Is RAM getting more expensive?

[Hood]

Thanks for the input, Vario, I see you are running Sandy and Ivy systems, so you know what they can do with memory. I bought 2400 sticks because it was only $15 more at the time, and what surprised me was the lower latency, considering the looser timings required. In the AIDA64 memory bencmark, I always have the lowest latency of all compared systems, and CPU scores that beat everything but 6 core Intel chips. Yes, it's only a benchmark, but I believe I can feel the difference in responsiveness compared to 1600 sticks (unless it's the "placebo effect"). I usually shop for RAM on NewEgg, and there is no cheap RAM anymore, but I noticed that 1600 is just as high as 2400, even in the same brand sometimes. So my thinking is that you might as well get the 2400, as long as your IMC and motherboard can handle it. It's only a one-time purchase, and it doesn't wear out (or if it does you have a lifetime warranty). In the future more programs and games will be optimized to take advantage of faster RAM.

 

[Vario]

Ram can wear out over time but most good companies have life time warranties, biggest thing is DDR4 making it obsolete later.

Really impressed with how ivy and sandy run ram, I can get some pretty good frequencies!

 

[Melvis]

Yep its gone up big time here in Australia, its basically doubled in price. I used to be able to get 8GB of DDR3 1333 RAM for just under $50, now its just under $100, SUX!!!

 

[Super XP]

I grabbed a good set for a $100's cheaper then the price today.
The more prices go up, the less we should buy, to force prices down again.

 

[cleverley]

The prices just kept on rising, but I do not like this Phenomenon。

 

[Blue-Knight]

The more prices go up, the less we should buy, to force prices down again.

But that's automatic. DDR3 is dying, manufacturers must be busy designing DDR4 modules and DDR3 production decreased because of this (making its price to increase).

Just a theory. Not sure.

 

[theFOoL]

have a look here and maybe this is why RAM price has gone up but it seems complete BS http://www.techoftomorrow.com/2014/pc/low-production-of-dram-may-cause-higher-prices-in-2014/

 

[Chetkigaming]

I have a kingston beast black 2x4gb 1600@cl8, nice one for 60$, its maybe a big money but i don`t really care, i just dont f*ck my mind on that comparing to a gpu its a cheap one part.

 

[Gilletter]

At OP, Funny I was thinking the same thing! I was looking at upgrading the RAM on my laptop and it's $80 for two 4 GB sticks!!! I said forget it... I'll deal with the 4 GB it has... lol

 

[torgoth]

In a similar thread, months ago, people were saying that its because of the consoles... once they start manufacturing then prices will go down again... yet nothing has changed only more and more expensive

 

[brandonwh64]

LOL I bought 2x4GB Gskill sticks for 25.99$ year and a half ago, The price today is CRAZY

 

[Sasqui]

Thanks for the input, Vario, I see you are running Sandy and Ivy systems, so you know what they can do with memory. I bought 2400 sticks because it was only $15 more at the time, and what surprised me was the lower latency, considering the looser timings required. In the AIDA64 memory bencmark, I always have the lowest latency of all compared systems, and CPU scores that beat everything but 6 core Intel chips. Yes, it's only a benchmark, but I believe I can feel the difference in responsiveness compared to 1600 sticks (unless it's the "placebo effect"). I usually shop for RAM on NewEgg, and there is no cheap RAM anymore, but I noticed that 1600 is just as high as 2400, even in the same brand sometimes. So my thinking is that you might as well get the 2400, as long as your IMC and motherboard can handle it. It's only a one-time purchase, and it doesn't wear out (or if it does you have a lifetime warranty). In the future more programs and games will be optimized to take advantage of faster RAM.

Faster memory does make a difference! Don't let people tell you differently !

16GB (4x4GB) of 2133 C9 Back in October 2012 = $108 ($54 each kit) This, now $97 each kit): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231518

 

[Hood]

have a look here and maybe this is why RAM price has gone up but it seems complete BS http://www.techoftomorrow.com/2014/pc/low-production-of-dram-may-cause-higher-prices-in-2014/

Elric Phares is just speculating, based on media reports (always risky). It has also been said that today's prices are in line with average prices going back years (adjusted for inflation), it just seems high because for a while the DDR3 market was over-supplied, and that is what had prices so low (before the fire). After the fire, abundant supplies of DDR3 were in doubt, so the market followed it's natural course, fueled by greed, server farm expansion, and by everyone trying to upgrade before prices got too high. In February 2013 I bought 8 GB of 2400 Kingston Beast RAM for $65 ($8.12/GB). The fire was in September 2013, prices went up almost 100%, sales decreased, but prices remained high. In Feb. 2014, I bought 16 GB of Adata 2400 RAM for $140 (8.75/GB), not much different than a year ago (although the Kingston Beast 2400 is now $110/8GB!). Granted, the recent purchase of yellow Adata 2400 RAM was not in my color choice, because the same kit in grey was $40 more! I'm just pointing out that, with a bit of shopping around, you can now find better deals, especially if you avoid top name brands like Corsair, Kingston, Crucial, and Patriot.

