What is the performance benefit to DDR4? At the same timings/clock speeds is it any faster than DDR3?

2133 at CL15? Lol, that's terrible.
Come back when you got something solid, ADATA.

while powered at 1.2V

Yeah,... thanks but no thanks.:rolleyes:

Harsh comments.

The latency is 12% worse than a 1600mhz CL10 dimm that nobody seems to complain about, with throughput improved by 33%, all on 1.2v.

That is damn good for a first-gen DDR4 offering. Don't forget that DDR3 wasn't much better than DDR2 to start.

DDR4 is designed primarily for servers. It offers no tangible performance benefit over DDR3 LV because DDR3 @ 1600 MHz. has proven in extensive testing to not be a system bottleneck on a performance desktop PC that is CPU powered. Desktop PC's with APUs can use DDR3 up to 2133 MHz. for a small gain in GPU performance if you're using the integrated GPU vs. a discrete GPU. Theoretical performance at faster frequencies doesn't represent real work results because DDR3 RAM isn't slowing the system. Thus faster DDR3 or DDR4 RAM isn't going to provide any tangible system performance gain, which has been documented. Anyone can conduct their own tests with real apps and prove it to themselves.

DDR4 is being hyped because PC sales are so bad that memory makers are not selling much DDR3. With DDR4 which is a totally different topology, you must buy all of the DDR4 RAM you desire in one purchase. There is no "adding of RAM" like with prior DDR memory. If you decide you want more DDR4 RAM then you scap what you have and pay again for a larger quantity of DDR4 RAM - and you get vertually nothing in system performance for the price. This is a desperation move because the PC industry like most industries is suffering from the 6+ year economic meltdown in Asia, the U.S. and Europe.

MikeMurphyHarsh comments.

The latency is 12% worse than a 1600mhz CL10 dimm that nobody seems to complain about, with throughput improved by 33%, all on 1.2v.

That is damn good for a first-gen DDR4 offering. Don't forget that DDR3 wasn't much better than DDR2 to start.

1600 @ CL10 is abysmal, 1600 @ CL9 is tolerable, 1600 @ CL8 is acceptable.

Assimilator1600 @ CL10 is abysmal, 1600 @ CL9 is tolerable, 1600 @ CL8 is acceptable.

And all three will perform nearly identical in most situations.

2133 CL15? WUT?! i get better stuff with DDR3 already and hoestly that 0.45 Volt less are not worth it

Deja vu' comments from DDR3.... People never learn I guess...

The same happened with DDR3 when they first launched, the DDR2-1066 or better were smoking them. Now a DDR3-2133 is exactly double the performance of the DDR2-1066. Same will happen with DDR4 when it will get improved freqs, 4Ghz or more. Just patience people.

Indeed, 'twas the same from the old days, let it mature for a while

Prima.VeraDeja vu' comments from DDR3.... People never learn I guess...

The same happened with DDR3 when they first launched, the DDR2-1066 or better were smoking them. Now a DDR3-2133 is exactly double the performance of the DDR2-1066. Same will happen with DDR4 when it will get improved freqs, 4Ghz or more. Just patience people.

Exactly that!
And I remember it happened with DDR2 too that was slower than DDR(1) at launch...

Most people, even power users and high end gamers, haven't found the sweet spot for DDR3 (2400MHz), so why even worry about DDR4? 2400 RAM is now priced almost the same as 1600 (~$85 for 2x4GB), but people still insist it's a waste of money! My Ivy 3570K system loves 2400 RAM, runs 4500 MHz CPU clocks without breaking a sweat, and outperforms most 3770K systems in several metrics. In a couple of years, DDR4 3000 or 3200 might be the sweet spot for price vs. performance. Next year when DDR3 2600 or 2800 becomes reasonably priced, I may upgrade again, since the Ivy Bridge IMC can handle it. Haswell is a failed platform for enthusiasts and overclockers, and I don't expect Haswell-E to fare any better. I don't care too much about DDR4 until they refine the CPU architecture of their mainstream lineup, hopefully in Broadwell or Skylake. But I'm not holding my breath...

JorgeDDR4 is designed primarily for servers. It offers no tangible performance benefit over DDR3 LV because DDR3 @ 1600 MHz. has proven in extensive testing to not be a system bottleneck on a performance desktop PC that is CPU powered. Desktop PC's with APUs can use DDR3 up to 2133 MHz. for a small gain in GPU performance if you're using the integrated GPU vs. a discrete GPU. Theoretical performance at faster frequencies doesn't represent real work results because DDR3 RAM isn't slowing the system. Thus faster DDR3 or DDR4 RAM isn't going to provide any tangible system performance gain, which has been documented. Anyone can conduct their own tests with real apps and prove it to themselves.

