Where is DDR5 speed going?

[BugFreak]

Every time a new memory comes out we see the initial release with some gradual speed increases over time. Then at some point we see a big jump like when DDR4 went to 4400 and higher later in the cycle. So far with DDR5 I've considered the 6400 speed range the initial speeds with the gradual increase coming soon. My question is what speeds to you see DDR5 going to? Granted this is mostly speculation but I was hoping some folks that follow memory closer would have some input.

 

[EarthDog]

Where it's going? Oh @Woomack ....

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Currently, the sweetspot seems to be around DDR4 6000 CL36 area. Much more than that and the price is high (last time I checked) and not worth the price for the performance increase. In time that will likely go up and pricing to go down, but where it ends up............. I surely don't know.

Honestly, 99% of users would be fine with ordering 'sweetspot'-type RAM for the life of the platform. I can see a bump in capacity needed (though with 2x16GB common with DDR5, I don't see that as a need anytime soon), but speed increases are negligible at this time.

 

[Woomack]

@EarthDog, the server had a hiccup ...

I see it like:
DDR3 -> DDR4-> DDR5
1333 -> 2133 -> 4800 <-- initial/SPD clock
2133 -> 3600 -> 6400 <-- gaming/recommended specs after 1-2 years
2800 -> 5000 -> 8000 <-- max clock available in stores

The expected max clock for DDR5 is 8000, but we will probably see a bit more. The expected max clock for DDR3 was 2600, for DDR4 was 4800. In most cases, we could see some more.
The current generation can't make more than 6000-6400 on higher series 4-slot motherboards and top OC motherboards (count it like 4 models only) can make 6800+.
The current DDR5 (at least Samsung and Hynix) can make 7000+ but at high voltages compared to the JEDEC values. However, motherboards are highly limiting the max clock, so I guess that the next-gen Intel or AMD may change the way how we see DDR5. The next-gen will be later this year.

It's always like release -> fine-tuning and optimizations -> higher capacity but not necessarily higher frequencies -> end of the generation
- DDR3 reached optimal clock after about a year with PSC and Elpida IC, after that were higher capacity options like Samsung/Hynix.
- DDR4 reached optimal clock with Samsung B (so 2nd generation with already a bit higher capacity) which was supposed to be dead for 2 years+ already but the high demand caused the production to be renewed. There are newer IC that can make higher frequency and capacity but memory controllers and motherboards can't handle it.
- DDR5 already started at a wide range of frequencies from 4000 to 6000+, so it's like it skipped one generation looking at early DDR5 plans. Clocks can go higher, motherboards can't handle it. We will see 6800 kits in stores soon but anything above that is already delayed because of problems with compatible platforms. There are 7000 kits on some motherboards' QVL, but really it's so close to the edge of stability that I doubt anyone will release it soon and guarantee compatibility with any available motherboard. What you see on QVL is not always a retail product. There are no retail 6800+ kits yet, but some motherboard brands have them on QVL. Actually, most memory kits from QVL were never released in retail, and even if the PN matches then often the IC is different like ASUS has most ADATA and G.Skill kits with Hynix IC when everything in stores was with Samsung IC. Hynix kits arrived with a bit different PNs.

 

[BugFreak]

Where it's going? Oh @Woomack ....

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Currently, the sweetspot seems to be around DDR4 6000 CL36 area. Much more than that and the price is high (last time I checked) and not worth the price for the performance increase. In time that will likely go up and pricing to go down, but where it ends up............. I surely don't know.

Honestly, 99% of users would be fine with ordering 'sweetspot'-type RAM for the life of the platform. I can see a bump in capacity needed (though with 2x16GB common with DDR5, I don't see that as a need anytime soon), but speed increases are negligible at this time.

True. I'm not really shopping but more curious on everyone's thoughts. I figure until I need 32g of ram I'll be just fine where I'm at.

 

[EarthDog]

You'll have to upgrade your platform to get DDR5 which seems a few years down the road looking at your sig. Who knows WTH is going on then. We may see DDR6 by that point, lol. But where it's going... the same as it always does... faster with more capacity. Where that 'grey area' of a sweet spot is, only time will tell.

Also, I'm glad I have 32GB now. If I don't close my daily work (a dozen or so browser tabs including watching streaming) and try to game, I can see over 16GB use.

 

[Woomack]

I needed 32GB a while ago as web browsers+some games = over 16GB, especially when you are not restarting your PC often.
I went with Z690+DDR5 in my gaming PC only because I could cover most of the price by selling older stuff. If I couldn't cover that then I wouldn't switch as it's hard to see the difference in popular games.

I wonder how new motherboards will affect the max DDR5 clock. Right now there are various problems with motherboards and before we will see them solved then the next-gen will be released.

 

[WrkBoot]

The prices on this new HW/SW needs to come with a 10% discount because WE are the beta testers

 

[Woomack]

Each year I feel more like a beta tester and each year hardware costs more. Hardware used to be released as ready to go ... now we get unfinished products and wait for fixes/improvements for some months. The worst is that after about 8 months is another generation which is not really better and we start from the beginning. Most of the popular higher series Z690 motherboards already have about 20-30 BIOS versions each and almost all of them are public beta releases (I'm not even counting everything that wasn't public). Gigabyte example ... 5 or 6 BIOS releases that are supposed to fix G.Skill compatibility issues... it still doesn't work.

 

[mackerel]

I'd be happy with JEDEC 4800 for now, if I can get it at a decent price. If you think about it, DDR5 seems to be targeting about 2x DDR4 at comparable points in lifecycle. 4800 is comparable to 2400, not far from 2133 base support for consumer CPUs. That puts enthusiast XMP modules around the 6400 ball park (3200 was the early DDR4 performance sweet spot before pricing got serious), with JEDEC modules moving that way in some years. With DDR4 we kinda have XMP 3600 as perf sweet spot now, so >7000 towards end of DDR5 life.

The DDR5 I thought I had ordered from Crucial never existed even if their website lied about being in stock. I do see from other suppliers other low cost brands are available now. But it would only be an incremental improvement from what I have given the need to essentially build a new system. Let's see what the fall CPU offerings from both sides are before I think about upgrading again. I'd do a sell old to buy new but I really can't be bothered to move hardware around like the old days.

 

[Tyerker]

I've been sitting on DDR3 2133 since a few months into the launch of DDR4. And I just started my upgrade for a 13th Gen DDR4 build for a similar reason.

I think Woomack's post about launch speeds, gaming targets, and max targets is a good place to look. I would imagine 6000-7000 is going to be the place where most of us would recommend in a couple of years.

 

[Woomack]

It went faster than expected. I don't think we will see 10000 anytime soon (except for CPU-Z validations), but G.Skill 7600 kits are already in stores, and higher Z790 motherboards support 7600-8000. This is the second Intel series, so they have already improved max clocks. I have no idea what AMD is planning for the next-gen, but currently 6400 is about the max as barely anyone will get a CPU that will run at 6600-6666. I have no idea what's with the 1:2 ratio as I couldn't make it even boot at any higher memory clock (the case when we could push Ryzen 3000/4000/5000 past DDR4-4000 here won't let us pass ~6400).
AMD said that will keep the socket for at least ~3 years, and this architecture probably won't give much higher clocks in the next CPU generation. At least looking at previous Ryzen improvements as the 7000 series uses a similar pattern with IF ratios and other things.
After these couple of months (since my last post in this thread), I see it like the typical gaming DDR5 will be still ~6400, but we will see 8000 or higher kits in stores in maybe a half year. Not much will change as right now buying more than 6400 for gaming is a waste of money, and I doubt that higher clocks will be a good investment. Probably even going DDR4 and a cheaper motherboard is not a bad idea if we think about switching to something new in a year or two.
AMD seems like a better platform for future upgrades. Maybe the DDR5 clock isn't high, but the motherboards feel better designed. It's their first DDR5 chipset and a new socket, so it will support new processors for the next 3 or more years. Intel will drop the LGA1700 in maybe 6-8 months and release a new socket and everything else.

 

[Archer0915]

Why is it that these timings keep getting so loose? Data transfer is awesome but really, latency matters. Guess with these large CPU caches it matters little in most cases.

 

[mantheunknown]

Hello,
Do not know if this is the right place for this, anyways...
Looking at 32gb DDR5 5600 CL28 for a x670 board. Will I be able to add 2 more of the same part number later to get to 64, if I need to. I may be wrong but at 5600 I think I do not have to worry about EXPO. Future proofing in a sense. Please advise. Thank you. Cheers.

 

[Woomack]

You don't have to worry if memory has EXPO profiles or not. As long as the motherboard has no problems with RAM, then every kit should work fine. If you don't want to have problems with RAM, then I recommend ASUS or MSI motherboards. Their BIOS teams are much more successful than other brands and release updates more often. On the other hand, pick a popular motherboard. I would say from higher series, but they are at ridiculous prices. Less popular series are skipped in many updates.

6000 is the lowest clock I would get for AMD. At least this is what AMD recommends, and in my tests, there was some difference between 6000 and anything below, while there was nearly 0% performance gain going from 6000 up to 6400. It doesn't matter much what timings. Higher frequency also lowers latency. Main timings are not helping as much as expected in these generations. Some secondary timings seem to give more, but the default profiles always set them quite relaxed (tRFC, tREFI and some more). As Archer0915 said, a large and fast CPU cache generally fixed the issue with latency. Timings still count, but you can see that above some point, there is like 0-1% performance gain regardless of what RAM is in use. For AMD, it seems to be 6000 and higher, and for Intel, it's 6400 and higher. You can still see the difference between 4800-5200 and 6000/6400+, but above that, it's visible only in synthetic tests.

6000 kits cost not much more than 5600, and if you get Hynix IC, then it will run at 6000-6400 CL28-32 at reasonable voltages (around 1.4V +/- 0.05V). 5600 CL28 will probably also be Hynix, but why not to go higher when there are many 6000 CL30 - 6400 CL32 kits with EXPO profiles, and prices are going down?

Mixing kits is not recommended, and G.Skill is already adding that info in their new RAM and on their website. It's not guaranteed that when you add a second, even the same kit, then it will run at XMP/EXPO. It will probably work but at manual settings.

So far, I only had a problem with Kingston Renegade 6400 kit on Gigabyte B650E Master motherboard - it didn't work at XMP 6400, while it works on ASUS X670E Gene, or at 6800-7200 on Z790 motherboards. Every kit that I tested on ASUS X670E Gene was working up to 6400 and CL26-34 (depending on the kit and voltages).

 

[mantheunknown]

Thank you @Woomack
I have already purchased the ASUS proart x670. I needed USB4 and 10G ethernet. I was going to overclock the 5600 to 6000 (try my hand at it). I will go with a 6000 CL30. Tx. Cheers

 

[mantheunknown]

@Woomack - you are correct in your observation that the prices for 6000 CL32/30 are dropping. It is true for 32 gb sticks but the 64 gb sticks are stubbornly stuck north of $400 (USD). I am leaning towards the 64 gb sticks. It is like you cannot be too thin, too rich or have too much RAM!
For 32 gb I have narrowed it down to G.Skill Ripjaws S5 DDR5 6000 CL30 (at below 190). Processor is 7950. Thanks. Cheers

​

 

[EarthDog]

or have too much RAM!

Ironically, this isn't true. Unused RAM is useless. If you're close to 32gb then 64gb is worth it, but to have just to have isn't beneficial.