 

[Ahhzz]

Yuck... 3/4/2013
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory Model F3-1866C10Q-32GXL
Item #: N82E16820231562
Memory Standard Return Policy$194.99
2-10-2014
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory Model F3-1866C10Q-32GXL

• $309.99

Glad I got mine when I did... and still not glad my next purchase is one of these coin-farming Vid cards for Star Citizen

 

[Tatty_Two]

I bought Two 8GB kits of 2133mhz memory exactly a year ago, I have been using 3 of the 4 sticks in triple channel for 12GB, I paid £29.99 per kit back then, I am soon to upgrade and will use all 4 of the sticks at that time so a couple of weeks ago I tested the 4th unused stick to find it faulty, I then RMA'd one of the kits to get it replaced. Team no longer do the particular sticks anymore so have replaced it with another 8GB kit with exactly the same specs, these however cost £69.99 retail! Might just sell them as new and keep with just 8GB when I upgrade, I only really surf and play the odd light game.

 

[brandonwh64]

Here is a comparison of 2011 and now.... Flat out crappy!

 

[theo2021]

Some say it's production problem limited items means bigger price, others say it's in order to sell what they have and start a new lineup with DDR4
I remember buying 4x4GB Vengeance 1600Mhz total of 16GB at 79.9 euros

Now it costs 172.9

That is a 201% up i can't believe it there must be something bigger going on that is a big price difference , i hope prices change!

 

[Ahhzz]

Here is a comparison of 2011 and now.... Flat out crappy!

View attachment 54592

ouch... that's crappy as hell...

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I'm playing this as a long run game.

The idea behind the changing cost of RAM is not consumer demand, but large manufacturer and console making demand.

DDR3 factors largely into tablets and mobile devices. The iphone boom, followed by the tablet boom, led manufacturers to demand large supplies of ddr3 chips. They have the contractual weight to force the cost of RAM chips down (by volume sales), and they only move when they've got financial motivation. At any rate, these companies saw the tablet and mobile device boom getting much larger. They order boat loads of the RAM chips, and manufacturers made them.

As the market saturated with RAM chips, their price went down. Unfortunately, the tablets and smart devices saturated the market, meaning that they stopped selling. The large companies cut their orders, but production couldn't be shut down over night. This meant a flood of cheap DDR3 based memory on the market, which meant awesome RAM prices for consumers.

Manufacturers have responded by decreasing production. Various disasters supposedly contributed to the decline, but without them we'd still be experiencing price normalization. Please note I did not say an increase, as the cost of RAM had been artificially deflated due to existing stock.

The source cited as saying pricing is actually in line with historical norms is reasonable. My concern is that an influx of new consoles, combined with stubborn curmudgeons finally abandoning XP, is going to swing the RAM prices higher than reasonable. This seems like an unfortunate inevitability.


Now, the accusation that DDR4 is an influence is a joke. How many devices currently use DDR4? How many pieces of hardware could actually use DDR4? If you said anything but none, you're untethered from reality. DDR4 is an interesting thought experiment, but it is much like DDR3 years ago. It won't replace its predecessor for months after it is available to consumers, it will cost an insane amount whenever it start being produced, and it will be produced in parallel with DDR3 for the immediate future. Anyone who tries to attribute DDR3 price increases to current DDR4 production is grasping at straws to explain simple economic boom and bust. If you don't remember, DDR2 was cheaper than DDR3 for months after it was available. DDR3 prices are going to normalize, and likely remain that way until the modules are twilighted over the next 3-4 years (note: consoles are the primary motivation for the extended period, as their sales will continue long after DDR4 is standard in PCs).

 

[GayleShier]

that is bad news to me too as i am looking forward to upgrade the existing hardware of my laptop

 

[vega22]

I'm playing this as a long run game.

The idea behind the changing cost of RAM is not consumer demand, but large manufacturer and console making demand.

DDR3 factors largely into tablets and mobile devices. The iphone boom, followed by the tablet boom, led manufacturers to demand large supplies of ddr3 chips. They have the contractual weight to force the cost of RAM chips down (by volume sales), and they only move when they've got financial motivation. At any rate, these companies saw the tablet and mobile device boom getting much larger. They order boat loads of the RAM chips, and manufacturers made them.

As the market saturated with RAM chips, their price went down. Unfortunately, the tablets and smart devices saturated the market, meaning that they stopped selling. The large companies cut their orders, but production couldn't be shut down over night. This meant a flood of cheap DDR3 based memory on the market, which meant awesome RAM prices for consumers.

