Driving your RAM at 3.6GHz

Subject: Memory | September 22, 2015 - 06:08 PM |
Tagged: Ripjaws V, G.Skill, DDR4-3600, ddr4

Bringing the frequency of your RAM up to 3600MHz certainly has an effect on price compared to DIMMs clocked at 2666MHz but does the performance justify that cost?  The timings of 17-18-18-38 @ 2T are tight for RAM of this frequency, though not as tight as 15-15-15-35 but perhaps that gives you some room for overclocking?  As shown in TechPowerUp's review it is not quite that easy, for example many Intel Z170 boards simply don't support these frequencies and updating your BIOS should be your first step before working with these DIMMs.  Synthetic benchmarks benefited from the full speed of these DIMMs but when it comes to actual gaming the results are negligible, especially considering you will be paying roughly triple the price for these DIMMs.  On the other hand if you simply need to have the best components on the market in your system you should check out the full review.

View Full Size

"Intel's new Skylake platform comes with DDR4 at increased memory speeds, and the first to help us investigate the benefits of high-performance DDR4 is G.Skill's latest design, the Ripjaws V. Wrapped in a new look, these ultra-fast 3600 MHz modules push the limits of your Skylake CPU."

Here are some more Memory articles from around the web:



Source: techPowerUp

Video News

September 22, 2015 | 07:35 PM - Posted by willmore (not verified)

I know that whole "math is hard" thing is a funny meme, but this math is pretty simple.

You can't compare cycles at different clock speeds. You have to convert them to time values and compare those.

17 cycles at 3.6Ghz is 4.72ns, 18 is 5ns, and 38 is 10.6ns.
15 cycles at 2.666Ghz is 5.63ns and 35 is 13.1ns.

So, the 17-18-18-38 @ 3600 MHz memory actually has tighter timings than the 15-15-15-35 @ 2666 MHz memory.

September 23, 2015 | 01:02 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Fair point and poor wording on my part.  I was trying to imply that someone who actually paid for these DIMMs would be smart to try tightening the timings.

October 2, 2015 | 12:57 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

thx a lot man i will be comaparing from now like this.. can you provide more info on this?

October 2, 2015 | 02:30 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

(CAS / Frequency (MHz)) × 1000 = X ns

So (17 / 3600) × 1000 = 4.72ns

Use the full frequency in that calculation, not divided in half


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.