Cadence, Micron Update on DDR5: Still On Track, 1.36x Performance Increase Over DDR4 at Same Data Rate

[lexluthermiester]

The timings looks horrible on DDR5, will take a few years before it's worth changing from high-end DDR4.

DDR4 also sucked on launch.

Rubbish. Done right, GDDR5 would be an excellent performer, as it already is for a few systems and has been for video cards.

 

[las]

Rubbish. Done right, GDDR5 would be an excellent performer, as it already is for a few systems and has been for video cards.

I'm talking about DDR5, not GDDR5... Timings on DDR5 modules are very bad from the early numbers. Decent clockspeed, but bad timings.

Like when we went from DDR3 2133-2400 MHz at CL9-10 to DDR4 2133-2400 MHz at CL12-14. It was not impressive at all.
Took a long time before we saw high end DDR4 like 3200/CL14 or 3600/CL15

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm talking about DDR5, not GDDR5......

Oops, sorry, missed that.

 

[bug]

I'm talking about DDR5, not GDDR5... Timings on DDR5 modules are very bad from the early numbers. Decent clockspeed, but bad timings.

Like when we went from DDR3 2133-2400 MHz at CL9-10 to DDR4 2133-2400 MHz at CL12-14. It was not impressive at all.
Took a long time before we saw high end DDR4 like 3200/CL14 or 3600/CL15

Probably a side effect of the lowered voltage.
Intel has been pretty much immune to this for ages, however. Their cache does an amazing job hiding memory latency. Sure, if you move more data than it fits in cache, that doesn't work so well anymore, but overall, it's been ages since it made sense for the average Intel user to fork out cash for lower latency.

 

[las]

Probably a side effect of the lowered voltage.
Intel has been pretty much immune to this for ages, however. Their cache does an amazing job hiding memory latency. Sure, if you move more data than it fits in cache, that doesn't work so well anymore, but overall, it's been ages since it made sense for the average Intel user to fork out cash for lower latency.

Depends on what you do. For high fps gaming it matters alot in many games. Some games are very sensitive to latency. Fallout 4 especially.

When chasing high fps (as in 150+) for 144-240 Hz monitors, CPU and memory speed/timings really matters. I'd never choose less than 3200/CL14 here.

For 60ish fps / Hz it's not worth thinking about. You'll be GPU bound anyway.

 

[bug]

Depends on what you do. For high fps gaming it matters alot in many games. Some games are very sensitive to latency. Fallout 4 especially.

When chasing high fps (as in 150+) for 144-240 Hz monitors, CPU and memory speed/timings really matters. I'd never choose less than 3200/CL14 here.

For 60ish fps / Hz it's not worth thinking about. You'll be GPU bound anyway.

Yeah... no, it doesn't: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews..._Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html

 

[las]

Yeah... no, it doesn't: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews..._Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html

Yes it does. You can see high clockspeed with low latency wins every time.

We're not talking 10-20 fps, but 2-5 fps. It all adds up.

A high clocked (Intel) CPU paired with low latency / high speed memory will deliver the best possible framerates. Nothing new here.

I'm not talking about price to performance here - but best performance.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Took a long time before we saw high end DDR4 like 3200/CL14 or 3600/CL15

Please provide a link where I can find 32GB kits with those timings!
And especially decent priced!