They all (all speeds) have 15-15-15-35 timings. I have a feeling the lowest 2133 speed will run easily at 2400 or 2666Mhz. 1.2v-1.35v

Those are just like the DDR3-800 or DDR3-1066. They love repeating the history instead of bringing the big boys to the table. Oh, well, another 2,3 years wait is not that bad...

its RipJaws 4 DDR4 and quad channel kits, so they put 4 pics in column

Contrary to the claims by marketeers... DDR4 is for servers and doesn't offer any tangible benefits for CPU powered desktop use over DDR3 LV running at 1600 MHz. because DDR3 running at 1600 MHz. is NOT a system bottleneck. Down the road there may eventually be some value in higher frequency DDR3 or DDR4 for CPU powered desktops, but that could be 5-10 years as current CPUs can't saturate DDR3. Testing has shown that APU powered systems can get a little system performance gain with up to 2133 MHz. DDR3 as the GPU section can use the added bandwidth.

The CL rating is based primarily on the frequency and it too has no significant impact on system performance since DDR3 1600 MHz. DRAM was released, as countless tests with real programs have proven. The "real time" essentially stays the same and the number of clock cycles increases as the frequency increases.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM

Those who don't bother to technically educate themselves get fleeced by marketeers.

I've said this before when Haswell-E was much further off. I don't expect any performance gains specific to DDR4.

Having said that doesn't necessarily preclude me from buying into the new upcoming platform though. Not too long ago my personal server went down. I hastily built a new one with hardware I had on hand ( Core i5 2500K / ASUS P8P67 Pro) and installed Server 2012 Essentials while also working to revive the old server. I eventually got the old server back online 100% functional but didn't take the new one offline.

So I've been down a system for some time now. I came close to replacing the system when Haswell was released but didn't. Now "might" be the time I decide to replace the system that was converted into a server and the hardware may well be a Core i7 5820K / ASUS X99 Deluxe with some DDR4 at 2133.

I'm not too particular about the RAM and I don't play games much anymore due to time constraints so I'm not necessarily too particular about the video card either.

Does anyone knows if DDR4 form factor would be the same as DDR3?

heydan83Does anyone knows if DDR4 form factor would be the same as DDR3?

Yes, roughly same form factor(there is minor shape difference, but not size), with different pin-out.

heydan83Does anyone knows if DDR4 form factor would be the same as DDR3?

Afraid not! DDR4 is longer with 288 pins so the DIMM slots are different. The memory controller is also different.

Well Im asking because Im about to buy the Koolance Ram-33, and I just want to know if I would be able to use them in the future when planning to upgrade to DDR4

There should be little to no problem that I can see, but I can check with the modules I have on hand whether or not the size and shape is exact. the clips might be in different locations, but the size is 100% the same.

Motherboards that support DDR3 won't support DDR4 so if you want to upgrade RAM, you also need to upgrade your motherboard and CPU.

Yet it is difficult to estimate how much will all this affect the latency .A prices are crazy wound because they exceed 2 x DDR3 offer and not hew offered 16 GB in slot models. current 4-channel DDR3 rams are about 79 micro / s and latency that's bad regardless of the bendwidh. We'll see what the tests will show when the time came.
Prices are currently crazy and that for normal RAM and not some XMP option. As would be sold DDR3 1600 Hz for 300% mor, not to mention the miserable latency CL-17.Those who will rush to purchase 99 Chipset RAM will definitely overpaid their value !

bogaminot to mention the miserable latency CL-17.

Huh?!?

3000MHz RAM Speed, CAS 15-15-15-35 Timings, 1.20-1.35v VDIMM

www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-099-GS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=2557

There are different pin widths in DDR4 unlike its predecessors where all pins where the same width. The two DIMMs are not physically compatible and are certainly not electrically compatible.

micropage7its RipJaws 4 DDR4 and quad channel kits, so they put 4 pics in column

And it's a misaligned copy paste paste paste job, so it's really the same pic 4 times, super helpful lol.

WHY do we still need XMP profiles with DDR4??!??!? Why aren't the proper timings located in an SPD table???

