Now DDR3 2200 is considered mainstream performance, just like back in a day when DDR2 1200 was. When the DDR4 4400 will became mainstream I will buy those....

I wonder if there are any real world benefits to such high clocks. I mean, between 2133 and 3200 are almost non existent. Sure, if you have tons of cash to spend you'll buy fastest anyway, but for gamers, not sure if it's worth paying the premium over non existent boost.

TPU guys, can you make a benchmark of different RAM speeds for various tasks like: gaming, video encoding, file compression etc

And make a nice graph how RAM speeds affect performance. Would be a nice and useful article imo.
If time permits, maybe even testing it between quad channel X99 and dual channel Z170 platforms to see if number of channels affects anything.

RejZoRI wonder if there are any real world benefits to such high clocks. I mean, between 2133 and 3200 are almost non existent. Sure, if you have tons of cash to spend you'll buy fastest anyway, but for gamers, not sure if it's worth paying the premium over non existent boost.

TPU guys, can you make a benchmark of different RAM speeds for various tasks like: gaming, video encoding, file compression etc

And make a nice graph how RAM speeds affect performance. Would be a nice and useful article imo.
If time permits, maybe even testing it between quad channel X99 and dual channel Z170 platforms to see if number of channels affects anything.

There are many reviews around. It doesnt make much difference in gaming and other tasks. almost zero, even between dual and quad channel. In memory Benchmarks its makes a big difference, in the real world it makes no difference.

I've seen tests, but they didn't go quite so high with clocks. They also didn't test many things, just games afaik.

With so many Z170 boards having difficulties maintaining stability at XMP higher than 3200 (probably also due to the quality of the MC on the CPU), what is the point for people to spend even more on something like this one?

ParnWith so many Z170 boards having difficulties maintaining stability at XMP higher than 3200 (probably also due to the quality of the MC on the CPU), what is the point for people to spend even more on something like this one?

"Great" news (as a consolation) that it also doesn't shine with Z170s, as I went X99 and bought 3000Mhz DDR4 which is a gimmick, disables or messes with other mobo functions and is not way faster... Thankfully prices are falling and I didn't pay a fortune.

Prima.VeraNow DDR3 2200 is considered mainstream performance, just like back in a day when DDR2 1200 was. When the DDR4 4400 will became mainstream I will buy those....

DDR3 1600 is still mainstream. No real reason to go higher.
Speaking of gains...in CPU limited situations faster RAM does help quite a bit. Then again you have to compare the prices. Likely it's cheaper to buy a new CPU to remove the bottleneck rather than buying faster RAM.

Personally i'd rather make a compromise between speed and size. Those 4x8GB kits (32GB) @ 3773 seem nice.

Just ordered a set of the 3000mhz c-15 2x16gb for $225 at newegg. $25 cheaper than 2400mhz 2x16gb c16

Not very useful now, but hopefully the next generation of 14nm APUs from AMD could make good use of this speed RAM. If they exist long enough to release a zen APU, that is.

ParnWith so many Z170 boards having difficulties maintaining stability at XMP higher than 3200 (probably also due to the quality of the MC on the CPU), what is the point for people to spend even more on something like this one?

That's board/BIOS problems in many instances, not CPU, but CPU does play a role for sure. Yet some boards rock over 4000 no problem, while others struggle to go over 3466. More info below:

RejZoRI wonder if there are any real world benefits to such high clocks. I mean, between 2133 and 3200 are almost non existent. Sure, if you have tons of cash to spend you'll buy fastest anyway, but for gamers, not sure if it's worth paying the premium over non existent boost.

TPU guys, can you make a benchmark of different RAM speeds for various tasks like: gaming, video encoding, file compression etc

And make a nice graph how RAM speeds affect performance. Would be a nice and useful article imo.
If time permits, maybe even testing it between quad channel X99 and dual channel Z170 platforms to see if number of channels affects anything.

Latency reduction is worthwhile for both Multi-GPU use (since both GPUs get data from ram), and in other places. DDR4-3200 starts to give latency of DDR3-2666, and above 3200 is where things really start to beat DDR3, both in bandwidth and in latency. There are numerous articles on how much ram matters... it's a fair bit. Anyone saying any different has never had it, or is broke, IMHO.

X99 with it's Haswell-based core is much slower than Z170. On X99, there are meager differences from one speed to the next, but on Z170, DDR4-3200 is almost equal to DDR4-2133 on X99 in bandwidth, but with much lower latency. Expect more reviews from me showing this soon.

erixx"Great" news (as a consolation) that it also doesn't shine with Z170s, as I went X99 and bought 3000Mhz DDR4 which is a gimmick, disables or messes with other mobo functions and is not way faster... Thankfully prices are falling and I didn't pay a fortune.

Again, board issue. My X99 Deluxe ran 3000 MHz ram @ 3333 MHz 24/7 without any problems, and many other boards are just as capable.


