It's useless to you today, but you say "wake me up when" means you would find it news, if you could afford it...

    • by st3v ( 805783 )
      A latency of 8 on DDR3 when the speed is 2GHz means 0.5ns per cycle or 8*0.5ns = 4ns latency. A latency of 3 on DDR2 when the speed is 800MHz means 1.25ns per cycle or 3*1.25ns = 3.75ns latency. Almost the same.
  • by CorporateSuit ( 1319461 ) on Friday September 19, 2008 @02:34PM (#25075037)
    DDR3 touted as slowest memory ever!

    Despite being composed of nothing but twigs and bailing wire, the patent and name for DDR3 has been bestowed upon the worst-ever designed memory chip in the recorded history of mankind. Its designer was quoted as saying "It may not be quick, but she's universal! She can plug herself onto any motherboard with enough sap and doornails. Best to mix the sap up with potater bugs for conductivity though!" Critics have been silent so far, because no one can figure out how in the hell the shoddy chips manage to actually store data (albeit at a snail's rate of transfer). The creator answers their questions with a wink "Maybe I did done use snails. You'll nevar know!"

  • Is there even a bus to enable the actual use of this speed? Most of the slow-down in a PC or server is in getting the information from memory to devices (especially storage devices). This might have limited use in embedded systems, though...

    I'm sticking with DDR2; at least it was an improvement over it's predecessor.
    • Actually DDR2 was not that much of an improvement in the early days, only when they got about 800MHz did it actually become 'faster'. DDR3 was meant to; although I don't know if it does; solve some of the problems which DDR2 brought in.
      • One problem with these newer memory types is that latency isn't improving at all. Only throughput is. For example, 333 MHz DDR, 667 MHz DDR2, and 1333 MHz DDR3 generally have the same latencies, while theoretically the throughput is doubled for each new generation. This DDR3 latency of 8-8-8-24 corresponds to the same times as 2-2-2-6 on DDR, which doesn't sound too fancy.
        • The latancey is falling. It has to wait the same amount of cycles but is running at a faster clock.
          • The latancey is falling. It has to wait the same amount of cycles but is running at a faster clock.

            Not according to my observations. When going from DDR to DDR2, the data transfer rate doubles. For simplicity, let's keep the base clock frequency the same. For a typical base of 166 MHz, DDR has a transfer rate of 333 MHz, and DDR2 has 667 MHz.

            However, the latency numbers are also doubled, for example from 2.5 to 5. Thus the actual time of latency remains the same. The same kind of doubling happens when going from DDR2 to DDR3.

            When you say "the same amount of cycles", please look at DDR figures such a

  • What does faster ram mean? What does faster harddisk mean? What does the fastest proc mean?

    Nothing noticeable. If you look at benchmarks super fast ram and over clocking rarely leave you with more than a 2-3% performance improvement, and if you're lucky 10%. But, 10% of already pretty fast leaves you with? Still, nothing noticeable.
    • Depends on your bottlenecks.

      If your bottleneck is the hard drive, upgrading ram isn't going to do squat.

      If your bottleneck is your cup-n-string modem, upgrading your processor isn't going to help.

      If your bottleneck is the beer bottle, then fix it, and get it straight from the keg (or tap).

      • Well, even so, Ram quality usually has the lowest performance to dollar increase index on hardware. If you have decent ram, I'd prioritize working on another area instead to get better performance for your money. But in the end, it always depend how much performance you want and how much you are ready to pay for it.
        • My perspective on the subject - rather than memory that's 10% faster and cost twice as much, just buy twice as much of the regular stuff.

          1G of regular reliable memory is going to result in a computer that is a TON faster than a machine using 512M of the gold plated memory running with four nanoseconds less latency (or whatever.)

          And by regular stuff, I mean Crucial or Kingston.

  • So it's at

    Frequency: 1800MHz (P45)/ 2000MHz (790i)

    On two motherboards. And only faster on one of them. Touting it as "fastest in the world" is kind of misleading when it only is fastest on one motherboard chipset.

  • buying RAM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Friday September 19, 2008 @04:16PM (#25077015) Homepage

    Unless you have an unlimited budget, you probably have to decide between having a large amount of RAM and having the lowest-latency RAM when you are building a new system.

    Personally, I would rather have eight gigs of high-latency, lower speed RAM than two gigs of low-latency, higher-speed RAM. Who among you makes the other choice? And why?

    • I do numerical computations for a living. I'm diagonalizing matrices all day long, all of which lives in RAM. On my dual-core machine, I'd much rather run two jobs quickly than four jobs very slowly. Of course, if I had a quad-core machine, I'd feel differently.
    • It depends, really. Eight gigs of high latency ram is not going to do squat if you install them on a gaming pc. Considering the fact that right now, most gaming pcs are running XP, I wouldn't recommend a gamer getting that much ram. That said, for more serious applications, a lot of slower ram would be the way to go. Here at work, we crunch a lot of numbers for our simulation. For that kind of application, getting 8 gig of ram per machine is the way to go. All in all, that ram would be gamer toy anyway...
    • Music Producer/Composer. I load up several gigs of sample libraries into memory at once. The more the better. Latency is good enough to be tempo perfect and sync with my MIDI controller on either USB, Firewire, and of course through the MIDI bus on my sound card. Having the ability to utilize 8 gigs would be awesome, but I'm limited to 4 on XP right now. Upgrades are coming, and you can bet that my options will be decided on warranty, price, compatibility, capacity and then finally speed. Speed doesn't matt
    • I'm still stuck with a machine running DDR400.. Your idea of slow RAM and my idea of slow RAM may be a bit different 0.o After all, anything in the DDR2 spectrum would make me giddy with performance boosts..
    • For people running 32bit operating systems, you're choice becomes 2-3GB of slow, high latency ram or 2-3GB of fast, low latency ram. Kind of makes things easier, eh?

      • People still run 32 bit operating systems? Seriously?

        • Most people running Windows still run XP, and XP 64bit is pretty rare. And even in Vista-land, a lot of 64bit hardware inexplicably ships with 32bit Vista for some reason.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.