Manufacturers have responded by decreasing production. Various disasters supposedly contributed to the decline, but without them we'd still be experiencing price normalization. Please note I did not say an increase, as the cost of RAM had been artificially deflated due to existing stock.

The source cited as saying pricing is actually in line with historical norms is reasonable. My concern is that an influx of new consoles, combined with stubborn curmudgeons finally abandoning XP, is going to swing the RAM prices higher than reasonable. This seems like an unfortunate inevitability.


Now, the accusation that DDR4 is an influence is a joke. How many devices currently use DDR4? How many pieces of hardware could actually use DDR4? If you said anything but none, you're untethered from reality. DDR4 is an interesting thought experiment, but it is much like DDR3 years ago. It won't replace its predecessor for months after it is available to consumers, it will cost an insane amount whenever it start being produced, and it will be produced in parallel with DDR3 for the immediate future. Anyone who tries to attribute DDR3 price increases to current DDR4 production is grasping at straws to explain simple economic boom and bust. If you don't remember, DDR2 was cheaper than DDR3 for months after it was available. DDR3 prices are going to normalize, and likely remain that way until the modules are twilighted over the next 3-4 years (note: consoles are the primary motivation for the extended period, as their sales will continue long after DDR4 is standard in PCs).

so the fact that they have dismantled ddr3 plants to be refitted with ddr4 making machinery has no influence at all?

i do agree with you in the most part mind. demand went up, cost went up, production went up, price came down. now both the demand and production are down which is helping to make the move to ddr4 easier. but even with "high" ddr3 prices ddr4 will still cost more when it finally hits the shelves. early adopter tax will never go away xD

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

so the fact that they have dismantled ddr3 plants to be refitted with ddr4 making machinery has no influence at all?...

I'm not exactly sure on how to answer this, so excuse me if I say something you've already got a firm grasp upon.

There is no real difference between DDR4 and DDR3, from a manufacturing standpoint. The manufacturing side takes RAM chip, mounts to stick, solders, and runs tests. The actual contents of the chip mean little to nothing.

As far as the chip manufacturing side, DDR4 is a change in design, not a drastic change in technology. You could theoretically make DDR4 chips with 90nm fabrication technology. If you're thinking that I'm off base here, look at DDR3. Newer fabrication techniques have given us higher frequencies, lower latencies, and significantly more capacity on each chip. None of that is based upon changes to the DDR3 specification, but changes to the processes utilized to make the chip.

So why not just flop lines over to DDR4 instantly whenever you want to? Manufacturing is based upon experience and example. As much as we'd like to think that this is possible, the truth is that the soldering will take some attempts to get right. The printing methodology has to be vetted, and whatever they use must be tested in a production environment. Again, the people running production lines aren't the engineers who you pay $50,000 a year, they are the semi-skilled laborers you pay $20,000 per year. This isn't pleasant to consider, but its the reality of manufacturing to a budget.

So we're back again to lost production. That simply isn't true. Production at plants was significantly higher in the past, and the plants haven't gotten smaller. Let us use round numbers here, so the math is easier. Plant A has 10 lines. It can run at a peak efficiency of 90%, and produce 900,000 chips a year. Demand fluctuates wildly. In the first 6 months 300,000 chips are demanded, in the next 6 months 400,000 are demanded, 500,000 after that, then the bubble pops and you only have 200,000 in demand. You've got a 2 year period where the total consumption was 1,400,000, but you produced 1,800,000. At current consumption levels, you've got a year of stock in inventory. You can't just shut all the lines down, so you run 5 lines at 10% capacity, making 50,000 units a year. One year later, you have burned through inventory, so you begin to tool back up for production. To maintain balance with demand, 5 lines are run at 40% capacity. This means 5 lines are available to switch over to new processes (DDR4), but you still maintain profit generating business on the other 5 lines. These 5 lines can have the bugs worked out of the new process well in advance of the consumer launch of the product, and could theoretically produce 450,000 chips a year (more than double the demand for previous chips). With this kind of model the early adopter tax is mitigated, but still present because of the testing performed in manufacturing prior to releasing any chips.

 

[remixedcat]

that is bad news to me too as i am looking forward to upgrade the existing hardware of my laptop

Same here. it only has 3GB RAM

My desktop has 16GB but I NEED more if I wanna keep my remote VM desktop running I have to close it when I'm home and re-open it before long trips and that's a pain.

16GB isn't enough for the things I do. It's painful using any less then 6GB.

 

[Blue-Knight]

16GB isn't enough for the things I do. It's painful using any less then 6GB.

Move to Linux, more RAM free for you.

 

[Frick]

Move to Linux, more RAM free for you.

A VM with 8GB RAM will use 8GB RAM no matter the host OS.

It's not exactly true either. There are very light Linux distros but the fancy ones (meaning the big ones) all want 2GB or more.