You're missing the point. DDR4 is being introduced for future platforms, not current platforms. Future platforms will be faster and will benefit from improved memory performance.

In any event the power savings in servers will be what drives initial DDR4 adoption.

HoodMost people, even power users and high end gamers, haven't found the sweet spot for DDR3 (2400MHz), so why even worry about DDR4? 2400 RAM is now priced almost the same as 1600 (~$85 for 2x4GB), but people still insist it's a waste of money! My Ivy 3570K system loves 2400 RAM, runs 4500 MHz CPU clocks without breaking a sweat, and outperforms most 3770K systems in several metrics. In a couple of years, DDR4 3000 or 3200 might be the sweet spot for price vs. performance. Next year when DDR3 2600 or 2800 becomes reasonably priced, I may upgrade again, since the Ivy Bridge IMC can handle it. Haswell is a failed platform for enthusiasts and overclockers, and I don't expect Haswell-E to fare any better. I don't care too much about DDR4 until they refine the CPU architecture of their mainstream lineup, hopefully in Broadwell or Skylake. But I'm not holding my breath...

I'm more excited to see beefier APUs designed to take advantage of the improved bandwidth. Intel architectures are sure fast but not nearly as much fun tuning as AMD APUs.

I'm happy as long as it gets us further towards eliminating caches in processors.

i recall ddr 3 being considerably better than ddr2 was compared to ddr1 at the start. DDR4 at 2133MHz- Comeon we have ddr3 at CL10 and 9 at those clocks

MikeMurphyI'm more excited to see beefier APUs designed to take advantage of the improved bandwidth. Intel architectures are sure fast but not nearly as much fun tuning as AMD APUs.

The new APUs are definitely becoming relevant in the budget/office/casual gaming PC market. I recently built an FM2+/A8-6600K system for about $500 (see system specs), but had 2x4GB DDR3-1600 laying around so I used it instead of something faster. FM2+ for the upgrade path to Kaveri APUs coming out in 3 days. A friend liked the system so much I sold it to him, so I didn't get much time to play with it, but he will upgrade the RAM and APU. He was so impressed by the on board grapics, he's waiting to see how it performs with an A10-7850K and 2133 RAM before deciding whether to buy a dedicated GPU. At least I'll get first-hand knowledge from him about the new platform, how HSA and Mantle increases graphics performance, etc. I'm basically an Intel guy, but I have new found respect for AMD and the direction they've taken lately, and I'll now be recommending APU systems for budget builds instead of exclusively Intel.

DDR4 means GDDR6 is just around the corner...

teheheDDR4 means GDDR6 is just around the corner...

Hmmm... That's interesting. No news regarding this, but this will be like mana for GPU's that requires a lot of bandwidth, specially for higher resolutions and high values of AA.

The speeds dont even pique my interest. 1600mhz DDR3 is fine for everything unless your into synthetic benchmarks and spend more time in 3dmark then actually using your PC. the density of the chips is what im excited about when it comes to DDR4

JorgeWith DDR4 which is a totally different topology, you must buy all of the DDR4 RAM you desire in one purchase. There is no "adding of RAM" like with prior DDR memory.

Does this mean that future motherboard will have just 1 DDR4 memory slot?

MikeMurphyHarsh comments.

The latency is 12% worse than a 1600mhz CL10 dimm that nobody seems to complain about, with throughput improved by 33%, all on 1.2v.

That is damn good for a first-gen DDR4 offering. Don't forget that DDR3 wasn't much better than DDR2 to start.

Well, I've gotten used to it already. People with no clue just speaking their "mind". While in all honesty, these corporations are ripping us off at every corner, it's kinda sad to badmouth tech you don't even understand, and worse of all, is in it's incipient state and has yet to hit the streets to begin with. Enthusiasts my ass.

Blue-KnightDoes this mean that future motherboard will have just 1 DDR4 memory slot?

As I understand it, this means only 1 module per channel. I don't know how many channels will be supported, but I guess you won't be able to mix densities or speeds in different channels. Not really a big deal - if there's 4 channels supported, and you have 4 DDR4 modules at 3000 MHz and a density of 4GB/module, to upgrade speed or total amount, you must replace all 4 sticks with higher speed or higher density modules (to remain in 4 channel mode). Not too much different from a well-planned DDR3 system. I always do it that way anyway.