Friday, August 9th 2013

G.SKILL TridentX Reaches DDR3 4400 MHz

G.SKILL International Co. Ltd., the world's leading manufacturer of extreme performance memory and superior solid-state storage, tops the memory frequency world record chart once again with "G.SKILL TridentX" overclocked to an amazing DDR3 4400 MHz. Using 4th Generation Intel Core i7 4770K, ASUS Maximus 6 Impact and a steady flow of LN2, professional overclocker James "YoungPro" Trevaskis from TeamAU were able to push the factory spec G.SKILL TridentX DDR3 3000MHz C12 4GB stick to the world's fastest DDR3 4400MHz CL13.

For more information and validations, please visit this page.
Add your own comment

27 Comments on G.SKILL TridentX Reaches DDR3 4400 MHz

#2
Mathragh
by: Over_Lord
Impressive!
Indeed! and lets not forget that this is also quite an accomplishment from a memory controller perspective.
Posted on Reply
#3
Jaanos
by: Mathragh
Indeed! and lets not forget that this is also quite an accomplishment from a memory controller perspective.
Nice to know but mostly useless if you consider memory bandwidth (high speed/loose timings v lower speed tight timings). Isn't it?
Posted on Reply
#4
sno.lcn
by: Jaanos
Nice to know but mostly useless if you consider memory bandwidth (high speed/loose timings v lower speed tight timings). Isn't it?
Posted on Reply
#5
Sasqui
by: Jaanos
Nice to know but mostly useless if you consider memory bandwidth (high speed/loose timings v lower speed tight timings). Isn't it?
Yea, if they managed C11, I'd be more impressed. And if they showed benchmarks I'd be even more-more inpressed.
Posted on Reply
#6
Nabarun
Yeah, great achievement indeed. But do note the CPU frequency. 1.8GHz.
Forget RAM timings. Useless rig. But Haswell is like this, what can anybody do? I wonder if they can do this on a AMD-based system.
Posted on Reply
#7
Jorge
This stuff is just for bragging and advertising purposes. It has no practical application as DDR3 @ 1600 MHz. on a desktop CPU based PC is not a bottleneck so they could overclock the RAM to 10,000 MHz. and not show any practical advantage. For those who don't know a PC with a APU does show small gains with RAM frequencies up to ~2133 MHz.

The hyped RAM frequencies are designed to get people to throw away their money because they don't understand PC s well enough to know they are being duped.
Posted on Reply
#8
buildzoid
by: Jorge
This stuff is just for bragging and advertising purposes. It has no practical application as DDR3 @ 1600 MHz. on a desktop CPU based PC is not a bottleneck so they could overclock the RAM to 10,000 MHz. and not show any practical advantage. For those who don't know a PC with a APU does show small gains with RAM frequencies up to ~2133 MHz.

The hyped RAM frequencies are designed to get people to throw away their money because they don't understand PC s well enough to know they are being duped.
APU get massive gains from faster ram here: AMD A10-6800K Richland Ram Speed Test - ADATA RAM ...
Posted on Reply
#9
EarthDog
Super impressive... and even at CL13, those are amazing speeds.

An APU using the onboard GPU does see larger gains than others because that iGPU is using system ram which is the bottleneck in some cases.
Posted on Reply
#10
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: buildzoid
APU get massive gains from faster ram here: AMD A10-6800K Richland Ram Speed Test - ADATA RAM ...
Or if you like me HATE IT when people do videos instead of graphs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-scaling-trinity,3419.html

In short, massive is an exaggeration, respectable is more fitting. Unless they guy in the video came up with something else, I didn't watch it (and I never will, and I assume it's a guy).
Posted on Reply
#11
Nabarun
The bottom line is, Haswell's integrated memory controller is the bottleneck here. Why shouldn't we be allowed to OC the CPU and RAM independently?
Posted on Reply
#12
EarthDog
by: Nabarun
The bottom line is, Haswell's integrated memory controller is the bottleneck here. Why shouldn't we be allowed to OC the CPU and RAM independently?
NOne of this makes sense... Clearly these speeds could not be reached with Ivybridge... Second, you can OC the CPU and ram independently. :confused:
Posted on Reply
#13
Nabarun
by: EarthDog
NOne of this makes sense... Clearly these speeds could not be reached with Ivybridge... Second, you can OC the CPU and ram independently. :confused:
The OC potential on Haswell's CPU core is inversely proportional to the OC potential of the RAM. That's what I meant. If you OC the CPU core too much, you won't be able to OC the RAM too much and vice versa. Only a tiny percentage of the Haswell chips allow you to OC both the CPU and RAM without frying them up.

