- Joined
- Nov 1, 1998
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FRONTPAGE CORSAIR Launches 7000MT/s 48GB DDR5 Memory Kits
- Thread starter Overclockers.com
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
Those...
Those capacities.
My eye is twitching. Why is my eye twitching?
Those capacities.
My eye is twitching. Why is my eye twitching?
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2001
There have to be more reasons to use a PC than just gaming. Heresy, I know.
The pricing isn't cheap, but not too bad considering the capacity and speed you're getting.
24GB vs 32GB? Are 32GB sticks possible right now at sane prices? Too lazy to research.
I'm out of the building/upgrading game for a while. Need to age out my 5900x/3090/32GB rig/components first. BUT, hopefully when I am ready 32x2 kits are cheap.
640KB may be outdated, 640MB may also be outdated, but I can't wait for the day for 640GB systems to be the norm. Load the OS and Microsoft Solitaire into the RAM for slightly less laggy gameplay. LOL
LOL, no doubt! I'm just going by one of the first mentions/reasons in the PR...
I don't think you'd believe how minesweeper performs.....until you play Windows pinball on 640GB of RAM.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Location
- The Empire State
2x32GB kits are surprisingly cheap. Usually their price is less than twice the price of 2x16GB. 64GB DDR5-6000 kits are starting from about $250 when 32GB cost about $150. I'm not including the cheapest what you can find but pretty average, not the slowest kits from leading manufacturers.
It was almost the same with last DDR4 series. Especially Micron and Hynix 2x32GB kits were not so expensive. Samsungs were in the most expensive series.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
Let's wait and see where the price settles at, and compare like for like speeds at varying capacity.
Only a guess, but it may be a thing of where memory chip availability sits. Smaller capacities can offer worse value since the fixed costs are a bigger factor than capacity varying costs.
For gaming I do feel that 16GB is getting entry level now. I've not seen any of the unmodded games I play use more than that, but some are getting close. Combined with 8GB DDR5 modules sucking, it does feel like 32GB is the new target entry point for a high end gaming system. I don't know of the need for more than 32GB at this time, outside of modded games.
Only a guess, but it may be a thing of where memory chip availability sits. Smaller capacities can offer worse value since the fixed costs are a bigger factor than capacity varying costs.
For gaming I do feel that 16GB is getting entry level now. I've not seen any of the unmodded games I play use more than that, but some are getting close. Combined with 8GB DDR5 modules sucking, it does feel like 32GB is the new target entry point for a high end gaming system. I don't know of the need for more than 32GB at this time, outside of modded games.
Typical PC with multiple web browser tabs and something running in the background + more demanding game is like 10-15GB RAM. My work PC with multiple browser tabs + photoshop = ~12GB+. In this case, 32GB is just right for new gaming PC or a workstation. I only question any point of 2x24GB kits. 2x48GB is still fine as the difference between 64GB and 96GB is significant. I see that some of my clients are using close to 64GB so for them 96GB would be just right ... but in servers, not home PCs or even workstations.
DDR5 prices are still going down, so we can expect that 64GB kits will cost about $200 until the end of this year. I see that people constantly complain about high DDR5 prices when not so long time ago 64GB DDR4 cost $350 and then it was somehow fine.
I was expecting to see 64GB modules as the next step in density, so 48GB is just weird. There are single rank 32GB modules, so why not to make dual rank 64GB? Maybe I'm missing something in the architecture.
Btw. there was news in the last days that AMD doesn't support these new capacities.
DDR5 prices are still going down, so we can expect that 64GB kits will cost about $200 until the end of this year. I see that people constantly complain about high DDR5 prices when not so long time ago 64GB DDR4 cost $350 and then it was somehow fine.
I was expecting to see 64GB modules as the next step in density, so 48GB is just weird. There are single rank 32GB modules, so why not to make dual rank 64GB? Maybe I'm missing something in the architecture.
Btw. there was news in the last days that AMD doesn't support these new capacities.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Location
- Austin, TX
i saw an article the other day (i'll have to look for it) saying how the capacity doesn't really work on AMD platforms yet, that it's currently an Intel thing, but there's only 2 companies making the 24G DIMMs right now: Corsair and Crucial, and only one company's in on the market,
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
I just looked at memory pricing at one major UK supplier checking out 3 DDR5 speed grades and one DDR4 for indication.
Kit, lowest £ kit, and £/GB
DDR5-5200
2x16 118 3.69
2x24 176 3.67
2x32 210 3.28
DDR5-5600
2x16 125 3.91
2x24 188 3.92
2x32 225 3.52
DDR5-6000
2x16 130 4.06
2x32 288 4.50
DDR4-3600
2x8 43 2.69
2x16 78 2.44
2x32 177 2.77
So it looks like the 24GB modules are at price per capacity relative to 16GB modules. At the lower speeds 32GB is slightly cheaper per capacity, but at the higher speed it seems to cost more.
I've still not gone DDR5 yet as my existing systems are not hurting enough for me to build new, but it would be disappointing if 32GB modules go single rank already. The extra performance from dual rank is not something I want to lose, and the alternative going "2 DPC" has a rather severe clock penalty on DDR5. I only just upgraded my DDR4 laptop from 1Rx16 to 2Rx8 after finally finding some, as most were 1Rx8 now. Prime95 surprised me at over 100% speed benefit in memory bound loads, with most other workloads being more modest at lower tens of %. This is with both running dual channel at JEDEC 3200. I found and ordered some desktop 1Rx16 just to see how bad it is under better controlled testing than is possible on a laptop.
Kit, lowest £ kit, and £/GB
DDR5-5200
2x16 118 3.69
2x24 176 3.67
2x32 210 3.28
DDR5-5600
2x16 125 3.91
2x24 188 3.92
2x32 225 3.52
DDR5-6000
2x16 130 4.06
2x32 288 4.50
DDR4-3600
2x8 43 2.69
2x16 78 2.44
2x32 177 2.77
So it looks like the 24GB modules are at price per capacity relative to 16GB modules. At the lower speeds 32GB is slightly cheaper per capacity, but at the higher speed it seems to cost more.
I've still not gone DDR5 yet as my existing systems are not hurting enough for me to build new, but it would be disappointing if 32GB modules go single rank already. The extra performance from dual rank is not something I want to lose, and the alternative going "2 DPC" has a rather severe clock penalty on DDR5. I only just upgraded my DDR4 laptop from 1Rx16 to 2Rx8 after finally finding some, as most were 1Rx8 now. Prime95 surprised me at over 100% speed benefit in memory bound loads, with most other workloads being more modest at lower tens of %. This is with both running dual channel at JEDEC 3200. I found and ordered some desktop 1Rx16 just to see how bad it is under better controlled testing than is possible on a laptop.
Not asking to ask again, but to read the posts as it's literally the same discussion going on here.
@Niku-Sama - Do you have any specific questions that weren't answered between here and your thread? I'll reopen yours... feel free to ask something specific if it wasn't covered between the two threads already....
Similar threads