It's unfortunate that you need to spend a lot of money on both board and ram to have good mem clock scaling, but that's just how it is. Z170 makes this even more evident than X99. I've had 3600 MHz-rated ram since before Z170 launch, and there are still many boards that cannot run those sticks.

cadaveca...Expect more reviews from me showing this soon. ...

Please dont forget min FPS in games

FolterknechtPlease dont forget min FPS in games

Yeah, there is that too. That said, DDR3-1600 and DDR4-2133 are adequate for their platforms, but there is a difference between having "good enough", and the "best you can get". I've seen people say countless times "The cost isn't worth it", but that's a quite personal decision, and is more about wallets that facts.

cadavecaThat's board/BIOS problems in many instances, not CPU, but CPU does play a role for sure. Yet some boards rock over 4000 no problem, while others struggle to go over 3466. More info below:




Latency reduction is worthwhile for both Multi-GPU use (since both GPUs get data from ram), and in other places. DDR4-3200 starts to give latency of DDR3-2666, and above 3200 is where things really start to beat DDR3, both in bandwidth and in latency. There are numerous articles on how much ram matters... it's a fair bit. Anyone saying any different has never had it, or is broke, IMHO.

X99 with it's Haswell-based core is much slower than Z170. On X99, there are meager differences from one speed to the next, but on Z170, DDR4-3200 is almost equal to DDR4-2133 on X99 in bandwidth, but with much lower latency. Expect more reviews from me showing this soon.



Again, board issue. My X99 Deluxe ran 3000 MHz ram @ 3333 MHz 24/7 without any problems, and many other boards are just as capable.


It's unfortunate that you need to spend a lot of money on both board and ram to have good mem clock scaling, but that's just how it is. Z170 makes this even more evident than X99. I've had 3600 MHz-rated ram since before Z170 launch, and there are still many boards that cannot run those sticks.

Well, with quad channel, one would expect individual stick means less since you have a massive highway ready to be used even if each stick is slower. Similar to how Fury works with HBM memory. It's slower, but it's so ridiculously wide it doesn't matter all that much.

RejZoRWell, with quad channel, one would expect individual stick means less since you have a massive highway ready to be used even if each stick is slower. Similar to how Fury works with HBM memory. It's slower, but it's so ridiculously wide it doesn't matter all that much.

Unfortunately, due to latency, that's not exactly the case with X99. Remember all the complaints about "slow" DDR4.... yeah, X99 and latency.

There is difference in between DDR3 1066 and DDR3 2400 on multi-GPU setups even on AMD based stuff. I imagine this is nothing different in DDR4. This is also just binning, in theory as has always been true you could find a lower cost module with the same chips and clock to the same speeds, but your mileage will vary.

Probably the sickest heat spreader on a RAM, I've seen to this day.

cadavecaUnfortunately, due to latency, that's not exactly the case with X99. Remember all the complaints about "slow" DDR4.... yeah, X99 and latency.

Are DDR4 better suited for Z170 Platform then on X99 and its haswell based core? I noticed on my X99 when I enabled XMP, BIOS changes the BLCK freq and strap to 125 while on Z170 that is not the case.

That's a tough question to answer. I don't know exactly what you mean by "better suited". The obvious difference between the two would be the memory controller (quad vs dual-channel).

Either way, these sticks that the news post is about is 100% designed (researched, binned, mated with PCB, tested) for Z170, and likely will not work with X99. The same applies in reverse; many X99 kits are a bit problematic on Z170, and perhaps because they are utilized differently in the newer Z170 platform.

Just got my sticks and they look so much better in person than any picture!

cadavecaEither way, these sticks that the news post is about is 100% designed (researched, binned, mated with PCB, tested) for Z170, and likely will not work with X99. The same applies in reverse; many X99 kits are a bit problematic on Z170, and perhaps because they are utilized differently in the newer Z170 platform.

I've been wondering about this actually. It feels like mainstream memory (not counting servers and those sensitive OEM desktops) is having more and more compatibility issues. Why is that? More complicated circuitry so more things that has to go right/needs to be thoroughly tested?

FrickI've been wondering about this actually. It feels like mainstream memory (not counting servers and those sensitive OEM desktops) is having more and more compatibility issues. Why is that? More complicated circuitry so more things that has to go right/needs to be thoroughly tested?

More often than not current DDR4 compatibility issues are simply BIOS problems. I have yet to find an issue not fixed with a BIOS update. There have been three "major" speed boosts to BIOSes (in terms of raw MHz), and getting these updates rolled out to all boards across two platforms and tested properly takes time. The companies with the stronger BIOS development teams win out with this one. DDR4 is still an infant, so to me this sort of stuff is to be expected.

So for right now, end users should be buying stuff listed in QVLs for each product if using a DDR4 platform. Meanwhile DDR3 is pretty much rock solid at this point.