JorgeContrary to the claims by marketeers... DDR4 is for servers and doesn't offer any tangible benefits for CPU powered desktop use over DDR3 LV running at 1600 MHz. because DDR3 running at 1600 MHz. is NOT a system bottleneck. Down the road there may eventually be some value in higher frequency DDR3 or DDR4 for CPU powered desktops, but that could be 5-10 years as current CPUs can't saturate DDR3. Testing has shown that APU powered systems can get a little system performance gain with up to 2133 MHz. DDR3 as the GPU section can use the added bandwidth.

The CL rating is based primarily on the frequency and it too has no significant impact on system performance since DDR3 1600 MHz. DRAM was released, as countless tests with real programs have proven. The "real time" essentially stays the same and the number of clock cycles increases as the frequency increases.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM

Those who don't bother to technically educate themselves get fleeced by marketeers.

Fact is, there has to be an artificially created urge to upgrade. Otherwise a lot of these companies would not be in business.

MikeMurphyWHY do we still need XMP profiles with DDR4??!??!? Why aren't the proper timings located in an SPD table???

SPD table is for your standard JEDEC memory timing profiles.

JorgeContrary to the claims by marketeers... DDR4 is for servers and doesn't offer any tangible benefits for CPU powered desktop use over DDR3 LV running at 1600 MHz. because DDR3 running at 1600 MHz. is NOT a system bottleneck. Down the road there may eventually be some value in higher frequency DDR3 or DDR4 for CPU powered desktops, but that could be 5-10 years as current CPUs can't saturate DDR3. Testing has shown that APU powered systems can get a little system performance gain with up to 2133 MHz. DDR3 as the GPU section can use the added bandwidth.

The CL rating is based primarily on the frequency and it too has no significant impact on system performance since DDR3 1600 MHz. DRAM was released, as countless tests with real programs have proven. The "real time" essentially stays the same and the number of clock cycles increases as the frequency increases.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM

Those who don't bother to technically educate themselves get fleeced by marketeers.

Get over yourself dude. Your whinging is flawed. DDR4 comes with a completely new highend platform the Intel X99 platform. There is no choice, if you want the platform and enjoy the features like you want a 6 core or 8 core CPU you gotta buy DDR4.

Your argument would only make sense if they released current boards like X79 with a choice of DDR3 or DDR4,

stop feeding the troll. :D

JorgeContrary to the claims by marketeers... DDR4 is for servers and doesn't offer any tangible benefits for CPU powered desktop use over DDR3 LV running at 1600 MHz. because DDR3 running at 1600 MHz. is NOT a system bottleneck. Down the road there may eventually be some value in higher frequency DDR3 or DDR4 for CPU powered desktops, but that could be 5-10 years as current CPUs can't saturate DDR3. Testing has shown that APU powered systems can get a little system performance gain with up to 2133 MHz. DDR3 as the GPU section can use the added bandwidth.

The CL rating is based primarily on the frequency and it too has no significant impact on system performance since DDR3 1600 MHz. DRAM was released, as countless tests with real programs have proven. The "real time" essentially stays the same and the number of clock cycles increases as the frequency increases.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM

Those who don't bother to technically educate themselves get fleeced by marketeers.

I'm just hoping that we won't need to have so many caches on our processors eventually.

AquinusSPD table is for your standard JEDEC memory timing profiles.

Thanks. So why do we need XMP for a brand new standard? Why doesn't the SPD tables per the new standard improve on the old?

I think the concept is lost on you.

MikeMurphyThanks. So why do we need XMP for a brand new standard? Why doesn't the SPD tables per the new standard improve on the old?

I think the concept is lost on you.

Because XMP supports overclocked speed and timings only, not JEDEC specs. And you should take that up with the JEDEC consortium.

cadavecaBecause XMP supports overclocked speed and timings only, not JEDEC specs. And you should take that up with the JEDEC consortium.

My 1600mhz memory ran by default at 1333mhz on my AMD system because it doesn't support XMP. It's spec'ed to 1600mhz at stock voltage. That's not overclocked. Not sure what you're talking about.

MikeMurphyMy 1600mhz memory ran by default at 1333mhz on my AMD system because it doesn't support XMP. It's spec'ed to 1600mhz at stock voltage. That's not overclocked. Not sure what you're talking about.

1333/1600/2133 MHz is default for DDR4. Not sure what YOU are talking about. Anything that is not a JEDEC profile needs XMP, since JEDEC also specifies timings and voltages. Anything that is outside the JEDEC spec requires an XMP profile for easy settings. Just how it has been with Intel for years. XMP is NOT a new standard.