P.S.
Note how they had to underclock the cpu to achieve that huge RAM OC.
Posted on Reply
#14
EarthDog
Ahhh, now THAT I can understand and agree with. :)
Posted on Reply
#15
Jaanos
by: Nabarun

P.S.
Note how they had to underclock the cpu to achieve that huge RAM OC.
+ this too to run that memory on this speed :)
Last 5 years I feel growing gap between fancy numbers and real performance. From cores 2-> 4-> 6-> 12-> 24 difference getting smaller and smaller. About the same with the flooding around "memory announcements". Nice to know we can theoretically run 4400 instead 1600 but concerning performance we gain little if something. To gain something we must sacrifice nearly as much. Play with numbers instead real performance gain, DDR4 around the corner. Like a beating a dead horse :)

Haswell on a way wondering will I be blessed to feel once again in my life as much improvement in user experience as it was with my first dual socket mobo back in 2000 compared to single cpu models I had before :D
Posted on Reply
#16
Nabarun
by: Jaanos
To gain something we must sacrifice nearly as much.
I think in this particular case the sacrifice is 10 times as much as the gain.
4770K@4.8GHz /RAM 1866MHz vs 1.8GHz/4400MHz.
Posted on Reply
#17
EarthDog
A lot of people at this particular forum just cannot seem to conceptualize the difference in what that record is and what is daily computing. Its akin to complaining that a top fuel dragster isn't a street legal car. Learn to separate the two and appreciate it for what it is. These are not 24/7 situations so complaining and comparing it like so isn't terribly valid IMO.

We all know DDR3 1600-1866 is the sweet spot and memory speed over that show little to no gains in most real world applications including games.

CL13 4400MHz will be faster than CL9 1600Mhz.
Posted on Reply
#18
Nabarun
by: EarthDog
CL13 4400MHz will be faster than CL9 1600Mhz.
The RAM can't run on it's own. The speed gain is meaningless when the "king" has to be SO MUCH crippled. We are talking about "actual" gain having already accepted the "record" for what it is.
Posted on Reply
#19
Jaanos
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarthDog View Post
CL13 4400MHz will be faster than CL9 1600Mhz.
Yes but you really can`t run this CL13 4400MHz on air but you can run 1600Mhz CL7 or even @2000
Thats why I call it "nice to know"...

When I was looking memory for Haswell I discovered good kits giving to run memory on tight timings were actually released with SB/IB. Some of them not even available anymore. Seems all manufactures are concentrated on speed race- bigger numbers are pretty.
Posted on Reply
#20
EarthDog
They are pretty.... useless. :p

I would still bet though, Nadurn, that even with 1.8GHz CPU speed (KING?!!!) that the memory bandwidth will still beat out stock haswell and 1600MHz CL7...
Posted on Reply
#21
Nabarun
CPU is called the king for good reasons. No amount of memory oc is worth so much under-clocking the CPU.
Posted on Reply
#22
n-ster
by: EarthDog
A lot of people at this particular forum just cannot seem to conceptualize the difference in what that record is and what is daily computing. Its akin to complaining that a top fuel dragster isn't a street legal car. Learn to separate the two and appreciate it for what it is. These are not 24/7 situations so complaining and comparing it like so isn't terribly valid IMO.

We all know DDR3 1600-1866 is the sweet spot and memory speed over that show little to no gains in most real world applications including games.

CL13 4400MHz will be faster than CL9 1600Mhz.
I'd say more like complaining about it's fuel consumption and range but I agree with your point :p

A car designed to accelerate like crazy and be the fastest for 1 mile wont be very useful of a car as it might burn 10x as much fuel and have 1/20th of the range of a Honda civic. Hell it might have a top speed that's really low just because it's designed for acceleration so it's performance is not great, but specifically its acceleration is.

In the same way the RAM aren't designed for the highest performance or stability but for the highest clock rate. Asking for benchmarks or comparing it's performance to other lower clocked RAM is a moot point as it's a given
Posted on Reply
#23
Nabarun
by: n-ster
I'd say more like complaining about it's fuel consumption and range but I agree with your point :p

A car designed to accelerate like crazy and be the fastest for 1 mile wont be very useful of a car as it might burn 10x as much fuel and have 1/20th of the range of a Honda civic. Hell it might have a top speed that's really low just because it's designed for acceleration so it's performance is not great, but specifically its acceleration is.

In the same way the RAM aren't designed for the highest performance or stability but for the highest clock rate. Asking for benchmarks or comparing it's performance to other lower clocked RAM is a moot point as it's a given
I'd say it's more like having very fast wheels but not enough horsepower to drive the car faster than a bicycle.
Posted on Reply
#24
Assimilator
An impressive result for G.Skill, considering that the 2nd best overclock is Corsair memory @ 4.29GHz/CL14.
Posted on Reply
#25
erixx
Where's cadaveca when you need him? :toast:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment