AMD is entering the desktop RAM market, according to a new page on its website. A new "Systems Memory" page on the AMD website indicates that the company will soon be offering DDR3 modules under the existing Radeon brand, which it acquired with the purchase of ATI in 2006 and previously used for GPUs. "AMD Radeon DDR3 System …
What a load of horse excrement! Those timings are poor and most definitely not 'ultra pro gaming'. Come on at 1600Mhz you should at least have 9-9-9 or even better 8-8-8, 11-11-11 is just poor! I wouldn't even have 11-11-11 at 1866Mhz!
"Horse excrement" is a bit harsh. Show me 2 benchmarks where all someone changed was their CAS latency... if you see any improvement, especially on a game benchmark, it'll be almost negligible.
Depends on system utilization
For people that don't have heavy system utilization you are correct that it wont be a big deal. Same for alot of games cause they lack the ability for full system utilization of a CPU core.
However if you look at the fusion APU's offered by AMD which perfer tight ram timings. Which also will shit themselves at timings of 11-11-11-31, if you try to use the integrated GPU with such times. Its definitely a negative to have such high CAS times.
The Biggest places you will see the CAS times come into play are single threaded application that require a low latency, APU's with integrated graphics turned on, Multithreaded applications that run at full system utilization. Sound and video work will also fall into this category.
What this really comes down to is what market this ram is targeted at. If its targeted at the enthusiest market then its most likey gonna be ignore at those CAS times, atleast by the buyers with knowledge of ram. If its gonna be bundled with systems that built by the likes of DELL, Hp, Acer.... then it will probably be fine. Cause people in those markets are not looking for the same levels of system performance. They are mostly looking at target price range, and convience of obtaining it.
CAS Latency Benchmarks
Back in the days of DDR (DDR1), going from a CAS latency of 3-3-3-5 to 2-2-2-5 was a big deal. You could see the improvements immediately. There are actually 4 numbers that affect CAS Latency, not three, but more important in memory is the command rate (Often paired with CAS latency, as it is a memory timing). The lower command rate IS noticeable. I myself would rather have lower CAS memory at a standard speed over high speed, high latency memory. It seems like they've just wrapped up a 9-9-9 1300mhz chip in an 11-11-11 1600mhz package. To me, that's a no go. Also, the fact that there is 6-8-6 timed memory out there, looking at an 11-11-11 product is just plain dim.
Bummer Crappy Cas Times
I was hopeing when I started reading this that they would have much better cas times than that. The APU's are very dependent on time timings. But 1333mhz at 9-9-9-27 and 1600 at 11-11-11-33 are quite poor, even so for the timings at 1600.
Considering the Llano's will do 2400mhz for ddr3 I would exspect to see them putting out ram in the 2000mhz range. Which you can buy currently for around 65$ us for 9-10-9-27 @ 2000, which still isn't great timings wise, but for the price is quite good.
The only way I could see this stuff being good is if thats the base speed and timings before you started to overclock them, and that they maintained fairly tight times up to 2k+. Much like a set of Hypers, which will maintain tight clocks as you increase the speed and voltage. Hypers are pretty much the Prime memory for performance AMD systems anyways.
...will like the fact they can get the CPU, GPU, chipset, RAM, etc, all from the same vendor- this improves the image of "compatibility and reliability" which is what Intel has enjoyed.
I do believe
that you hit the proverbial nail on the head, exposing what is probably the true goal of this announcement.
So have a beer !
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
Plus, they can make their marketing name require the use of their branded memory and get a little extra coin out of their OEMs...
2400mhz is 1000,000,000 times slower than 2400MHz memory, so is fairly poor.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire